whodev

If you are actually interested then Dr. Jessica Knurick. She is accessible on different social media platforms and has a website where you can contact her.

> No one inhales six apples in a sitting

If hard ciders count then I sure have.

> It's useful to go for more "natural" foods because they aren't designed to make me eat as much of it as possible.

I'm not saying that fruits, vegetables, legumes, and other foods you get from nature aren't healthy, of course they are. The fallacy is to say that because it's natural it's inherently better then an artificial or synthetic counterpart. Instead of worrying about if the food dye in your fruit loops uses red bell peppers or is synthetically extracted from petroleum, how about we worry about people consuming too much ultra-processed, high calorie, and low nutrional foods. That will make a greater impact on the general populations health here in America. Banning additives and food dyes won't stop people from eating 2000 calories of fried oreos.

Great, but I can actually back it up. That's the difference here. I can point you to experts who agree with what I am saying and who I have chatted with.

You are blaming the wrong thing though. America isn't obese because of red dye 40 or food additives, it's obese because Americans eat too much ultra processed foods that are high in calories and low in nutritional value. Along with minimal exercise and walking.

Banning red dye 40 isn't going to solve anything, companies are just going to find another food dye, natural or synthetic. There needs to be major changes in the average American diet to incorporate more whole foods, fiber, vegetables, fruits, etc... Once that is done then take a harder look at the dyes and additives.

> Appeal to nature isn't a fallacy

It most certainly is.

> The appeal is to have a diet more in line with our evolutionary past.

Our evolutionary past is full of death and disease from what we ate. Humans have been drinking alcohol for centuries and there is strong scientific consensus that it causes cancer. Just because it's what humans have been doing doesn't mean it is safe and we should continue it.

> A) derive it from something humans have been eating for hundreds of thousands of years and that a couple studies have confirmed is probably safe...

> B) derive it from petroleum (as current US yellow food dye is) that a couple studies say is probably safe.

You say "derive it from petroleum" like they pump it directly from the well into your food. Petroleum is composed of hydrocarbons, it's very useful and is used in a lot of different applications. Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it is dangerous.

> other countries have cracked down on some of those scary-sounding chemicals, due to them being unnecessary for food with no real benefit for the person eating it, and possible evidence of negative affects

Just because another country bans something does not make that thing harmful. Politicians banning food products and additives with no real scientific evidence is not unusual. They bend to public will, they are politicians after all. Also, studies that show "possible evidence of negative affects" in mice ingested at higher dosages then a human would ever eat or drink does not show they are harmful in humans. Humans are not mice after all.

> as someone who has lived for multiple years in the US and Europe, it is a drastic difference in food quality between the two

This is purely subjective, I've been to Europe and the Middle East, both have great food. But food in America is no worse in quality. The main difference is when I visited those area's I mostly ate out, at nicer restaurants where food would of course feel/taste/look better then the average meal at home or from fast food. But when eating at friends homes, the food quality (vegetables, fruits, meats) was no different than what I could get here in America.

> it was just whoever ended up eating less processed foods and more whole foods

I'm not arguing that we don't eat more ultra-processed foods. We do eat too many highly refined foods with little nutritional value. My argument is against blaming food additives, dyes, GMOs, HFCS, etc... Eating more whole foods, vegetables, and fruits would make you healthier, but that's due to the nutritional value, fiber, feeling more full for longer leading to reduced caloric intake, etc... Not because you got rid of food dyes.

> We use third-party dependencies judiciously and never deploy anything without auditing it.

This is how I think it should be of course. Like I said, I'm not against the use of third-party code or dependencies, I'm against using them without performing any audit of that code.

My goodness, for a website full of techincal individuals a lot of you are falling for the appeal to nature fallacy hard. Also, it looks like no one here knows how to defer to experts. I don't know much about food safety standards, chemical compositions, additives, etc. so I've talked with people who are experts instead. And from what I have gotten, most people are freaking out because they lack an understanding of what is really safe or not. People believe that since a certain scary sounding chemical was added that the food is now less safe when that's not the case.

You do know the US bans more food colors then the EU, right? You can't just say LGTM and go with what the EU does.

Thank you.

As someone who works in cybersecurity and works closely with our developers, a lot of them tend to inherently trust third-party code with no auditing of the supply chain. I am always fighting that while yes, we don't need to reinvent the wheel and libraries/packages are important, our organzation and developers need to be aware of what we are bringing into our network and our codebase.

Tbh, I think this is way more subjective then you're making it out to be. I subjectively would not want to use a WM for most of these points.

> - If you want to have two web pages side-by-side, you don't need a web browser that can handle split panes. Just have each web page in its own window and use your window manager to put them side-by-side. Tiling window managers will do this automatically.

I feel Edge does this better then any browser or WM. As a user, I don't want to see the browser's window border, or UI duplicated. Edge has a very easy and friendly split view does exactly what I would expect.

> - If you have want to have 100 tabs open, you should be using bookmarks or history instead of tabs.

I'm sorry, but I am not going to add every article I may want to read later as a bookmark or add to my history. If I added it as a bookmark and read it, I'll have to remove it as a bookmark next. That's already more steps then just opening it in a background tab by middle clicking my mouse and closing the tab after reading it. My bookmarks are for items that I want to keep, not one time uses.

> - If you want to have different workspaces, profiles, or so on, use your window manager's workspaces. You can even name workspaces according to projects or tasks, and assign windows to them automatically.

Nope. I have different profiles for my browser to seperate accounts, cookies, history, settings, etc... I don't think a WM could do this like using a browser could. In Edge I can just open the browser in my work profile and my Google work account is logged in with my Slack as a pinned tab versus using my personal profile and having my personal Google account logged in with YT Music as a pinned tab. This is a critical feature to me.

This almost happened to my S/O. Luckily I had setup NextDNS to block newly registered domains along with a list of uncommon TLDs so the site got blocked.