Liz

What’s I2P?

unless there was literally no other choice in the world.

Literally in the picture are the words “world’s first”

They didn’t. Homie is just mad they expanded into an area that didn’t actually need to revolutionized with repairability in mind. That’s not abandoning repairability in the slightest. Mayyyyybe they’re mad they’re selling a CPU with soldered RAM, but they tried to make it with swappable RAM and it turned out to be impossible from a physics perspective. Something about the timing, if I remember correctly. They’re really just selling that desktop because they were hyped on the CPU and thought it would make for a great enterprise workhorse. They threw it together crazy fast, too. It’s not like it took meaningful time away from their other projects. I would imagine a good chunk of their business customers have been asking for a desktop so they can source everything from them, but that’s pure speculation on my part.

They’re choosing to socially police a community, a thing humans do all the time.

Okay, so I understand where our interpretations of the same information diverge, but getting into it is genuinely a philosophical argument that won’t have practical value. I agree with the information you’re presenting. Later!

Your first paragraph is you literally agreeing with my premise.

I understood your premise to be that vitamin deficiencies cause obesity. Is that not the case? Because what I said was different.

I’m currently working my way through this lecture. It takes me a while to get through dense information, so I probably won’t get back to you on my independent learning for a long time, if ever.

Cheers.

Additionally, nutritional needs for fat soluble vitamins is supported by WHO

I never suggested you don’t need fat-soluble vitamins, I suggested that vitamin deficiencies aren’t the main cause in a sharp worldwide increase in obesity. From the abstract of the Cambridge paper, they only say that vitamin deficiency and obesity are correlated, and then speculate about one potential casual link. But like, the kinds of modern diets that produces obesity are traditionally missing vitamins so, it could easily just be that eating a family-size bag of Cheetos for a meal will leave you fat with malnutrition.

Here’s another study showing DDT causes obesity:

Interesting study! I haven’t read all of it, but this one is certainly higher quality than the other. Even this study doesn’t try to claim it’s all DDT and other pollutants. Still, I haven’t gotten to a part where it tries to estimate an impact fraction from this and similar effects, if there is one. Measurable and meaningful are two different things.

Let go of your eating disorder and self hatred and learn

I’m not insulting you, please don’t insult me. I’m here to make sure acturate and reasonable information is what we agree on, and you came in here with a theory I’d never heard of before, of course I’m going to question it. The onus is on you to make a compelling case. Regardless, supposing it is environmental pollutants making people fat (and I am convinced the effect is worth further learning on my part) it is still better to be a healthy weight. It sucks that it’s harder than it used to be, and we should really not be fucking up the planet, but when it comes to taking care of your individual health, you should still aim to be a healthy weight.

I didn’t bother looking at any of your other links, by the way. Drowning someone in citations and then making fun of them is a terrible way to convince them of something. I might eventually go back and see if any of your other links are any good, but probably not. I’ll probably do my own literature search and see if I can get an understanding of the current opinions and when they last changed, if they have.

So if this is such a big issue (polition causing obesity), why doesn’t the World Health Organization mention it at all? They’re perfectly happy to blame putting in other areas.

Overweight and obesity result from an imbalance of energy intake (diet) and energy expenditure (physical activity).
In most cases obesity is a multifactorial disease due to obesogenic environments, psycho-social factors and genetic variants. In a subgroup of patients, single major etiological factors can be identified (medications, diseases, immobilization, iatrogenic procedures, monogenic disease/genetic syndrome).
.
The obesogenic environment exacerbating the likelihood of obesity in individuals, populations and in different settings is related to structural factors limiting the availability of healthy sustainable food at locally affordable prices, lack of safe and easy physical mobility into the daily life of all people, and absence of adequate legal and regulatory environment.
.
At the same time, the lack of an effective health system response to identify excess weight gain and fat deposition in their early stages is aggravating the progression to obesity.

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/obesity-and-overweight

Ehhhhh, people didn’t suddenly develop vitamin deficiencies in the 1970s. I don’t doubt they can play a role in appetite and metabolic priorities, but unless you’re also trying to say that our diet has become deficient in micronutrients, it’s not really a good explanation for why a perfectly healthy population steadily got fatter starting in the 1970s. Even then, the fix would be the same as what any nutritionist/dietician would do: fix the food system so that people really only have access to healthy food.

Being fat is a risk factor and a complicating for an alarming number of considering ailments. There’s a reason why fat people get hammered at the doctors office about losing weight.

HOWEVER, the obesity epidemic in the US and other Western countries is a result of a fucked-up food system and an urban planning system that encourages a sedentary lifestyle. Like, individuals can choose to be less fat on their own, yes, but we’re not going to make progress on this issue as a society unless we agree to change the fundamentals causing the problem.

Okay, actually though? Keep the mustache, drop the beard, and cut weight (fix your diet) and you would be killer. You look great now, but I can see an even hotter version of you in your future with just a little hard work.

Yeah it would require a significant redesign of some poorly planned areas.

Fair fair!

You would probably have a small flatbed for your business, or rent one from a local, as needed. But it sounds like you have enough need that owning a vehicle would be worth it. I would imagine that, in practice, gaining access to a vehicle would be a business perk, kind of like how a lot of micro businesses will be generous with what they consider to be a business expense for tax purposes. Also, sure, in reality farm equipment would probably be exempt.

Anyway, society is filled with rules and design choices that create winners and losers. Right now, with the current motor vehicle standard, many people gain the convenience of having a car or truck for personal use. But it means we have to spend a lot on roads to carry all the extra traffic, lots of people die in accidents, we’re polluting the air, we’re dumping rubber into the soil and water (from tires), we’re living more sedentary lifestyles, etc. Whenever someone purposes a change to society’s rules, it is very common for people to only think of the current positives and the potential negatives, while ignoring the current negatives and potential positives.

Not that this proposal is ever gonna fucking happen.

The town planning and public transit options would be absurdly different, were private ownership of motor vehicles actually outlawed. The bus stop would be a lot closer. There’d be more buses. There would be dedicated, protected bike lanes that got plowed immediately in the snow. The sidewalks would be plowed by the city. Etc.

The US homesteading is not the standard in a lot of places. Loads of places put all the houses together in a little village and the farmers go out to the fields instead of living isolated at their farm. Also, you have to remember that if we actually did outlaw private motor vehicle ownership, commercial transportation would explode. Much, much smaller towns would have access to regular bus and train schedules. Furthermore, the business landscape would change and your standard stores would again be more accessible in smaller towns.

Would there be some disadvantages? Absolutely. Would there be some advantages? Absolutely.

I consider the advantages to be more than worth it, even in the more trying situations.

Honestly, personal ownership of cars should just straight-up be illegal. Commercial vehicles are fine.

I would assume that the post got to their feed through an intermediate instance that they are federated with, yeah?

Removed by mod

Money

• My local NPR station
• InRangeTV

Time

• Wikipedia

I don’t have a lot to give. If I did, I would also include:

• Linux Mint
• GIMP
• Darktable
• Inkscape
• Open Medicine Foundation
• Election Science
• LibreOffice
• zirk.us
• midwest.social
• Strong Towns