Opposing information from mayoclinic with a link to a webmd post (i refuse to even call it an article), with zero actual scientific information in it, reduces the value of your comment. Which, otherwise, I fully agree with. There is no "although" here. Alcohol is bad for your health. That doesn't mean you should or should not drink X amount, that is anyone's free choice. But we don't live in the Dark Ages where it was suposedly good for you (...only compared to the alternative being bacteria ridden waste water).

Totally agree with you. The reason I included the webmd example and labeled it “counter-programming” was merely to highlight that the average person is faced with conflicting information (I bet even MDs don’t uniformly say any amount of alcohol is bad for you).

The webmd article is especially pernicious because the “positives” probably resonate with many (most?) people and gives people an “out” to optimize for the moment rather than their health. Webmd should do better.

Now I understand your reasoning for using that example, it fits the purpose quite well.

The Recommended Glasses of Wine per Week index could be a RNG source.