Personally I dislike links that force me to do a bunch of work to figure out the gist of the post. In this case, it seems like a link to a link to a comment on an academic paper in which the author is frustrated about irrelevant citation requests? Maybe I misunderstood? I would love for submissions like this to include an explanatory snippet to provide context.
It appears a reviewer for the paper requested that their own works be added as citations to the paper for no justifiable reason beyond elevating their own citation count.
Sadly I believe this assumption is incorrect. VSCode supports folding, but not specifically method bodies (to my knowledge), and not by default (with or without a settings flag)
Weird. OK well you can absolutely do this in vim should you ever want to ':help foldlevel' and ':help foldexpr' will tell you how. Also 'conceallevel', although whoever came up with that I hope they suffer endless torment. I really hate that feature with a passion.
This advice has always come off as paternalistic to me, like the emphasis is on people just not being able to control themselves or something.
The first part is obvious.
The second part smuggles in a fundamentally incorrect take on the "eating too much"/obesity problem, namely that it has something to do with willpower: including "not too much" in the advice implies that we need to be told not to eat too much, but that a diet that naturally induces overeating is otherwise OK.
The third part is arbitrary and unfounded, and if you ignore it you can ignore the second part as well: get some good fatty meat on your plate and you can safely eat to satiety.
Is it, though? It seems like many struggle with the first part.
Does snacking on a vending machine Duchess Honey Bun or a sleeve of Oreos qualify as "eat food?" How about popping open a cup of instant ramen or microwaving some frozen taquitos? I'd call all of that eating junk, but I think that's the root of the issue.
No I guess there must be some people for whom it isn't obvious. I was kind of assuming the intended audience for the advice was people who are interested enough in diet to look at a book on nutrition, for example, not people who just eat junk without thinking about it.
But yes for those people I do think the "eat food" thing should be emphasised and laid out in more detail, maybe. Hard for me to have an opinion there as I just can't put myself in the shoes of someone who eats that kind of stuff.
I don't think of the second part being about self control and obesity, to me it's just a reinforcement of the idea that each person has different caloric requirements and you should respect your own needs. Of course it's vague so open to interpretation.
The third part feels as arbitrary and unfounded as any other dietary advice I read, so I'm inclined to take the simplest advice available.
To be fair, Pollan would specifically not consider a bag of potato chips food. It's not included here but he specifically is talking about "real" food and not ultra processed snacks, etc.
I think it's still an oversimplification - people with large amounts of muscle mass, low body fat, and high levels of daily physical activity just don't get a lot of the same metabolic diseases even if they eat huge amounts of animal protein, outside of really poor genetic luck (or complications related to steroid use, etc.) - but it's a pretty good starting point vs. the modern diet.
If he has his own special meaning of the common word "food", then it's no longer a spiffy quote. And now you need to get into all the nitty gritty of this recommendation to actually take any advice from it.
Even this term "ultra-processed" is highly suspect when you start investigating it more deeply. Plenty of traditional foods are quite processed - bread being one of the oldest. Is it better to eat 200g of bread (artisanal, wood fired, using traditionally-milled non-GMO pesticide free grains), or a steak?
The definition I've heard of his for "food" in this sentence was "things your grandparents would recognise", although by this point it might be "your great-grandparents".
I find the syntax confusing. Setting properties and even creating associated model instances is done with opaque method names like `.name()` and `.todo()`. I'm not always a fan of using set/get prefixes, but I think there should be some differentiation for an ORM which is inherently involved in property access. I'm particular it is strange and surprising to me that `.todo()` would associate another model. Why not "add_todo" or "create_todo"? What if the association is not one to many but one to one? The method `.todos()` retrieves a list of Todos, but what if we're talking about a 1:1 Profile model? How would a user differentiate between setting and getting a `.profile()`?
I'm not a rust person so I might just be exposing my ignorance here, just wanted to provide feedback since it's on early development.
Engaging read! For me, just the right balance of technical detail and narrative content. It's a hard balance to strike and I'm sure preferences vary widely which makes it an impossible target for every audience.
Is deterministic log replay really a differentiating factor? My naive assumption would be that this is table stakes for pretty much any software.
reply