I've lived on the West coast nearly my whole life. I suppose I'm what you might call a "idiot liberal." The vast, vast majority of people I have met from the Midwest have been really nice to me--at least, to my face, since I have no way of knowing what might possibly be said about me behind my back, not that I go around feeling paranoid about such things that are not under my control.

And the way you characterize or stereotype me by way of geographic origin or cultural identity is incredibly hurtful--or at least, it would be if I knew you personally. Maybe you might even be someone I have met. So, I really don't get this whole "coastal people think Midwesterners are [insert stereotype here], and that's how it proves they must be [insert equally offensive stereotype here]." That kind of thinking doesn't form the basis for meaningful interpersonal relationships, at least, it never has been for me. Maybe it works for you because that's how you find common ground with others who share the same attitudes, but I'm only speculating.

In any case, it shouldn't be too surprising to observe that there are a LOT of people from the Midwest who live in the large metropolitan areas on the coasts. Large cities are almost inevitably diverse. And so, I meet lots of different people with different backgrounds and outlooks on life. Midwesterners are a big a part of that. And really, overwhelmingly, everyone's been great.

Perhaps the most ironic part of your commentary, then, is your implicit criticism of the very people who were raised with, and still hold, "Midwestern values"--whatever that might mean--who comprise a substantial proportion of those who now live on the coasts, whether by necessity or choice. Conversely, there are quite a few people I know that have moved to the Midwest, some of whom are not native English speakers. Again, I have not heard stories of how they have been mistreated; quite the opposite. They marvel at how much more affordable is the cost of living. Some tell me they enjoy the slower pace, the more personal nature of human interaction.

Yes, I am "liberal." But that doesn't mean I mindlessly adhere to certain ideas. I define liberalism as a willingness to consider how people from diverse backgrounds can contribute in their own meaningful ways. I don't need or want others to think like myself in order to be happy or secure. If that makes me a bad person--although I don't think it should--then so be it.

The real issue is that the computing and display hardware of modern smartphones have a much longer serviceable lifespan than the battery. Many users could easily use the same phone for 3 - 5 years before feeling there's value in upgrading. But the battery is nearly always the first component to go (unless you break the display).

So, the decision to make the phone virtually impossible for the average user to open, to make the battery as difficult as possible to replace, cannot be seen as anything but an attempt to force users to upgrade more frequently and increase revenue. And this is where the problem really lies--the planned obsolescence propped up by the myth that these devices get slower or perform poorly after a few years.

If Apple and other smartphone manufacturers were truly sincere about doing the right thing, they would make models with user replaceable batteries. Rather than shaving off another 0.5 mm from an already thin device (after all, has anyone actually complained that their device is too thick?); rather than fucking around with software that tells you when your battery is failing (you don't need the phone to tell you what you already figured out from using it); rather than offering discounted battery replacements, which only serves to deflect from the truth--they just need to give the user the ability to do what they used to be able to do with mobile phones.

To those manufacturers who do offer smartphones with user replaceable batteries, kudos. Sadly, you are at a competitive disadvantage for your customer-friendly decision.

What scientists (and athletes) have known for some time now is that a calorie is not just a calorie, and a carbohydrate is not just a carbohydrate. The nature of the nutritional source matters, even if the end product of its metabolism is the same caloric energy equivalent. And the reason, quite simply, is because different nutrients are converted to energy through different metabolic pathways in the body. In the past, the importance of this fact was not well-appreciated; even though some researchers had sought to point this out, they were largely regarded as being on the fringe of mainstream nutritional science. Much has changed, however, with the elucidation of these specific pathways and the more recent revelation of the relationship between the human gastrointestinal system and the microbiome that it contains.

To address your specific points, the energy content of a "complex" carbohydrate (e.g., what we commonly think of as starches or long-chain polysaccharides) is extracted more slowly than a simple carbohydrate (e.g., what we think of as "sugars" which are generally mono- or disaccharides). Comparatively, insulin levels do not rise as quickly in the digestion of the former; there is more "processing" to be done by the body to break those long chains down and ultimately get to the glucose that cells then directly utilize to create ATP. So the first lesson is that anything that slows the rate of gastric emptying, or the rate at which blood glucose elevates after a meal, is going to have a beneficial effect on insulin regulation. The second thing to understand is that fructose is a pentose sugar that is exclusively metabolized via the liver, unlike glucose. Sucrose (table sugar) is composed of one glucose and one fructose molecule. High fructose corn syrup is essentially sucrose with a higher proportion of fructose, making it sweeter (as fructose is sweeter than glucose). Complex carbohydrates are not high in fructose. But we now have ample evidence that the consequence of long-term, excessive fructose consumption in a low-fiber diet causes liver damage in the form of hepatic steatosis and inflammation. The liver and pancreas work overtime and can't keep up. In fact, this is precisely what foie gras is: overfeeding geese with corn mash until their livers turn to fat, except in humans, this result is self-induced due to the neurochemical effects of sugar consumption.

Regarding endurance athletes, I would not say that they are necessarily healthier: they have optimized their bodies for physical exertion (higher VO2max, lower resting HR, greater muscular efficiency, higher lean muscle to fat ratio, etc), but this does not exactly translate to better overall health as measured by factors like total longevity and disability-free lifetime. In fact, we know that many of these athletes suffer from long-term health complications as a result of their training and competition, such as arthritic disease. In any case, if we are talking about how they are able to consume vast quantities of food yet remain lean, this is simply a matter of energy consumed versus energy expended. Yet the quality of the diet remains important even if there are no obvious signs of metabolic damage--sure, they might not get a fatty liver because gluconeogenesis kicks in, but even they know that they can't just drink 10 liters of soda to carb load.

The main driver of obesity in the United States is gross overconsumption of food relative to the energy needs of the average sedentary American. This is the imbalance in the basic caloric equation (energy in > energy out). And I say it is "gross" not in the "yuck" sense, but in the "it's REALLY WAY over the top" sense, because we're seeing people eat upwards of 3500-4000 calories per day when their expenditures are in the 2000 range. The secondary driver, which is what we might think of as "kicking the liver while it's down," is the extreme preponderance of calories from refined sugars, which do not trigger the satiety response as quickly as the equivalent energy content of dietary proteins and fats. Combined, this is literally a fatal one-two punch. Fat and salt may wreak havoc on the cardiovascular system, but refined sugar is like a drug: consumption creates cravings, triggers fatty liver disease (although not in everyone, for reasons still not entirely understood but believed to be related in part to gut microbiome) that is akin to the progression to cirrhosis in alcoholics, and results in Type 2 diabetes.

This post is already way too long but I have only scratched the surface of what is really going on in our bodies metabolically. The takeaway is (1) Stop eating well before you feel full, not when you feel full. (2) Eat more slowly. (3) Eat much, much more fiber. (4) Never drink sugary sodas or fruit juices; whole fruit is okay. (5) Choose fresh food whenever possible. Microwaving a pizza doesn't make it fresh. Note I say nothing about exercise, or fat consumption.

American corporations have had a long and illustrious history of bending over its consumers and fucking them in the ass as hard as they can. And the government's role in this is to codify new and innovative ways of facilitating this collective boning. So when someone points out that a new proposal is wrong, I just want to pet their head gently and say, "oh, aren't you just the most darling idealist ever."

This has never been about protecting people. It's always been about money, power, control, and finding new ways of making or consolidating or exerting them.

While I agree with the principle of some form of financial/economic penalty along the lines of what you propose, I am unclear as to how this could be implemented effectively.

The problem with simply voiding any US debts to China (or any other sovereign nation) because we catch their agents committing corporate or military espionage, at least in my own naive understanding, is that it basically sends a signal to the world that the repayment of our debts is conditional and uncertain: should the US government simply decide "we don't like something you're doing so we will refuse to pay you back," this would have clear repercussions with respect to the ability for the US to borrow money. It's a bit like saying that because Volkswagen was caught manipulating vehicle emissions in some of their models, you don't have to pay back the loan on your vehicle whose emissions are compliant and therefore whose market value was not affected. There's no contractual basis for that unilateral decision on the borrower's part.

But again, I absolutely agree that such flagrant actions (and let's be real here, there is and has been widespread and pervasive and extremely successful corporate espionage committed by China for decades) should be punished so severely that it should cost significant amounts of money to ensure mere compliance. I just don't know how it could be done.

Indeed. And the underlying physical principle is similar, except instead of sound waves in the case of bats, it is light waves in the case of birds. For example, if the sky is reflected in glass, a bird can fail to see the obstacle.

Few natural structures exhibit the kind of macroscopic reflectivity of man-made walls or glass windows. Bats and birds did not evolve sensory mechanisms to avoid collisions with these.

An FDA warning letter is not simply a sternly worded "please stop" message or a slap on the wrist. The phrase "warning letter" suggests a much more benign action than is actually the case.

The purpose of these letters is is to document in clear terms (1) the scope of noncompliance, (2) whether any previous responses to the Agency were received, reviewed, and found adequate, and (3) any specific corrective and preventive actions the Agency expects the firm to complete and the timeframe in which such actions are to be completed. Failure to do so may result in further legal action without notice. So, a warning letter is basically the "last chance before we shut you down" communication. As a public document, it is also a notification to the public that there is an issue with a product. It's a necessary part of the legal paperwork FDA creates to justify enforcement action.

Usually, a company works with the Agency to negotiate a path forward to compliance. But if the violation is severe enough, FDA can and does act unilaterally. But you also have to remember that we are talking about a grossly underfunded government agency that has to oversee the safety of not only drugs, but medical devices, cosmetics, and the entire nation's food supply. (Seafood, for example, is a big one.) Frankly, it is amazing that they are able to do what they can with the paltry funding they get from a business-friendly Congress that largely views the Agency as bureaucratic red tape and an impediment to developing cutting edge medicines. Some people would have us do away with any regulation entirely and return to the days of thalidomide and arsenic and snake oil salesmen.

So if you want to put the blame on anyone here, blame the manufacturer for claiming to follow GMP but not actually spending the money to do it. Blame Wall Street for lobbying for lax regulation. Blame a Republican Congress that uses small government as an excuse to jeopardize public health and safety because their Big Business buddies aren't making enough profits.

The bottom line is that FDA doesn't have enough regulatory power, doesn't have the manpower, and doesn't have the money to investigate every single company's products and practices that fall in their scope. They largely rely on the industry to be honest with them and with the public. They also rely on patients to report ADRs or product failures, as was the case here with EpiPen. If there is an area where I feel the FDA is especially failing consumers, it is with the overuse of opioids. Too little is being done and the patient risk/benefit profile clearly does not justify the way these drugs are being marketed and prescribed.

It is sad that people continue to be harmed and die because of the willful negligence of profiteering corporations, but that's hardly a new story.

Perhaps it is a testament to the human will to survive that none of the diseases I cited did not result in the decimation of our species. But our collective continued existence, whether one regards it as an uplifting affirmation of our ingenuity or a blight on our planet's biosphere, was not the point of my post. It is about the simple fact that the principle of vaccination as a public health technology and policy is lifesaving on a massive scale, and in turn, contributes in the most profound way possible to the alleviation of human suffering.

You babble on about irrelevant details and knock down straw man arguments, arguments that I did not make, because you clearly don't have a basic grasp of the scientific and epidemiological basis for immunization through vaccination. You have gotten multiple facts wrong about the specific named diseases in your post. And as I have stated previously, this is a consequence of a failure to educate.

Polio. Measles. Tuberculosis. Influenza. Rubella. Hepatitis. Smallpox.

Sadly, vaccines are a victim of their own success. Vaccines are indisputably the single most lifesaving medical development in the entire course of human history, more than surgery or anesthesia or pharmaceuticals. And perhaps it is the ultimate irony that it is only because they have worked so spectacularly well that humans, in their seemingly infinite capacity for stupidity, have somehow managed to grow to distrust them, because people in industrialized nations have almost entirely forgotten what it was like to live in a time when these diseases were not only common, but pervasive in the general population. Entire communities were decimated by polio. People have forgotten the death and the panic and the fear of these diseases.

The present situation is the result of a failure to educate. Every single child, as soon as they are able to comprehend, must be taught of the history of these pandemics. Not just a recitation of statistics; people need to be SHOWN IN GRAPHIC DETAIL what these diseases did to humanity throughout history.

People built museums to remind ourselves of the Holocaust; of the killing fields of the Khmer Rouge. Yet, for the most part, we do not educate younger generations about the horrific scope of deaths these diseases have wrought on society. Why is that? Is it really only because we care when people die at the hands of despots? Dead is dead. A virus doesn't care who you are.

You mistakenly presume that there is any sort of government censorship of Republicans by "left-wing thugs" to begin with. This claim does not stand up to even the most basic form of scrutiny, considering that the GOP holds power in both the executive and legislative branches of government, not to mention the judicial which now leans conservative; so if we are to talk realistically about what you perceive to be an infringement of your right to call those who disagree with you "left-wing thugs," your own post is clear proof to the contrary. But perhaps, like many of your ilk, you are too ignorant to understand the difference between someone who disagrees with the kind of ill-informed, uneducated, right-wing vitriol that you spew, and someone who actually imposes a legal order against your ability to speak out in this "marketplace of ideas" that you vaguely refer to.

Your post quintessentially exemplifies the original point I made. As your political class has never historically had their actual constitutional freedoms curtailed by law, perhaps a more charitable observer would forgive you for such a spectacularly persistent inability to recognize whether the government is actually oppressing you. But I am not so inclined given the extensive and demonstrably odious historical record of actual abuses that you racists and bigots have been guilty of committing, all while proclaiming to be the victims of "political correctness" and "left-wing thugs."

I think the point is not that politics brings out the worst in people, but rather, that people exhibit a much greater degree of bigotry and tribalism than they would rather admit. The results of this election, and the fact that the more Trump's lies are exposed, the more his supporters angrily make excuses for his behavior. In fact, this is precisely the kind of tactic that racists, xenophobes, bigots, and hypocrites are particularly adept at, since it is the only way they can rationalize the destructiveness of their distorted and regressive worldview: that is to say, they blame everyone else for their own inadequacies by projecting onto others the very transgressions they are guilty of. That's why they complain about their freedom of speech being curtailed; why they attack LGBT people and legal protections as an affront to what they perceive is their right to discriminate; why they still yell and kick and scream about the election months after the fact. For these people, it isn't enough to impose their bigoted will upon the rest of civilized society. It is only enough when they achieve their end goal of killing or converting those who disagree. In other words, it is no different than the radical terrorism espoused by the likes of the so-called "Islamic State." This is the very definition of primitive tribalism taken to the ideological extreme.

For all the lessons that our own human history should have taught us, we have made remarkably little progress in addressing such diseased thinking.

Inkjet printing is still the standard for photographs, since color laser requires halftoning and the result, while suitable for business graphics (and comparable to offset press), is not up to the level of quality that can be produced by inkjet printers with more than CMYK inks.

Admittedly, photo inkjet printing is a small market, and it has gotten even smaller as a result of the increasing popularity of online photo printing services. But for the immediacy of being able to print something and see the results right away, photographers don't use online services for proofing. Also, the paper options are limited, so if you want to use a special fine art paper, you pretty much have to print it yourself, or find a local printer to do it.

The irony is that the photography market is the least likely to use third-party inks, because they're the ones who are most conscientious about archival quality and colorfastness. I would say that the vast majority of third-party inks are either complete shit fresh out of the box--they're not even remotely close to the OEM inks--or they match superficially but will fade or shift over a short period of time. And if the goal is to make fine art prints that are to be hung on a wall, the paper, frame, and matting will cost way more than the ink itself.

So, in the end, you are right. Color inkjet for the mass market is dead. The average consumer neither desires to make small photo prints (and if they do, they just go to Costco or some online service), nor use inks that clog and cost a fortune. The few consumers that do need color printers will buy a laser printer.

I agree with the sentiment to be cautious of such extraordinary claims, which, to quote the familiar saying by Sagan and Truzzi, "require extraordinary evidence."

That said, do not assume that traditional Chinese medicine does not carry the possibility of valuable scientific and medical discoveries. The relatively recent discovery of the potent antimalarial properties of artemisinin was due to research in traditional Chinese herbs and medicines. Now, to be sure, there are a lot of things that traditional Chinese medicine gets wrong, but after thousands of years of trial and error and seeing what works and what doesn't, the resulting herbal pharmacopoeia almost invariably contains useful information about a myriad of plant compounds whose properties have not yet been analyzed by Western medicine.

When civilization has reached the point where open access to information is a necessary component to personal liberty and critical decision making, the curtailing of neutral access in favor of preferential access based on monetary criteria is the first step toward societies in which people are starved and beaten. That you fail to appreciate this causal relationship only underscores the futility of your use of expletives.

It's not about the cost of the cable. It's about convenience and what Steve Jobs once used to say, "it just works." It's about Apple as a company being able to stand behind their design decision to put ONLY USB-C ports in their pro laptop, from which it is only logical to promote USB-C adoption by including the required cables in their other products, even to the point of excluding USB-A, if that is how serious and sincere they are about USB-C adoption. As it is now, their approach is half-assed. If they aren't willing to commit to include a Lightning to USB-C cable in their iPhone boxes, then the decision to put USB-C ports ONLY in their flagship laptop is wrong. If you argue that they shouldn't have to pay to include both, then my response is that they should take out the USB-A cable, and make those users pay $10 for the legacy connector, if they really believe that USB-C should be adopted. That's how the serial port and RS-232 was killed off in the iMac days: the devices that were included in the box were natively USB-A. They didn't sell iMacs with mice and keyboards that used the old connectors, and then ask you to buy a $N dongle. It worked out of the box.