Great that I didn't express this idea, then.

In this context, a paraphrase of my sentence "If you think that inability to control impulses is lack of demonstrable intelligence, you are the stupid guy here." YOU were the one unsuccessfully trying to convey that your "intelligence" means you were capable of control your impulses at an early age.

Got educated yet?

It (Cygnus atratus) is a million years old, or more.

You don't understand stages of brain development. Santiago RamÃn y Cajal spent teenage years in jail and went on to receive the Nobel prize. And didn't commit any crimes after the age of 25 as far as anyone can tell.

If you think that inability to control impulses is lack of demonstrable intelligence, you are the stupid guy here.

Get Educated

It is unlikely that he is a statistical outlier. He hasn't even given any story about his own ability to grasp the consequences of his actions at an age under 15.

Humans are quite smart at 16 years of age. What is not developed is the reward experienced by controlling actions for a long term good consequence.

Repeating for the second time : People physically working very hard are not harmed much by carbohydrate consumption as I said clearly.

OK, so you have no clue about fat content in food before 1970s and the trend thereafter.

Let me know where I said that.

But the food pyramid IS extremely low fat for sedentary people. The other heuristics adopted since 1970s are all extremely low fat - I recall one has something to do with plate. As soon as we go around 35-45% calories from fat, the "doing anything extreme" goes away, as most people starting balanced diet (which is a high-fat diet as per propaganda since 1970s) discover quickly.

So the AC here was pointing out this extreme high carbohydrate diet the US (and many other parts of the world too) is increasingly on, to which you didn't agree.

It is not about don't eat, it is about the proportion. Mediterranean diet traditionally has 40% calories coming from butter, cheese, cream and fish which are all low carb items. The low fat bandwagon foods have typically less than 5% calories from fat.

There is no "carb hatred" in my post, and it is light years away from blanket carb hatred . People physically working very hard are not harmed much by carbohydrate consumption as I said clearly.

Very long ago, say centuries ago, the physical activity levels were very high. Cars, computers, running water, writing, petroleum, even antibiotics and healthcare all together have reduced human body energy consumption levels hugely.

Not so long ago - say the US middle class in 1950s, rich people in India in 1890s - typically ate rich food. Because they could afford it. Which meant more fat, and proportionally less carbohydrate. These very people did much less physical activity than say the US poor people in 1910, or Indian poor people in 1890s who ate more carbohydrates. Foods were relatively suitable for their own lifestyle - carbs for work, and fat for sitting on your ass.

Fast forward to around 1990s and later - where people with least physical activity are eating the least fat.

Dozens of my acquaintances, and hundreds of forum members I frequent who have reduced their own body fat by increasing proportion of dietary fat? Mediterranean diet?

There haven't been direct studies on it judging from pubmed, but at least studies indicating lack of correlation between proportion of dietary fat and blood cholesterol. This just dispels the usual bogies.

A single person "voting" in the traditional sense of the word also won't typically achieve anything. So voting with one's dollar is a valid analogy, and figure of speech. Your problem if you don't understand it.

If the negative side effects show up after 10 (+-7 years individual differences) years, and wreck life after 15 (+-9 years individual differences) - you'd be competing with them for ~12 years during which you might die of hunger. Or not earn enough to keep abreast of technology that will help you get employment after 10 years, while competing against 10 year younger drug abusers.

Nights never come as a surprise - next few years' sunset timings can be computed right now. Clouds do, sometimes as a huge surprise. There is no comparison between reactivity to nights and reactivity to clouds.

You need to learn a lot from another AC post about economically infeasible

Samsung Android phones come with Google Play with maps, keep and youtube - all replaced with "competing apps".

Apples are a botanical fiction, because any apple you cannot protect yourself and that nobody will protect for you is not an apple at all.

Apples can be taken away so apples don't exist.

1. A few years ago, Apple's phones were outselling Android based phones. It was the largest selling "smartphone" brand - with Android, Nokia, Blackberry and a few others trailing behind. Like just demonstrated, Apple is more of a "monopoly abuser" than Android. Where were these same antitrust regulators then?

2. Even then, the stickiness of Google Play monopoly is low. The banks and other organizations already advertize their Play Store availability on their main web pages. At the same spot they could make an APK downloadable - to which they still retain the copyright and all the means to exercise it, unlike some other distribution systems of mobile applications.