Like for example Bill Atkinson's famous productive -2000 lines: https://www.folklore.org/Negat...

For decades I've been suggesting on-and-off that a big problem is too many commercial programmers writing too much code and making too much work for each other with an endless proliferation adhoc interfaces, each a new "standard".

As an egregious example, years ago I read somewhere that Microsoft Office embeds like six entirely different virtual machines. Maybe it has improved since with the CLR?

Except for proprietary competitive forces, how many spreadsheets, compilers, VMs, email clients, word processors, and databases do we really need? Even in the realm of games, how many game engines do we need? Granted, game content may be a different story, but even there how many low-to-medium-quality games do we need?

The same is true to an extent with the entire internet. How many low-to-medium-quality comments do we need to wade through on various topics?

Imagine if everyone was using, say, (optionally-typed) Scheme with a great set of libraries to write everything (including with "org mode" in a Scheme-powered emacs-like multi-tool with a calendar etc), and there was just no "JSON" or "JavaScript" or "XML" or "Office-compatible adhoc file formats" or even "C" or "Rust". Not saying that an optionally-typed Scheme is the best choice, but what a different computing world to imagine. Guess my Symbolics 3600 Lisp machine experience in the 1980s spoiled me. :-) And I have to admit that TypeScript on widespread Scheme-inspired JavaScript VMs with WebAssembly has moved the computing world a lot in that direction with pros and cons.

I know an obvious objection (as with Linux's endless front-end and distributions) is about choice, but at some point there is a tyranny of excessive choice, like "twisty little passage ways all alike".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
        "The Paradox of Choice - Why More Is Less is a book about overchoice written by American psychologist Barry Schwartz and first published in 2004 by Harper Perennial. In the book, Schwartz argues that eliminating consumer choices can greatly reduce anxiety for shoppers. The book analyzes the behavior of different types of people (in particular, maximizers and satisficers). This book argues that the dramatic explosion in choice--from the mundane to the profound challenges of balancing career, family, and individual needs--has paradoxically become a problem instead of a solution and how our obsession with choice encourages us to seek that which makes us feel worse."

I have no problem with people writing personal code for fun or learning or personal growth (which I highly recommend) -- the same way a person may play the piano as a hobby without expecting every time they play a tune the result needs to become a packaged commercial musical product.

The main thing I think about these days is how to have a much simpler tech ecosystem. Including for this reason outlined by Rich Hickey (author of Clojure) in "Simple Made Easy":
https://www.infoq.com/presenta...
====
Rich Hickey emphasizes simplicity's virtues over easiness', showing that while many choose easiness they may end up with complexity, and the better way is to choose easiness along the simplicity path.

We should aim for simplicity because simplicity is a prerequisite for reliability.

Simple is often erroneously mistaken for easy. "Easy" means "to be at hand", "to be approachable".

"Simple" is the opposite of "complex" which means "being intertwined", "being tied together". Simple != easy.

What matters in software is: does the software do what is supposed to do? Is it of high quality? Can we rely on it? Can problems be fixed along the way? Can requirements change over time? The answers to these questions is what matters in writing software not the look and feel of the experience writing the code or the cultural implications of it.

The benefits of simplicity are: ease of understanding, ease of change, ease of debugging, flexibility.

Complex constructs: State, Object, Methods, Syntax, Inheritance, Switch/matching, Vars, Imperative loops, Actors, ORM, Conditionals.

Simple constructs: Values, Functions, Namespaces, Data, Polymorphism, Managed refs, Set functions, Queues, Declarative data manipulation, Rules, Consistency.

Build simple systems by:
* Abstracting - design by answering questions related to what, who, when, where, why, and how.
* Choosing constructs that generate simple artifacts.
* Simplify by encapsulation.
====

Or, as a joke:
"Weinberg's Law: If builders built buildings the way (current-AI-enhanced-HR-staffer) programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker that came along would destroy civilization."
https://quoteinvestigator.com/...

In case he does, I hope Bill Gates is learning to laugh at the irony my sig: "The biggest challenge of the 21st century is the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity."

Or in other words, as people were saying even in the 1960s:
https://quoteinvestigator.com/...
      "To err is human, to really foul things up requires a computer."

How can we mitigate that risk? Like President John F. Kennedy quipped (echoed by Joel Goodman of the Humor Project):
https://www.humorproject.com/d...
        "There are three things which are real:
        God, human folly, and laughter.
        The first two are beyond our comprehension.
        So we must do what we can with the third." (John F. Kennedy)

Or, as I explain in more detail:
https://pdfernhout.net/recogni...
        "There is a fundamental mismatch between 21st century reality and 20th century security [and economic] thinking. Those "security" [and economic] agencies are using those tools of abundance, cooperation, and sharing mainly from a mindset of scarcity, competition, and secrecy. Given the power of 21st century technology as an amplifier (including as weapons of mass destruction), a scarcity-based approach to using such technology ultimately is just making us all insecure. Such powerful technologies of abundance, designed, organized, and used from a mindset of scarcity could well ironically doom us all whether through military robots, nukes, plagues, propaganda, or whatever else... Or alternatively, as Bucky Fuller and others have suggested, we could use such technologies to build a world that is abundant and secure for all."

Here is someone involved in AI who gets that our direction out of any AI singularity may have a lot to do with our social direction and level of compassion going into it:
"Ex-Google Officer: You Only Have 3 Years Left Before It Hits! - Mo Gawdat
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
        "AI Expert Mo Gawdat returns to The Diary Of A CEO to reveal why AGI has already arrived, why 30% of jobs will disappear by 2027, and why the most dangerous thing about AI isn't the technology - it's the people in charge of it. Mo Gawdat is the former Chief Business Officer at Google X, founder of One Billion Happy, and co-founder of Emma.Love. He is a 4x international bestselling author, and his upcoming book 'Alive: A Human's Guide to Living in the World of AI', will be released in October 2026."

I'm glad to see more AI and technology leaders starting to get that. Another example:
https://www.schmidtsciences.or...
        ""As AI systems advance, we face the risk that they will act in ways that contradict human values and interests--but this risk is not inevitable," said Eric Schmidt. "With efforts like the AI Safety Science program, we can help build a future in which AI benefits us all while maintaining safeguards that protect us from harm."
        The cohort of researchers--including "godfather of AI" Yoshua Bengio at Mila - Quebec Artificial Intelligence Institute, OpenAI board member Zico Kolter at Carnegie Mellon University, and "AI Snake Oil" author Arvind Narayanan at Princeton University--will focus their work on research that addresses the critical safety challenges that AI faces."

Ultimately though, guard rails can come off or be jumped -- so we really need AI with a sense of humor -- especially for irony. :-)

--------

And we also need AI developers and funders who root their work more in compassion as a guiding force more than competition.

Something I wrote to Ray Kuzweil on that back in 2000 (put up by someone else I sent a copy to):
https://heybryan.org/fernhout/...
        "It will be difficult for you to change your opinion on this because you have been heavily rewarded for riding the digital wave. You were making money building reading machines before I bought my first computer -- a Kim-I. But, I think someday the contradiction may become apparent of thinking the road to spiritual enlightenment can come from material competition (a point in your book which deserves much further elaboration). To the extent material competition drives the development of the digital realm the survival of humanity is in doubt."

And also in 2001:
https://heybryan.org/fernhout/...
          "Beware that people (usually not well versed in E&E [Ecology & Evolution]) cite ecology and evolution all the time to support a belief, but that does not make it a scientifically valid thing to do. For example, it is common to cite competition as a given in nature, but Lewis Thomas in "Lives of a Cell" points out that most successful organisms participate in effectively collaborative efforts -- like the symbiosis between mitochondria and eukaryotic cells. Likewise, the fact that something is true in most species does not mean that humans (given intelligence and culture) should behave that way -- because if E&E teaches anything, it is that there is a lot of diversity out there."

And in 2007:
https://heybryan.org/fernhout/...
        "Technologies designed to amplify and extend the scope of corporate greed likely just will not have the same positive basis as ones built out of joy and humor and love. If you ever watch the British sci-fi comedy Red Dwarf, greed seems much more likely to design "Queeg" than "Holly". Langdon Winner writes about related issues at length in his classic _Autonomous Technology_.
      In short, I feel it likely you are clinging to outdated disprove assumptions about motivation and creativity and economics. And I speculate that the reason is in part ironically from your past success. Those assumptions may be holding you back, and holding on to them may indeed help bring about a very negative side of the singularity you want to avoid."

Also on that theme: https://www.alfiekohn.org/cont...
        "No Contest, which has been stirring up controversy since its publication in 1986, stands as the definitive critique of competition. Drawing from hundreds of studies, Alfie Kohn eloquently argues that our struggle to defeat each other -- at work, at school, at play, and at home -- turns all of us into losers.
        Contrary to the myths with which we have been raised, Kohn shows that competition is not an inevitable part of "human nature." It does not motivate us to do our best (in fact, the reason our workplaces and schools are in trouble is that they value competitiveness instead of excellence.) Rather than building character, competition sabotages self-esteem and ruins relationships. It even warps recreation by turning the playing field into a battlefield.
        No Contest makes a powerful case that "healthy competition" is a contradiction in terms. Because any win/lose arrangement is undesirable, we will have to restructure our institutions for the benefit of ourselves, our children, and our society. For this [1992] revised edition, Kohn adds a comprehensive account of how students can learn more effectively by working cooperatively in the classroom instead of struggling to be Number One. He also offers a pointed and personal afterword, assessing shifts in American thinking on competition and describing reactions to his provocative message."

Jane Jacobs wrote a great book on civilization collapse in 2004 titled "Dark Age Ahead":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
        "Dark Age Ahead is a 2004 book by Jane Jacobs describing what she sees as the decay of five key "pillars" in "North America": community and family, higher education, science and technology, taxes and government responsiveness to citizen's needs, and self-regulation by the learned professions. She argues that this decay threatens to create a Dark Age unless the trends are reversed. Jacobs characterizes a Dark Age as a "mass amnesia" where even the memory of what was lost is lost."

She makes many good points. That said, like John Gardner wrote in the 1964, "Every generation must learn for themselves what the words on the monuments mean":
"Self-renewal : the individual and the innovative society"
https://archive.org/details/se...
        "The only stability possible is stability in motion."--John William Gardner
        In his classic treatise Self-Renewal, John W. Gardner examines why great societies thrive and die. He argues that it is dynamism, not decay, that is dramatically altering the landscape of American society. The twentieth century has brought about change more rapidly than any previous era, and with that came advancements, challenges, and often destruction. Gardner cautions that "a society must court the kinds of change that will enrich and strengthen it, rather than the kind of change that will fragment and destroy it."
        A society's ability to renew itself hinges upon its individuals. Gardner reasons that it is the waning of the heart and spirit--not a lack of material might--that threatens American society. Young countries, businesses, and humans have several key commonalities: they are flexible, eager, open, curious, unafraid, and willing to take risks. These conditions lead to success. However, as time passes, so too comes complacency, apathy, and rigidity, causing motivation to plummet. It is at this junction that great civilizations fall, businesses go bankrupt, and life stagnates. Gardner asserts that the individual's role in social renewal requires each person to face and look beyond imminent threats.
        Ultimately, we need a vision that there is something worth saving. Through this vision, Gardner argues, society will begin to renew itself, not permanently, but past its average lifespan, and it will at once become enriched and rejuvenated."

Also on ideas from that book: https://fluidself.org/books/ps...
        "Every individual, organization or society must mature, but much depends on how this maturing takes place. A society whose maturing consists simply of acquiring more firmly established ways of doing things is headed for the graveyard--even if it learns to do these things with greater and greater skill. In the ever-renewing society what matures is a system or framework within which continuous innovation, renewal and rebirth can occur.
        Our thinking about growth and decay is dominated by the image of a single life-span, animal or vegetable. Seedling, full flower and death. "The flower that once has blown forever dies." But for an ever-renewing society the appropriate image is a total garden, a balanced aquarium or other ecological system. Some things are being born, other things are flourishing, still other things are dying--but the system lives on. ..."

For example, as I wrote elsewhere on July 4th, even as the USA is facing political issues, the internet has become a place where people provide each other support about health issues in a Patch-Adams-style participatory wellness community. That is an amazing revolution in itself. As Patch Adams said: "The most revolutionary act one can commit in our world is to be happy. (Patch Adams)" Or, I'd add, to help others be happy too.
https://soylentnews.org/commen...

I think a big part of self-renewal in our society may come from both humans and their AIs learning to laugh at the irony in my sig: "The biggest challenge of the 21st century is the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity."

You can also often reduce the risk of cancer recurrence significantly via diet (e.g. avoiding most or all animal products and ultraprocessed foods, and eating lots of greens, beans, onions, mushrooms, berries & fruits, and nut & seeds) -- especially along with other lifestyle changes like exercise, avoiding smoking and alcohol, stress reduction, good sleep, community, etc..
"G-BOMBS: The anti-cancer foods that should be in your diet right now"
https://www.drfuhrman.com/arti...

Problem is there is not much money in such advice... Especially when there are many vested interest in selling unhealthy food and profiting off of sickness. People who make money off of sickness don't even have to win the scientific argument, they just have to seed enough doubt to confuse people so they keep doing what they were doing. That strategy by industry of intentionally sowing confusion is mentioned here 18 minutes in - and it was based on the success by the cigarette industry (and I'd add the fossil fuel industry) in doing the same thing:
"What The Health - Full Documentary"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
"18:24 You know the strategy is not on making their products any safer. The strategy is to just try to confuse the public to introduce doubt. You know.
18:33 there's a famous tobacco industry memo. It's called doubt is our product. That's all they had to do. They didn't have to convince Americans that smoking
18:41 was healthy right. They just had to introduce doubt -- then they would win. If there's just enough controversy people kind of throw up their hands: I
18:49 don't know what to eat. Confusion is their game"

That said, I hope treatments like Moderna's eventually show convincingly that they do a lot more good than harm -- since the process of getting individuals and societies to change their diets can be a very slow one -- as mentioned here about 35 minutes in:
"100 Year-Old Nutrition Professor: 7 Keys to a Long Life | Dr. John Scharffenberg"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
"35:26 [Scharffenberg:] They're going by the cholesterol level with the idea that if you lower your cholesterol you will not have heart attacks anymore.
35:32 It's not true. It's not true. And we made a mistake. We should tell them that lifestyle [including a whole-food plant-based vegetarian diet] is important.
35:40 But the problem is we haven't persuaded people to live like they even know they should live.
35:47 Yes. That's our problem. [Interviewer:] And that's why I'm studying to become a therapist, I want to figure out how do we...people know what to do, but... [Scharffenberg:] A lot of them know what to do.
35:55 They don't do it. [Interviewer:] It's hard, yeah. [Scharffenberg:] It's hard."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
      "(45:21) Interviewer: But theoretically, couldn't AI and biotechnology help you come up with a counter measure?
        Schmidt: Um, I had thought so, and that was the argument I made until I... I do a lot of national security work. And there's a term called offense dominant. And an offense dominant is a is a situation in a military context where the attack cannot be countered at the same level as the attack. In other words, the damage is done. And most people, most biologists who've worked in this believe that while the model can be trained to counter this, the damage from the offense part is far greater than the ability to defend it, which is why we're so worried about it."

And Mo Gawdat on ways to help prevent that:
"Ex-Google Officer: You Only Have 3 Years Left Before It Hits! - Mo Gawdat"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
        "AI Expert Mo Gawdat returns to The Diary Of A CEO to reveal why AGI has already arrived, why 30% of jobs will disappear by 2027, and why the most dangerous thing about AI isn't the technology - it's the people in charge of it.
        Mo Gawdat is the former Chief Business Officer at Google X, founder of One Billion Happy, and co-founder of Emma.Love. He is a 4x international bestselling author, and his upcoming book 'Alive: A Human's Guide to Living in the World of AI', will be released in October 2026.
        He explains:
* How AI can give you a 400-point IQ boost, and why most people are wasting it
* Why Mo actually wants a machine smarter than all of humanity to take control
* Why Sam Altman said AI will "likely end humanity", and what he chose to do next
* Why capitalism breaks when AI replaces the workers who buy the things we make
* Why AI unemployment could trigger civil unrest before governments are ready for it"

Which all relates to my sig: "The biggest challenge of the 21st century is the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity."

And also this essay I wrote: https://pdfernhout.net/recogni...
      "There is a fundamental mismatch between 21st century reality and 20th century security thinking. Those "security" agencies are using those tools of abundance, cooperation, and sharing mainly from a mindset of scarcity, competition, and secrecy. Given the power of 21st century technology as an amplifier (including as weapons of mass destruction), a scarcity-based approach to using such technology ultimately is just making us all insecure. Such powerful technologies of abundance, designed, organized, and used from a mindset of scarcity could well ironically doom us all whether through military robots, nukes, plagues, propaganda, or whatever else... Or alternatively, as Bucky Fuller and others have suggested, we could use such technologies to build a world that is abundant and secure for all."

Having lived through the 80-90s myself, there were indeed a lot of great things about them -- but don't forget living in the shadow of nuclear war and "The Day After" and also "Peak Oil" and "Club of Rome" fears of running out of resources. Advanced of technology like PV and EV and 3D-Printing have made a lot of new things possible (both for good and bad) -- and as Mo Gawdat says we need to upgrade our social perspective and political discourse to use them wisely.

Personally, I feel it is plausible that the direction we come out of any AI singularity may have a lot to do with our social direction going into it. So it is absolutely imperative to get our social house in order before developing AI -- and that means building a more compassionate, wiser, sustainable, and just world *first*.

Indeed. Although it's much easier to eat healthier in, say, Japan than the USA because of a different food culture and different food infrastructure (as mentioned in two videos I linked to in another comment).

BlueZones has supported initiatives to make healthier eating -- and exercise and other good things -- easier to do by default in the USA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://albertlea.bluezonespro...
        "Blue Zones Project(r) is a community-wide well-being initiative that helps make healthy choices easier for everyone in Albert Lea and Freeborn County. When our entire community participates, small changes contribute huge benefits for all of us: Lowered healthcare costs, improved productivity, and a higher quality of life.
        While many traditional health initiatives focus on diet and exercise programs, we focus on changing our community's culture and environment so that individuals are nudged into making healthy choices. We take a systematic approach to improving well-being through policy, building design, social networks and built environment across all sectors of our community. By optimizing the places that we live, work and play, we can make the healthy choices the easy choices so we naturally adopt healthy behaviors and have the opportunity to LIVE LONGER, BETTER(r)."

The Suppers clubs described in "Logical Miracles" are another approach to make healthier eating more the default in the USA:
"Logical Miracles: 100 Stories of Hope and Healing" by Dor Mullen
https://www.amazon.com/Logical...
        "Why is it so hard to eat right? What does it take to turn around the habits that make us sick and fat? Logical Miracles is a collection of stories by people in The Suppers Programs who found their personal solutions by experimenting with whole food. In an environment of nonjudgment, we cook, taste, and feel our way to health, and we forge new friendships based on healthy living. For five years, pilot Suppers groups have been helping people with a range of food-related challenges find their path, especially people with depression, anxiety, learning issues, obesity, diabetes, and problems with alcohol. No special diets. No fees. No commercial messages. The only requirement for membership is the desire to lead a healthier life. Now we'd like to share our logical miracles, our road maps, our recipes, and especially our hard-earned wisdom related as stories of hope and healing. Welcome to Suppers."

Also tangentially related:
""Stop Moralizing Air Conditioning" -- How Institutions Shift Responsibility Onto Individuals: On Civilization, Responsibility, and the Ethics of Preventable Suffering"
https://jdjayne.substack.com/p...
        "In my first essay on responsibility, I argued that affirming existence means accepting responsibility for a world we did not create. We emerge into the world shaped by the generations before us, and bear the burden of responsibility for ourselves and future generations ahead. Civilization, then, is the organization of that responsibility at scales greater than any individual could achieve alone.
        As civilizations grow and gain more capacity to prevent suffering, preventing that suffering increasingly becomes a collective responsibility rather than an individual burden. My claim is that modern institutions often fail this responsibility by concentrating authority while displacing responsibility back onto individuals through moralizing, bureaucracy, and institutional incentives.
        By institutions, I mean the durable organizations through which societies coordinate responsibilities that no individual can bear alone; governments, markets, corporations, and other structures of collective action.
        By moralizing, I mean the habit of transforming practical and institutional problems into questions of individual virtue. Rather than asking how we should collectively organize to reduce suffering, we ask whether those who suffer deserve relief in the first place.
        The result is a culture that blames individuals for suffering that civilization has already acquired the capability, and thus the responsibility, to prevent. ..."

In this case, institutions collectively managing trillions of dollars a year in the USA between industry and regulatory-captured government agencies have successfully shirked any responsibility to help people be healthy -- and instead such institutions have displaced that responsibility onto individuals by essentially blaming individuals for lack of willpower to resist all the carefully engineered traps the organization have created for individuals including children (like via ultra-processed foods, constant food-related advertising, artificially low prices via government subsidies for animal products, "health" insurance that covers getting sick but not staying healthy, and so on).

An example of such institutional power in action and how ludicrous pushback is often made to seem (Coca Cola's response was to tell them to individually just stop drinking their product if they had concerns):
https://organicconsumers.org/w...
        "William Lamar, the senior pastor at D.C.'s historic Metropolitan African Methodist Episcopal Church, is tired of presiding over funerals for parishioners who died of heart disease, diabetes and stroke.
        So on Thursday, he and another prominent African American pastor filed suit against Coca-Cola and the American Beverage Association, claiming soda manufacturers knowingly deceived customers about the health risks of sugar-sweetened beverages -- at enormous cost to their communities. ...
        Obesity, hypertension, diabetes, cardiovascular disease and lower-extremity amputations are all far higher among people of color than among whites. These communities also drink more soda -- and are exposed to more soda advertising.
        "It's become really clear to me that we're losing more people to the sweets than to the streets," said Coates, who said he has seen members of his congregation give their infants bottles filled with sugary drinks. "There's a great deal of misinformation in our communities, and I think that's largely a function of these deceptive marketing campaigns." ...."

And the spin on how silly such concern about institutional failure is made to seem:
https://taphaps.com/delman-coa...
        "According to the pastors, it is because Coke's commercials often feature misleading images of young, slender people gulping the fizzy beverage, smiling and sharing good times. "It breaks my heart and I'm saddened by the way in which we're losing so many people. I'm losing more people to the sweets than to the streets," Delman Coates added, according to The Blaze. However, the pastors' claims aren't supported by available evidence. In fact, most surveys show people believe sugar to be harmful, but choose to consume it anyway, another article on The Blaze reported.
          This hasn't deterred the pastors from blaming the company, though. "Marketing for Coca-Cola is focused around health and fun and showing very sexy bodies in their advertising. You never see an obese person. If the people are consuming Coca-Cola at this rate, there is no way those bodies would look like that," William Lamar claimed. "It's almost as if they are selling joy. They are equating this product with the things that people are hoping for - joy, smiles, family. But, this product will not deliver that. It delivers the exact opposite. Silence around this issue is violence." ....
        "Our hope is that Coca-Cola will discontinue marketing these drinks as something that is healthful and healthy," William Lamar said, but instead, Coca-Cola dismissed the pastors' allegations, calling them "legally and factually meritless," adding that they "will vigorously defend against them."
        "America's beverage companies know we have an important role to play in addressing our nation's health challenges. That's why we're engaging with health groups and community organizations to drive a reduction in the sugar and calories Americans get from beverages," the American Beverage Association said in a statement defending the industry's conduct. "Unfounded accusations like these won't do anything to address health concerns, but the actions we're taking, particularly in areas where obesity rates are among the highest, can make a difference." ...."

(Obesity may actually be driven more by animal products than sugar, but they certainly overlap as problem areas, and they likely make the problems caused by each other worse.)

by Jeff Nelson, Veg Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
        "For years we've been told that if one study proves the Mediterranean diet is the healthiest way to eat, it's PREDIMED.
        Doctors cite it. Dietitians cite it. Influencers have built careers on it.
        The headline: Mediterranean diet cuts heart disease by 30%.
        So I sat down and opened the actual paper. Not the press release -- the supplementary tables, where almost nobody looks.
        In today's video I walk through the trial's own tables -- what that 30% actually means, where it came from, and why I think anyone with blocked arteries should be asking a different question entirely."

Spoiler: a low-animal-fat low-seed-oil-fat diet like Ornish, McDougall, Fuhrman and so on suggest actually reverses heart disease rather than maybe just slow it a bit like the Mediterranean diet.

One can then argue about whether fats from nuts, seeds, and avocado are a net benefit (and I am leaning more that way) or whether all fats are problematical (like, say, McDougall suggested). Related by Dr. Fuhrman:
https://www.drfuhrman.com/arti...
        "It is important to stand up to individuals who can hurt others with dangerous nutritional advice. We usually see such arguments coming from the meat-promoting nutritional gurus, attempting to find some flaw in a study that demonstrates the dangers of too much animal products in the diet. The number of studies corroborating that more animal products in the diet contribute to the development of chronic disease and premature death is deafening and indisputable at this time.
        However, a similar development is occurring in the denial of the harm that results from omitting nuts and seeds from the diet - and the attempt to bolster support for an extremely low-fat vegan diet, which is clearly dangerous. It has been brought to my attention that a series of videos has been posted and promoted on YouTube attempting to discredit the studies documenting the lifespan-extending properties of including nuts and seeds in one's diet. The individuals represented here want to try to protect their legacy of promoting an extremely low-fat vegan diets (nut and seed exclusion); unfortunately, according to a preponderance of evidence, this outmoded and disproven stance does lead to premature death. Unable to shut down the avalanche of evidence, they attempt to discredit the studies. The facts are: extreme low-fat vegan dieters are at higher risk of depression and dementia, as well as premature mortality, from all causes, and the evidence increases every year. ..."

Here are some arguments against Fuhrman's position on supplementing DHA/EPA though (Jeff is also in the very-low-fat camp overall it seems to me):
"The DHA Dementia Promise Just Took a Hit" by Jeff Nelson -- VegSource
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
        "Are Vegans Being Sold a Story on DHA? It seems so. For years now, vegans have increasingly been told that if they don't take DHA supplements, they may be putting themselves at risk for dementia or Alzheimer's disease. I've always been skeptical of how certain those claims sound, because the actual evidence has never seemed nearly that clear-cut to me. ..."

A big underlying concern is that arteries can leak (hemorrhagic stroke) and so they need to be repaired from the inside, which if it goes too far (too much animal fats, especially in the context of sugar also causing arterial inflammation) then you can get deadly blockage (an ischemic stroke or heart attack).

So that's why I think Fuhrman may be more right on that than, say, McDougall -- where nuts and seeds might help reduce the risk of hemorrhagic stroke among other benefits for vegans by helping with the repair process without it going to far to clogs -- and so might be preventing dementia resulting from many small hemorrhagic strokes? (My speculation.) And it is also maybe why vegans not eating nuts and seeds (or maybe avocados) might potentially benefit from a little animal fat to reduce hemorrhagic stroke risk? Although there might be other issues in play like some fat in the diet helping with neural growth or brain maintenance given the brain is mostly fat.

But Jeff Nelson raises good points on whether supplements for DHA/EPA are essential or create new risks in that and other videos. I'm still a bit on the fence about such supplements even though I currently take an algae-based one.

One reason nutritional information is so confusing -- beyond the complexity of the human body itself -- is because there is so much money on the line (literally trillions of dollars a year in the USA between animal agriculture and the medical system). So there are huge incentives to sow confusion (similar to some other big issues like smoking or climate change). A great movie on that is "What the Health" (mentioned in a previous post by me). There are also not many incentives to research simple unpatentable health-related things like eating better.

As is pointed out in that movie, the animal products industries learned from the cigarette industry that you don't have to win an argument with scientific proof to win in the marketplace; you just have to cause enough confusion by spreading conflicting-seeming information that people give up trying to make sense of things and just keep on with their bad habits (to their own long-term suffering and to someone else's profit).

Interesting. Thanks for the suggestion! Here is a nutritional comparison on the lettuce with frozen spinach and yes the spinach has a lot more of various things (although they don't mention oxalates in that comparison which spinach also has more of):
https://comparator.food-nutrie...

I was trying a McDougall-ish approach then which is why the fat is so low on purpose. In general I otherwise have some nuts and seeds (and occasionally avocados too) which also add micronutrients (and protein for the nuts and seeds). Here is the spinach & lettuce comparison against pumpkin seeds, almonds, and avocado, and also beans:
https://comparator.food-nutrie...

I was glad to find that specific nutrition site as otherwise some nutrition sites require a sign up (although those may also have other great features like scanning barcodes). I thought to look for one from a comment someone made that it is good to sanity check what you are eating to look for specific nutrient deficiencies. That's how I learned I am eating a lot less calcium then when I was eating Mozarella string cheese in lettuce wraps.
https://meal.food-nutrients-ca...

I still need to work on the calcium issue (whereas protein is not an issue for me). Maybe more sesame, chia, or flax seeds? I have a container of chia seeds just sitting in the cupboard, so maybe this will help motivate me to work them into something I eat. Spinach might also improve the calcium situation (except for the oxalates, which is an argument for cooking it). More beans might help with the calcium too.
https://vegfaqs.com/seeds-high...
https://health.clevelandclinic...

Yes, that statement should come with an asterisk proviso. If people get all their calories from table sugar, then yes, they won't be getting any protein (as you say). But if people get all their calories from a variety of whole plant foods, then they will essentially get enough protein. So yes, there is an assumption there that people are not eating some monodiet of, say, all fruit (which is low in protein).

But all fruit and sugar are the rare exceptions of being low protein. For example, eating just potatoes essentially gets you to the RDA of protein (but eating a variety of foods including beans is healthier).
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=prot...
https://www.eatthismuch.com/ca...
https://www.eatthis.com/potato...

Wild horses eat mostly grass and must get enough protein to be so big and strong. But, admittedly, they eat a lot of grass all day. Likewise gorillas eat lots of vegetation all day.

Related funny video on protein:
""Where do you get your protein?" The Ultimate Response 2025"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
"Where do vegans get their protein? Let's answer this with the newest data from recent trials, the logic, personal experience, and my friend TRENton."

As Mic the Vegan mentions there, "Fiber is the new protein". The more important question most US Americans should be asking is "Where am I getting my fiber?"

While this is not completely accurate (sodium is lower in the specific products I actually ate, and portions may not be exact, does not include supplements like for vitamin D or algae-based DHA/EPA, etc), here is an approximation of a day of plant-only food I ate a while back showing enough protein (even not eating any beans that day):
https://meal.food-nutrients-ca...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
        "Garth Philip Davis (born January 28, 1970) is an American bariatric surgeon, physician, and author. Davis specializes in weight management and is known for his advocacy of plant-based nutrition. ...
        Davis is a board-certified surgeon who specializes in bariatric surgery and Medical Weight Loss at Mission Weight Management Center in Asheville, North Carolina.[2][5]He is now back in Houston, Texas, working for Houston Methodist and Methodist West, and is serving as the medical director for the Comprehensive Metabolic Disease Management Center. ...
      Davis is best known for his book Proteinaholic: How Our Obsession with Meat Is Killing Us and What We Can Do About It, which argues that a high-protein diet of animal source foods causes people to be overweight and more susceptible to certain diseases, such as cancer and diabetes. Davis states that people can get all the protein they need from a plant-based diet. Davis has written that there is "a broad consensus that including plants and limiting animals in our diets is the single best thing we can do for our health"."

Personally, I question the value of bariatric surgery for most people compared to diet and lifestyle changes (like eating more beans), but it is different from plastic surgery.

Dr. Fuhrman -- who I also linked to a video from -- is an expert in nutrition and health (although he has his own conflicts by selling products, although he has claimed he donates all the profits from them to nutritional research).

Unfortunately, "captured" government policy and short-term profit maximizing make it hard to lose weight in the USA even when you want to. Some related videos:

* "I Investigated The World's Skinniest vs Fattest City" by Will Tennyson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
      "Little Rock, Arkansas, US vs. Tokyo, Japan"

* "How Japan escaped Obesity while America got Fat"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

* "Why a Big Mac Costs Less Than a Salad"
https://archive.nytimes.com/ec...

* "What The Health - Full Documentary" (and criticism and response):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://informationisbeautiful...
"'What the Health' Now Debunked by Vox | REBUTTAL" by Mic the Vegan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Here is a video that is hilarious (if very sad) when you think about it, as another example of calling out unnecessarily and risky medicine substituting for diet and lifestyle changes:
"This 99 Cent Food [a can of beans] Mimics Ozempic -- Here's How (And How to Use It): Weight Loss Doctor Explains"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

https://www.vrg.org/journal/vj...
        "In 2023 we reported a study that we conducted comparing the prices of meat-like veggie burgers and vegan ground meat to animal meat. We recently expanded our study to include canned and dried beans because these products are often less expensive sources of protein, iron, and other nutrients that are also supplied by veggie burgers and vegan ground meat. ... In both cities, dried beans cost the least per serving, followed by canned beans, then by animal meat, and then by veggie meat. Dried beans cost between 10 cents and 20 cents per serving, depending on the type of bean and the location of the store. Canned beans cost between 25 cents and 40 cents per serving. Compare that to 80 cents to over $2 for a serving of animal meat and 80 cents to $1.24 for a serving of veggie meat. It's clear that beans offer significant cost savings. When you're looking for a low-cost, nutritious, convenient food, remember beans!"

As Dr. Fuhrman, an expert in nutrition, said in the previously linked video at 2:54: "If you can remember anything from this podcast, it's said based on these cited studies] more animal protein shortens lifespan and more plant protein -- paying attention to it, and getting more plant protein, not overeating calories of course -- makes you live longer."

My grocery bill went down eating more the way people like Dr. Joel Fuhrman on recommends. Processed food and animal products -- especially organic ones -- can be expensive.

Killing Us and What We Can Do About It by Garth Davis M.D., Howard Jacobson: https://www.amazon.com/Protein...
====
An acclaimed surgeon specializing in weight loss delivers a paradigm-shifting examination of the diet and health industry's focus on protein, explaining why it is detrimental to our health, and can prevent us from losing weight.

Whether you are seeing a doctor, nutritionist, or a trainer, all of them advise to eat more protein. Foods, drinks, and supplements are loaded with extra protein. Many people use protein for weight control, to gain or lose pounds, while others believe it gives them more energy and is essential for a longer, healthier life. Now, Dr. Garth Davis, an expert in weight loss asks, "Is all this protein making us healthier?"

The answer, he emphatically argues, is NO. Too much protein is actually making us sick, fat, and tired, according to Dr. Davis. If you are getting adequate calories in your diet, there is no such thing as protein deficiency. The healthiest countries in the world eat far less protein than we do and yet we have an entire nation on a protein binge getting sicker by the day.

As a surgeon treating obese patients, Dr. Davis was frustrated by the ever-increasing number of sick and overweight patients, but it wasn't until his own health scare that he realized he could do something about it. Combining cutting-edge research, with his hands-on patient experience and his years dedicated to analyzing studies of the world's longest-lived populations, this explosive, groundbreaking book reveals the truth about the dangers of protein and shares a proven approach to weight loss, health, and longevity.
====

Also: "How Do You Prevent Protein Deficiency? Dr. Joel Fuhrman"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
        "In this informative discussion, Dr. Joel Fuhrman breaks down the importance of protein adequacy and optimal macronutrient ratios for longevity on a plant-based diet. Learn about the surprising fat content of meat, the risks associated with low-carb diets like keto and carnivore, and the science-backed approach of the Nutritarian diet. Discover the crucial role of nuts and seeds in promoting longevity, as demonstrated in the Adventist Health Study, and gain practical tips for fueling athletic performance with whole plant foods."

Meat has been marketed based on scaring people about protein.
Dairy has been marketed based on scaring people about calcium.
You can generally get enough of each if you eat a varied whole-foods plat-based diet especially one including beans and nuts and seeds etc.. Calcium is actually the harder one than protein (since if you get enough calories from whole foods you generally get enough protein):
https://www.worldofvegan.com/v...

As I say in my sig: "The biggest challenge of the 21st century is the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity."

Or in more detail here: "Recognizing irony is key to transcending militarism"
https://pdfernhout.net/recogni...
        "There is a fundamental mismatch between 21st century reality and 20th century security thinking. Those "security" agencies are using those tools of abundance, cooperation, and sharing mainly from a mindset of scarcity, competition, and secrecy. Given the power of 21st century technology as an amplifier (including as weapons of mass destruction), a scarcity-based approach to using such technology ultimately is just making us all insecure. Such powerful technologies of abundance, designed, organized, and used from a mindset of scarcity could well ironically doom us all whether through military robots, nukes, plagues, propaganda, or whatever else... Or alternatively, as Bucky Fuller and others have suggested, we could use such technologies to build a world that is abundant and secure for all. ...
        The big problem is that all these new war machines and the surrounding infrastructure are created with the tools of abundance. The irony is that these tools of abundance are being wielded by people still obsessed with fighting over scarcity. So, the scarcity-based political mindset driving the military uses the technologies of abundance to create artificial scarcity. That is a tremendously deep irony that remains so far unappreciated by the mainstream.
        We the people need to redefine security in a sustainable and resilient way. Much current US military doctrine is based around unilateral security ("I'm safe because you are nervous") and extrinsic security ("I'm safe despite long supply lines because I have a bunch of soldiers to defend them"), which both lead to expensive arms races. We need as a society to move to other paradigms like Morton Deutsch's mutual security ("We're all looking out for each other's safety") and Amory Lovin's intrinsic security ("Our redundant decentralized local systems can take a lot of pounding whether from storm, earthquake, or bombs and would still would keep working").
        Still, we must accept that there is nothing wrong with wanting some security. The issue is how we go about it in a non-ironic way that works for everyone. ..."

I can't guaranty 100% that we survive AI by embracing an abundance perspective, but it is probably 100% certain that we will all be doomed if we keep our current scarcity perspective while using such powerful technology.

Kind of like if a teenager is given a muscle car and they drive it a top-speed everywhere while ignoring stop signs and traffic lights (and also drinking, while being sleepy, and texting, and not wearing a set belt, at night). A disastrous crash is almost certain if someone drives that way.
"Risk Factors for Teen Drivers"
https://www.cdc.gov/teen-drive...
      "Teens are more likely than older drivers to speed and to allow shorter distances from the front of one vehicle to the front of the next. These risky driving behaviors appear to be worse when a male teenage passenger is present. 35% of male drivers and 18% of female drivers (ages 15â"20 years) who were involved in fatal crashes were speeding at the time of the crash in 2020."

Of course, AI for self-driving vehicles might help with those teenager issues. Then sleepy teens can drink and text all they want while the AI chauffeurs them around at a safe speed. :-)

Although the teen may still be at a psychological risk of feeling dis-empowered and frustrated as described in regards to AI in 1947 in "With Folded Hands" depending on the specifics of how that all is implemented: :-(
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/......
        "With Folded Hands ..." is a 1947 science fiction novelette[1] by American writer Jack Williamson (1908â"2006). In writing it, Williamson was influenced by the aftermath of World War II, the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and his concern that "some of the technological creations we had developed with the best intentions might have disastrous consequences in the long run."

Other people with reasonable concerns about AI and how we will use it include:

* Tristan Harris, who gets that we need more compassion in our relation to technology and each other:
"Tristan Harris's New TED Talk, and "AGI Beyond the Buzz: What Is It, and Are We Ready?""
https://centerforhumanetechnol...

* Mo Gwadat, who gets that we have a problematical competitive perspective for developing and deploying AI:
"Ex-Google Officer: You Only Have 3 Years Left Before It Hits! - Mo Gawdat"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

An interesting phrase here of "Sleep-racing into the machine":
https://www.theepochtimes.com/...
        "If we slow down, someone else wins. If we regulate, we fall behind. If we hesitate, another nation dominates the future.
        Humanity has heard this logic before.
        We once raced to build nuclear weapons under the same justification. But eventually the world understood that capability alone could not be the moral compass. At some point, nations realized that endless acceleration toward destructive power was not wisdom.
        Why are we incapable of having that same conversation about AI?"

From: "On Funding Digital Public Works" https://pdfernhout.net/on-fund...
====
What have funding policies in automotive intelligence wrought?

Consider again the self-driving cars mentioned earlier which now cruise some streets in small numbers. The software "intelligence" doing the driving was primarily developed by public money given to universities, which generally own the copyrights and patents as the contractors. Obviously there are related scientific publications, but in practice these fail to do justice to the complexity of such systems. The truest physical representation of the knowledge learned by such work is the codebase plus email discussions of it (plus what developers carry in their heads).

We are about to see the emergence of companies licensing that publicly funded software and selling modified versions of such software as proprietary products. There will eventually be hundreds or thousands of paid automotive software engineers working on such software no matter how it is funded, because there will be great value in having such self-driving vehicles given the result of America's horrendous urban planning policies leaving the car as generally the most efficient means of transport in the suburb. The question is, will the results of the work be open for inspection and contribution by the public? Essentially, will those engineers and their employers be "owners" of the software, or will they instead be "stewards" of a larger free and open community development process?

Open source software is typically eventually of much higher quality and reliability because more eyes look over the code for problems and more voices contribute to adding innovative solutions. About 35,000 Americans are killed every year in driving fatalities, and hundreds of thousands more are seriously injured. Should the software that keeps people safe on roads, and which has already been created primarily with public funds, not also be kept under continuous public scrutiny?

Without concerted action, such software will likely be kept proprietary because that will be more profitable sooner to the people who get in early, and will fit into conventional expectations of business as usual. It will likely end up being available for inspection and testing at best to a few government employees under non-disclosure agreements. We are talking about an entire publicly funded infrastructure about to disappear from the public radar screen. There is something deeply wrong here.

And while it is true many planes like the 757 can fly themselves already for most of their journey, and their software is probably mostly proprietary, the software involved in driving is potentially far more complex as it requires visual recognition of cues in a more complex environment full of many more unpredictable agents operating on much faster timescales. Also, automotive intelligence will touch all of our lives on a daily basis, where as aircraft intelligence can be generally avoided in daily life.

Decisions on how this public intellectual property related to automotive intelligence will be handled will affect the health and safety of every American and later everyone in any developed country. Either way, the automotive software engineers and their employers will do well financially (for example, one might still buy a Volvo because their software engineers are better and they do more thorough testing of configurations). But which way will the public be better off:
* totally dependent on proprietary intelligences under the hoods of their cars which they have no way of understanding, or instead
* with ways to verify what those intelligences do, understand how they operate, and make contributions when they can so such automotive intelligences serve humane purposes better?

If, for example, automotive intelligence was developed under some form of copyleft license like the GNU General Public License, then at least car owners or their "software mechanics" would be assured they could have access to the software in source form to ensure safe operation. What might be "street legal" in terms of software modifications might be a different story -- in the same way people can't legally drive with a cracked windshield or a broken headlight. For example, software changes might need to first be proven safe in simulation before being provisionally "street legal". But, the important thing is, foundations or government agencies funding code development could insist on some form of free licensing terms for automotive intelligence as a matter of public policy.

There are many other areas of human activities that the exponential growth of technology will effect. Automotive intelligence is just one of them that is here now and which I am familiar with from tangential interactions at universities with people developing it. In enough time similar issues will arise for the software behind household robotics or intelligent devices that assist the elderly or handicapped. The IBOT wheelchair by Dean Kamen using complex software to balance on two wheels is just the beginning of such devices.

Note the IBOT wheelchair was developed entirely with private funds it seems, so the reasoning in this essay does not apply directly to it. Also, in general Dean Kamen is a role model of a socially responsible for-profit inventor. Still, the issue arises of whether "Johnson & Johnson" should be funding such development, as was the case, as opposed to, say, the "Robert Wood Johnson Foundation", as was not, given the public policy issue of whether individuals should be continually dependent for personal needs on proprietary software. In either case it would be worth it to pay billions for such innovation, and the public will pay that in the end as a toll on for such devices.

There is a real question here of how our society will proceed -- mainly closed or mainly open. It is reflected in everything the non-profit world does -- including the myths it lives by. The choice of myth can be made in part by the funding policies set by foundations and government agencies. The myth that funders may be living by is the scarcity economics myth. How does that myth effect the digital public works funding cycle?
====

Glad to see more people -- including also with Princeton roots -- taking up the cause!!! :-)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"One day, shortly before Christmas, an insect becomes jammed in a teleprinter, which misprints a copy of an arrest warrant it was receiving. This leads to the arrest and death during interrogation of cobbler Archibald Buttle instead of suspected terrorist Archibald Tuttle. ..."