And BTW, to all the people obssessed with "paleo" / "cave men" diets and think that means "meat":

While there certainly were (just like today) some hunter-gatherer societies (such as in the high arctic) that got most of their calories from meat, the average hunter-gatherer got the majority of their calories from plants. But not highly bred high-calorie plants, but rather high-fibre wild plants, meaning that they had to eat significantly more of these fibre-loaded plants. Your average hunter-gatherer ancestor ate way more fibre than a person eating a "modern" diet today eats.

A proper "paleo" / "cave man" diet isn't a high-meat diet - it's a high fibre diet.

No, the last fad was antioxidants. Bodybuilders being obsessed with protein is entirely different from maxing protein in normal consumer food products (even things as non-protein-related as water itself)

Do be careful with that. Do remember that inflammation isn't inherently bad. Inflammation is the activity of the innate immune system, doing things like fighting/preventing disease and cancer surveillance/attack. Just shutting down inflammatory reactions (for example, long-term taking prednisone or an equivalent steroid treatment) can certainly make you feel great, but can significantly shorten your expected lifespan.

Don't get me wrong, if you have a chronic inflammatory disease, it absolutely needs treatment, and the medical system is often pathetically bad about treating them. Chronic inflammation itself can even lead to cancer, such as lymphoma. But you need to find a targeted way to control your specific condition. For example, if you have say Sjögren's with small fibre neuropathy, an appropriate treatment might be IVIG or something like HyQvia or Hizentra - not broad-based immunosuppression. Unfortunately, such treatments are expensive, and doctors often resist prescribing them, or patients end up in insurance-denial hell.

They really haven't. Nutrition science has been a process of refinement as we've learned more over time. E.g.:

"Fat is bad"
"Saturated fat is bad, non is good"
"Saturated fat is bad, monounsaturated is good, polyunsaturated is bad. Oh, and trans fat is really bad."
"Well, among the polys, omega 3s are good, others are bad"
Many refinements later: "Concerning this specific fat molecule, the health impacts are X, except there's evidence that people with Y genetics have Z impact..."

The earlier statements weren't wrong, they were just overly broad.

This is part of why I had the new "ultraprocessed" label. We've been working so hard to separate out what specific things are causing what impacts, and then they just leap backwards and lump everything back together again : Homemade doughnuts deep-fried in coconut oil and lard: "not ultraprocessed". Store whole-grain bread: "ultraprocessed". Such a moronic grouping. Yes, the average of the ultraprocessed category is worse than the average of the non-ultraprocessed category, but that says nothing about individual foods. It's also a back door for anti-tech/anti-science woo to sneak into food science.

The issue is that this is only relevant to sustenance farmers, people with certain diseases, and alcoholics.

It's almost impossible to end up with an essential amino acid deficiency eating any "normal" modern diet. Even a vegan eating junk food is going to get sufficient quantities (they're going to suck at bodybuilding, but they're not going to get deficiency symptoms). There's too many staples that go into modern food. Nobody eats "only corn", "only wheat", "only potatoes", "only soy", or whatnot; it's always a mix. And there's no need to get everything all at once within a single meal - it's fine for it to be spread out not just between meals within a given day, but across multiple days.

Yeah, even on a vegan junk food diet, it's almost impossible for a modern person to not get all the amino acids they need, for the simple reason that there's not just one plant used in vegan junk food - corn, wheat, potato, soy, etc - and together, even if their protein is watered down with a lot of carbs and fat, any realistic mix still hits sufficient levels of essential amino acids, as the required amounts of each to avoid deficiency aren't huge.

Vegans have other actual things to worry more about. B12, for example, requires fortification or supplements (the body stores years worth at a time, but eventually you will run out if you don't consume it). Iron is highly likely to be in the low-but-acceptable to deficient range if either the diet isn't specifically high-iron or supplements taken. Some other minerals are real but lesser risks than iron as well. Etc.

Re: protein, they're surely talking about "in a modern diet, without disease, alcoholism, etc". Of course people in sustenance diets can readily end up with protein deficiency. Some diseases can cause it, and severe alcoholism can lead people to it as well. But a "normal" person eating any "normal" modern diet doesn't really need to think about whether they're getting enough protein.

Now, deficiency aside, people working on muscle building do need to actually think about what they're eating. But again most go too far - benefits taper off after about 1,6-2,2g/kg-d. There's some uncertainty about these figures, and it's possible that there may be some benefit to somewhat higher protein intake, but there's no benefit to living off of an extreme protein diet like some do.

Yeah, the grocery stores in Iceland stock huge amounts of "Collab" sparkling water, whose main selling point is that it contains "marine collagen". Aka fish skin. People are buying fish skin soda. En masse.

This world is insane.

This is the wrong tool for the job. Zero knowledge proofs are simply a means for both parties to agree they possess the same secret information without divulging any secrets to an eavesdropper in the process. There always has to be some OOB means of both parties selecting which set of secrets they will be agreeing upon.

The technology that would be used looks more like an authorization token. The Internet site has a trust anchor comprised of public keys of age verification services. The user gets an authorization token from the verification service and hands it to the Internet site which uses the trust anchor to verify authenticity. The authorization token would simply be constructed in a way that does not divulge identity.

This would deny the Internet site access to the users identity while concurrently just as importantly never requiring any communication between the Internet site and age verification service itself.

The problem with this approach is the user would either keep having to get new tokens from the verification provider or such tokens themselves would end up effectively serving as tracking cookies. I think it could be largely solved by the provider belching out a bunch of different tokens at once the user could rotate between before getting more.

This leaves collusion with the age verification service which I can't think of a single reason anyone should ever trust. Even if they could the system would be completely worthless in practice given the effectively infinite pool of over age people identities could be lifted.

To say nothing of the obvious political issues with these schemes being fundamentally incompatible with a free society.

Music charts died with Casey Kasem.

This isn't saying much. GDPR has improved neither privacy nor security. EU regulation has the same effectiveness of CA cancer warnings.

It is none of Google's business what software any of us run on our own computers.

And now they are publicly boasting about it expecting to be rewarded for their efforts.

Are you sure it wouldn't be able to figure it out anyway?

This is premature. All anyone knows at this point is one persons story. Actual context and circumstances matter.

Depends, would I want someone to publicly tell me to "go fuck myself"?

Been around enough shops to see the boards sales goons keep with their rankings. Seems to be common enough for everyone to know where everyone else in the shop stands. (public shame or fame included) For me the question of the pies.. aside from volunteering to participate how it was actually intended and received not the facts of what occurred.

Personally I'd take this arrangement (and the pies) any day over performance reviews at shit companies I've worked for in the past. At least here judgement is objective and not contingent upon mental disorders and the political scheming of lazy hacks.

I don't think legal liability should be based on what people want.

I disagree with this sentiment. I think some competition which necessarily implies public awareness of the performance of others is healthy in any organization.

This is an assumption on your part based on one persons story.

This "tell us" "without telling us" rhetoric is a pointless entirely derisive device that conveys no objective information of any kind.