I agree. I mentioned "obsessing" because that is the vibe I got from the post I was replying to. I believe you can eat healthy without worrying too much about it. How to eat well isn't complicated, nor is it secret knowledge. It shouldn't require significant brain bandwidth to do it right.

I will add that allowing oneself some exceptions is good for mental health (for instance eating cake and drinking alcohol is generally not great, but a slice of cake with a bit of sparkling wine on a special occasion can foster one's happiness, just don't have a special occasion every day).

This research is about specific subsets of the population and therefore also not supporting your general claim.

I only looked at the first and last link so far, neither supports your claim.

The first one essentially says that some subgroup of older people have lower nutrient intake in general, and that it includes lower protein intake. After a quick glance, it does say "below recommendation" but does not offer evidence of degraded health. In other words, it could also be that the recommendation is not fit for older people. The same article also says that overall, older people have "better" nutrient intake. By the way, nutrition recommendations vary vastly from one country to another, including across developed countries.

The last article says that increased protein intake made no difference in the experiment, which directly contradicts your claim.

This does not motivate me to check the other links, or to believe your claim.

Citation needed. Common wisdom is actually the opposite.

Also I'm not sure why it all needs to be so complicated. Eat with diversity and with little processed food, don't eat more than you need, don't drink sugar instead of water and you'll be fine. It's a solved problem for a long time already, at least for people with access to food and without bad genetic luck. It's not rocket science.

Obsessing about all these things is mentally unhealthy, and mental health is health.

What are you referring to? Can you provide a link?

They're still getting it wrong and talking about integration instead of interoperability.

Every time I use their products it's a horrible experience. Think Teams, OneDrive. What I hear about recent Windows versions isn't great either. My understanding is that few people use Microsoft products because they want to, it usually is because they have to. "Provide inferior products but make sure people still have to use them" is great logic for a drug lord, but most people here don't appreciate it, or the impact it has on the world and on their work environment.

Should it matter? The founders weren't gods, they did their best for their time. They made mistakes, and times have changed. Amend the constitution, make it illegal.

Came here to say essentially this, it's not my country but I still wish collecting this kind of information on this kind of scale were illegal. In every country.

The other thing is, making it illegal only works as long as you don't have authoritarians in power. Once they are in power, they will allow it and everyone is fucked. Imagine if Nazis had access to modern technology when they were tracking every Jewish person.

What point are you trying to make? Unless attacking Iran is done to free the Iranian people from oppression, "current regime bad" is irrelevant. And the USA government is not even pretending that it's about freeing the Iranian people from tyranny.

That has been working so well with Russia.

Thanks for the context, I find it interesting. Is it not still the case though that the power company can choose to stop servicing homes to start servicing a data centre, because there is no regulation against it? Or asked differently: could it be that there are lots of regulations in that market but also that they are not directly relevant to that point?

I think it's more "thanks, free market!" than "thanks, AI bros!". In a free market there is nothing to prevent this kind of phenomenon to emerge. Unless you assume that everyone acts for the good of the community. But one premise of free market proponents is that people act selfishly.

This story is essentially a demonstration of the negative effect of a marker that is too free. This could be solved with market regulation. Something like "require data centers to produce their own energy" or "tax energy sale to data centers" or whatever smart policy makers come up with.

I wasn't talking about wood in particular, but about your general argument that it's about freedom. You have not answered my question. I assume that you agree that it is generally sane to limit one's personal and individual freedom for the benefit of everybody else.

"not as bas as the worst peaks of the past 35 years" is not a rebuttal to "they are struggling". They could still be struggling, it's just not the hardest it's been.