Yeah, in JavaScript I'll pretty much only write nested functions to use them as scope control, and usually I don't intend for that function to be callable elsewhere. Otherwise, I prefer writing functions that are as "pure" as possible, even if that means having to pass in many parameters each call.
What would be an acceptable level of evidence that could convince you? Mitochondria even have their own DNA. The hypothesis that mitochondria were originally their own bacteria might not be confirmed via a lab experiment, but I'm not sure why you find it that silly of an idea.
Will we ever get away from this cliche? I loathe it because it's not only a cliche but I don't believe it actually helps the lay person understand the role of mitochondria. It's not completely inaccurate since they're effectively refining energy substrates (fat, glucose) into ATP by converting ADP in the TCA cycle; ATP becomes ADP again from energy expenditure and the cycle repeats, to oversimplify things. Are we adequately teaching people that mitochondria don't create or release (utilizable) energy? I kind of doubt it. But maybe I'm just annoyed from hearing that descriptor a bajillion times starting from middle school.
I don't know, you make it sound like a pretty good analogy to me.
A coal power plant take a form stored energy which is relatively difficult to use because it has to be burnt with oxygen producing harmful waste products, and turns that energy into electricity which is easier to use in a variety of applications.
A mitochondria take a form of energy which is relatively difficult to use, sugars and fats, because they must be respired with oxygen producing harmful waste products, and turns that energy into ATP which is easier to use in a variety of applications.
Note that the abstract (since I can't read the full article; not on sci-hub) mentions that he has hypercholesterolemia, and doesn't specify whether this was actually caused by diet alone or because of genetics.
I've likely had orders of magnitude more cheese and butter than this guy, and I've yet to have yellow nodules or the 10 heart attacks I apparently should have had by now. Both of us are N=1 case studies, so basically meaningless outside of identifying a particular clinical condition.
That would be only a single order of magnitude. "Orders of magnitude", plural, implies at least two orders of magnitude, which would be at least 300kg of cheese per day. I think you are responding to someone who was not very concerned with whether what they were saying was true or false.
Listen guys, I don't even drink water, just liquid cheese, and after my daily cheese cleanse (don't ask, too graphic,) I feel great. People always ask where I get this sharp cheddar cologne, but the scent comes naturally.
I thought the same, but an open question for me (now) is what happens if you eat 3000 calories of protein and 3000 calories of fat or even carbohydrate. You have sufficient calories that your body doesn't need to metabolize protein for energy, but what happens to all the excess protein you consumed?
I assumed the excess protein would be undigested, but can't back that up with a citation.
There should be enough fat in 12000 calories to avoid rabbit starvation.
I did not consider the load of metabolizing all that protein and assumed the body would eliminate what it didn't need. They're might be something in protein toxicity here.
If the ratio of fat to protein is high, and exogenous carbohydrates is relatively low in contrast, insulin levels should be closer to baseline (than a standard diet), as well as blood glucose, thereby keeping the Randle cycle minimized and so consumed energy gets used more by an on-demand basis or it gets dumped (literally). Part of the reason we poop is because, if our bodies literally used all of the mass we consume, we would either get too large in short order or spontaneously combust.
I don't think someone here is lying. There may be some level of exaggeration, as in my experience a lot of cheese (particularly hard cheeses) can lead to extremely painful stools, but calories really aren't as meaningful as one might assume, especially when switching from a diet that directly supplies carbohydrate and one that doesn't.
The human body needs a certain amount of glucose in the blood, but it can't get that from fats (at least as far as I am aware). It can obtain it from protein through a process called gluconeogenesis, but that's a relatively expensive process that requires more ATP than what ultimately results from it. The human body also treats that process in a more demand-driven manner than one where exogenous carbohydrates are consumed. This isn't an absolute, but it's generally less supply-driven. If protein can't be used for glucose or building tissue, it's more likely to become waste eventually.
No, that's not what I was saying. There have been times where I've eaten about that much cheese in a day, but I've been eating abundant amounts of butter and cheese for much longer than that gentleman and have yet to have encountered any hypercholesterolemic symptoms. I did an experiment for maybe ~4 months around 7 years ago where I ate pretty much nothing but cheese and butter, and I consumed substantial amounts of both. I wish I recorded it properly. It would have been in the multiple of pounds. But outside that experiment, it's not uncommon for me to eat more than a pound of cheese alone in a day.
If it were a given that eating lots of fat leads to extremely high levels of cholesterol, my irises would look at bit strange by now at the very least.
Now excuse me while I go eat about a pound of eggs and cheddar cheese for breakfast. (not a joke)
During that particular experiment. Without knowing the further details about that subject, I have been eating multiple pounds of highly fatty meat and cheese with the addition of butter daily for several years. It would be surprising to me that 2 to 3 pounds wouldn't show signs of mild hypercholesterolemia but 6 pounds a day would suddenly result in yellow nodules all over the place. It also doesn't make sense for this to happen to someone who isn't hypercholesterolemic based on how cholesterol is normally handled by the liver. It's a tightly regulated system.
Speaking as someone with familial hyperlipidemia / hypercholesterolemia and based on many years of conversations with multiple lipidologists…
Heterozygous FH will typically put someone at a total cholesterol roughly around 500mg/dl, and homozygous will get them closer to the 1000mg/dl mark. Dietary factors for most people will affect their lipids up to +/- 40mg/dl, and medication is generally required for anything beyond that.
For the gentleman with cholesterol nodules, that’s a not-unheard of symptom of homozygous FH and the associated cholesterol levels. I’m sure his diet is exacerbating it, however I would be genuinely surprised if that were the primary cause of his count being > 1000mg/dl. (With homo-FH and an extremely restricted diet, he’d still be unlikely to get below 900mg/dl)
Anecdotal, but if you follow carnivore diet groups on Facebook/IG etc you'll frequently see posts from people with TC over 500mg/dl. For example, the carnivorecringe IG account posted someone's labs in December who had a TC of 669 and an LDL of 558.
It's quite possible that it's a combination of diet and genetics, but people can quite easily get to incredibly harmful LDL levels with diet alone.
Edit: here's a case study of someone getting to TC of 488.7mg/dL. I think you'll struggle to get higher quality data than case studies because these kinds of diets are (thankfully) fairly uncommon and no ethics board is going to sign off on an intervention study that's likely to raise blood lipids by this kind of level.
Edit: misread your comment, apologies… I’m not sure about inducing it in people based on diet, as that seems to go against any desirable outcome, but this is a link to another FH case presenting cholesterol nodules:
Scihub has not updated their index for years, and is effectively dead. The article is not on Annas-archive either, but at least there is a chance it will show up eventually.
I am calling BS on this as a daily consumption diet, you would have to have a helluva constitution to pull this off and definite competitive eating levels of body control. You would need to completely override your brain’s satiety center. I eat a keto diet and it’s impossible for me to eat even a tenth this amount daily.
Having ebooks at all is a pretty new feature, and their whole thing is being an alternative to Amazon so of course they're not going to want to use Kindle's DRM.
That being said, this is a very new product. I would be extremely surprised if they didn't end up adding a search filter for DRM-free ebooks. For now, you could just search for books published by Tor or other publishers that you know don't use DRM.
Yeah, that's a no then. I'm not buying something tied to "Adobe Digital Editions" DRM (and even less something even more proprietary I can't read on my ereader).
It's one of the worst pieces of software I've ever had the pleasure to suffer from, and I'll only tolerate it for library books, definitely not for something I "own".
It's still a horrible system. It's impossible to deauthorize lost/broken devices, it's unclear how many slots I have left at any given time, and the web interface to manage my account looks like it's been on it's last leg for about at least the past 15 years.
It's amazing how many are in denial about this. If it were so self evident that cheaper apartments were worthwhile to developers in LA, then we'd be seeing more new ones being built as opposed to the luxury megacomplexes that have been popping up everywhere.
McMansion is a Texan thing. New homes in LA are a fairly boxy west coast style. Box housing maximizes square footage use and takes advantage of the fact that it doesn't really snow in LA so no very sloping roof is needed.
Wow, that is tremendously messed up! I'm sorry you had to experience that. Kind of makes my young adult life sound like a cake walk.
Ironically, it was the jocks and the gang affiliated kids who always left me alone. I don't know exactly why, though I figured the jocks were popular enough to not waste their energy tormenting someone socially beneath them.
Anyway, I completely agree with what you've said. Whenever I experienced bullying, it was in close correlation to how callously indifferent the overall system was. The couple of schools I went to where I didn't experience trouble had empathetic teachers and administrators whom actually built trust with the students. The earlier schools I went to were mostly run by selfish teachers (whom I later learned were even more selfish than I realized at the time!) and administrators who would punish the bully and the victim equally out of laziness/callousness/stupidity; or look the other way entirely! Guess which ones I suffered under and which ones I didn't.
> If you're being bullied in elementary school you don't get friends. It could be that the bullying drives away friends, or if you had friends you wouldn't get bullied, or the same deficits that cause you to get bullied also cause you not to get friends. Just being in a safe environment is a basic human right.
I know you're referring to elementary school here, but I think this dynamic you're describing also explains why so many kids have a rotten time in middle school. Usually, middle school lasts only a few years, and can easily mean being separated from any sort of peer group you have for multiple reasons. If your friends are even slightly older or younger than you are, then one will have to face a year of middle school without them. Depending on where your friends live, they might end up in a different middle school even though you both went to the same elementary school.
Even though I did have one good friend in elementary school (we are still best friends today), he is a year older than I am, and even though we went to the same middle school I had to spend at least 1 year in elementary school without him and then another during my second year in middle school. And I know he had the same problem in reverse. When you're seen as having "no friends", even though you actually do, everyone treats you like you have the stink of death. Those were some of the worst years of my life.
I hate the stereotype in movies that jocks are bad.
There must be some bad apples but mostly they are focused on their sport and the team and don't have time or energy to make trouble, and if they do make trouble, they are off the team.
The time some people attacked me at my dorm I ducked into the room of the captain of the rugby team and that was the last time they came to my dorm. The captain of the football team at my high school was popular because he treated everybody well, I'd say the same about kids who were stars in youth soccer. In fact, even though I didn't feel terribly engaged with it at the time, youth soccer is a precious memory to me because it was one place where I was never mistreated (a group photo shows me standing next to the coach who probably gave me just a little extra attention because of my neurodivergence.)
Yup, I agree. I'm sure there's bad apples out there, but I had the least issues with jocks and popular people. Even in America, they didn't pick on me, and I was always confused by how vilified they were in popular media. Looking back, it was always these sort of middle of the road kids who were the problem; neither particularly popular nor at the bottom of the totem pole. Completely unremarkable, and with incredibly fragile egos.
Your analysis is on point. With some exceptions, popular people are usually popular for a valid reason.
There was this one guy I remember who wasn't exactly a jock, but sort of overlapped with them I guess. I'm pretty sure he played rugby. He had a great physique for a high schooler, was charming to everyone, and had the sort of look about him like he would become a "dreamboat doctor" as an adult. Anyway, I was doing miserably in chemistry class, not necessarily because I was bad at science but I was just having a tough time in school in general which made me unfocused. Without even asking him, he offered to help me study for my exams, and I took him up on it even though I did feel ashamed for needing help. With his help, I passed that class with what was the equivalent of a C grade in New Zealand. He became class president, and I know he was the one to deserve it. I'm grateful to this day that he was one of the few people during my school career who actually cared. And yeah, he was probably the most popular student there.
PTSD is misapplied quite a bit these days, though CPTSD (the C stands for complex) seems to be the most appropriate clinical definition for the kind of scattered traumatic damage people experience, especially from childhood.
Glad to know you've received the help that you needed and have been able to move on. I compartmentalized and put off working on my traumas for far longer than I should have. People underestimate how much a dysfunctional school environment can mess someone up even when the home environment is mostly healthy. I screwed up great relationships in large part because I still had trust issues and CPTSD triggers that I didn't even realize at the time.
No joke, I'd rather have only known the neighborhood kids growing up than have thousands of kids to socialize with while having fucked up things happen to me. So what if I wouldn't experience prom night? If it's not the right environment for me, then it's not worth it.
Thanks. Yes, CPTSD would be more accurate -- the result of a state of near-constant low-level fear. I had, and continue to have, massive trust issues, particularly at work. I struggle to think everyone doesn't secretly hate me and that I'm not constantly on the verge of getting fired, even though I can see it's not logical. Steadily getting better now thanks to CBT and similar techniques.
But I have lost many friends and career opportunities as a result of my time at school. I had a basically healthy and happy home environment, but as you say, school can still screw you up badly.
Not being supported by the adults who pretend to be trustworthy is nearly as damaging as the bullying itself. Like you, I would be punished alongside the perpetrator even if I didn't throw a single punch or insult. This is extremely toxic because it completely breaks trust and causes children to lose faith in the system they're in, and they shut down. I know I did. I stopped telling anyone my problems because experience told me saying anything only lead to more shame.
reply