Clever girl

Well, you’re each focused a bit much on your own tree, but the one who is also seeing the forest is velma, not you.

Your tree: “negative” applies to the entire sentence, including “beliefs” and “behaviors”, not just “attitudes”. Correct.

velma’s tree: the definition also includes stereotyping and prejudice stemming from misconceptions. Correct.

The forest: that you don’t consider an attitude or belief “negative” is immaterial when it has a negative effect on bi folks’ well being or safety.

Also, initiating a sexual relationship with a bi person because you wrongly believe based on your incorrect stereotype of bi people that this will lead to threesomes is something I would classify as negative behavior. Especially when the threesomes predictably don’t materialize.

These things are not analogous. Trump isn’t saying “vote for me and if I win I’ll use my newly invested powers to give you xyz”.
He’s saying “vote for my friends and I’ll use the power I already have to give you xyz”.
There’s definitely a difference, the second being much more coercive. Imagine if instead he threatened to send people to fight in Iran if republicans didn’t win the midterms. Whether this is illegal I don’t know, but it should be.

It’s also much weaker rhetorically. You can’t say “I haven’t given you the $5k yet because I didn’t have power before”.

I almost mentioned French, but thought it didn’t need to catch strays here haha.
To be honest I don’t know much about Esperanto, but it lacks one critical requirement - to be a world language. And realistically it has no chance to be. The number of people who speak it is a rounding error.

I think what has a real shot at happening instead is that English spelling simplifies gradually and organically until it is largely straightforward. That is if Chinese doesn’t end up as the next world language lol

It’s plausible that Americans are worse at this than foreigners, but English spelling is a crime and everyone who makes mistakes ought be excused on account of how ridiculous the “rules” are.
I know how to spell most of the words I use and I resent the fact that my memory is polluted with this otherwise useless knowledge.
In many other languages if you know how to say a word, you automatically know how to spell it. We need a world language with grammar as simple as English and spelling as straightforward as German.

Nice

In a decent IDE you can CTRL+click (or similar) on a function name to go to its definition. This is absolutely faster than scrolling, especially if you’ve got more than a couple dozen lines in the current file.

When splitting functionality into smaller functions you would ideally not have to keep implementation details of other functions in short term memory.
You only need to understand/remember the contents of the current function. Does it do what the name suggests? Cool, you’re done checking it.

Of course, the “2 hard problems in computer science” meme exists for a reason - it’s not always straight forward to come up with good names. But in my experience, even when coming up with a fitting name is difficult, reducing nesting usually helps a lot with comprehension, mainly because it reduces scope and thereby the amount of information you need to hold in your head.
The larger a function gets, the harder it is to check that it does what it’s supposed to.

There is of course a balance to strike - trying to force every single function to be at most 3 lines is likely to make the code more difficult to understand and is, in my eyes, almost pathological. But a function that covers more than a screen is the other extreme that should be avoided when practical.

Yes. If the article doesn’t contradict anything that I already know and the correctness of the information isn’t required to avoid bodily harm or legal repercussions then I don’t usually check the sources.

There’s a world of difference between the reliability of a continuously, openly and cooperatively updated encyclopedia and that of a stochastic word prediction machine that ingested the entire internet - and only gods (and its owners) know what else.

Wikipedia’s articles tend to improve in accuracy over time, as more people see the same article, can discuss it and correct wrong information / add missing facts and sources.
While LLM models tend to become more capable at certain tasks, they aren’t increasingly reliable at providing accurate information. And there aren’t the same stabilizing forces in play as with a human-edited encyclopedia. You can get correct answers today and incorrect answers tomorrow for the same question. Maybe it’s because the model was updated. Maybe it’s because you used sightly different words to ask the question. Maybe nothing changed and it was simply a random deviation because 0-temperature models aren’t flexible enough.

The point is, you have no way to know. No way of knowing why the answer is wrong this time. No way of ensuring it isn’t wrong again tomorrow. Not even any way of ensuring it isn’t wrong in the same way tomorrow.

So it’s not just that the likelihood of a wrong answer is higher with AI, it’s also much harder to predict what kind of error it might make or when or why and adjust accordingly.
You’re essentially playing roulette for information.

Ideally nutritional facts would be given both per 100g and per some reasonable serving size (as well as clearly specifying the serving size), but if I can only have one give me 100g.
Note that while only the 100g figures are required by law, most products in Europe include the ones for serving size as well, so I’m not sure what shitty labeling people are supposedly prideful of.
Personally I would also like a section for figures per the entire package but that’s exceedingly rare.

US labeling is perhaps more convenient more often, but it also frequently misleads/hides information from the consumer which I think is much worse.

The kneejerk reactions are justified IMO. You don’t need to “minimize” peas and carrots to have a healthy diet. Obviously they shouldn’t be all you eat, but that holds for pretty much all foods - balance is key.

There’s several issues with your source.

First, it would have been nice of you to link to the relevant figure so others aren’t forced to comb through the whole thing.

Second, it’s important to point out that this data only shows correlation. The data is interesting for sure, but one should be cautious about demonizing a particular food group based on this alone, considering that the main point of the study was to analyze the health benefits of particular diets rather than food groups.
(note also that fast/fried foods got a positive score, which makes me further apprehensive about drawing quick conclusions from this data)

Third, this study focused on health professionals only. I don’t know why it shouldn’t generalize to the general population but it is not a given that it does.

Most importantly, it is not clear (to me at least) that peas and carrots are part of the category “starchy vegetables” according to this study. I couldn’t find any explicit description of the categories, please let me know if there is one in the study or one of its sources.
From what I could find online, peas can be considered starchy vegetables, but carrots usually aren’t. For instance, this site classifies both carrots and some types of peas as non-starchy.