Just to be clear, you think the Ukrainians flew drones all the way to Moscow, navigated them around air defenses, and blew them up at refineries. But instead of filling the warhead with something that would damage the refinery they filled it with Hollywood pyrotechnics because they wanted to look like they damaged the refinery?
I just want to be really clear about what you believe.
I have read the article and resent the implication of your comment. Please see rule 1. As a moderator of two communities yourself I expected better conduct from you.
I think its pretty obvious there's a decent amount of sealioning going on so I think its OK to be a bit frank.
The paper cites two textbooks in nutrition for this quote, both of which are unavailable to me. If you have indeed read these sources, I invite you to cite them here in full so we may discuss them.
I guess my question would be, is the author of this article trustworthy or not. I'm going to take a wager you didn't interrogate all the over 100 articles cited by the author with as much scrutiny as those 2. Are you able to access the ones cited that reaffirm your beliefs?
For your future reference, c/carnivore is a community for the discussion of metabolic health and its related topics.
The carnivore community is for the discussion of eating meat. Something I want to be clear, I'm not intrinsically opposed to, but the fact you're pretending otherwise makes me think you're engaged in motivated reasoning.
We insist that you cite primary sources because systemic lack of rigour is how "nutrition science" is such a mess in the first place.
This article is literally written by an industry lobbyist. This paper is one of the reasons the state of nutrition science is terrible. The amount of money pumped in to provide P hacked results is substantial and one has to consider the source when evaluating what's being said.
I would encourage you to read the quote from this very article, in this very thread, in which a meat industry lobbyist says fiber is one of the elements of your diet that provide an undoubtible health benefit.
I agree, but I don't think the article is really about the Atlantic's commitment to creating meaningful change. I think it hits on something important though, which is that those who were most ardently combatting climate change have now pivoted to other political topics or backslid on their commitments.
Climate change is as important as ever but a lot of people on the ground and those in power can't seem to give a shit.
I didn't say it was essential. I'm saying it's beneficial. But that sort of rhetorical reframing is the reason why posting here is unproductive.
Other articles posted here imply fiber is deleterious to a proper diet, something which is the nutritional equivalent of the flat earth. I'm sure I could post articles, but arguing over the basic science of nutrition seems less fun than goading said flat earthers into buying atomic clocks.
The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Meat and Livestock Australia supported D. Rodgers and M. Kavanaugh in the creation of this commentary
DR is a paid consultant for Meat and Livestock Australia and accepts speaking and travel fees for meat and livestock producer groups including the Canadian Cattle Foundation and Instituto Nacional de Carnes (Uruguay)
Even after taking money from cattle industry groups they still have this in it.
Plant foods undoubtedly confer a health benefit, contributing soluble and insoluble fiber, micronutrients, as well as various phytonutrients and bioactive compounds, that are limited in most animal-source foods
Maybe not the right propaganda for the carnivore sub.
This article isnt sayjng "renewables are bad". Its saying "EPR is good". We need those frameworks in place preferably before we get more panels ending up in landfills, because that's simply wasteful.
size and weight of a car
blocks of ice measuring 4 ft × 4 ft × 2 ft.
This you?
Because 32 cubic ft is about the volume of most residential AC units.
Is it?
92kWh/m^3 of energy is a lot of cooling. It'd be hard to not be effective.
I think youre misunderstanding one thing, which is that the ice is a replacement for batteries. While the system had a small battery for running a small pump and fan, its a small cheap one that doesn't store much and the water has substantially more energy, equivalent to something like a large lithium battery.
The thermal battery is also far smaller, cheaper, and more robust than a lithium battery and it won't deteriorate with repeated cycling. The obvious trade off is that in this case it can only be used for refrigeration and only down to 0C. So while its very niche, it is quite effective for home air conditioning.
I know a lot of wonderful individuals who deserve the dignity of not having that slur used in common parlance and also not having their disabilities being compared to .ml users. The .ml guys are almost universally bad people and they are not.