Here's a review focused to some extent on how accurate the science in that book is:
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/how-not-to-die-review#TOC_TITLE_HDR_2
The author seems pretty focused on pushing a single message so I'd be careful with that message myself. (As someone who aspires to have a diet that's mostly vegetables with a few cheat days for meat.)
Fruits tend to get listed as low GI supporting the poster's statement.
Also, you're simplifying the chemistry and metabolic pathways to the point they sound the same when they're obviously different. I'm not an expert but I as I understand it table sugar is short chain and good to go, fruits (if they're not pre cooked) tend to be a bit more complicated and have a few more steps along the way (and I assume each requires some energy to unlock and also result in some chemical energy that isn't completely digested). Also, what you're saying goes a lot against what I understand from the carb count on the packet from fibre vs. what your body unlocks. That said, I'm very ignorant and far from an expert
Are you both from the US? It was rough getting used to how much you all like to drown out the food with various sauces
When did Ukrainian come into it? I went back to the article but half of it was behind a paywall
I just did a scroll through the posts returned for a search of "gary marcus" and didn't see too much. His newsletter hits a lot of the main beats if you just want occasional updates when something happens. It doesn't look too much like a channel exists though
Oh, I didn't say I had a preference. And I see your point that one is just a conjugation of the other. I've just seen capitalism as a term used more for explanation and when I've seen capitalist said it tends to have a negative connotation at best but more often it is half spat out
The question says capitalism (not so loaded term) your answer said capitalist (more loaded term and you've taken time to use the loaded part of the term).
That said, I accidentally replied to a question in lemmy.ml so the person asking the question is probably more aligned with your way of thinking and explaining than I am. Sorry about that
Duplicates of famous art isn't a thing? Street vendors selling print isn't a thing?
You choose to right click download and then... assume the only use anyone wants is to store their art in ones and zeros?
I think you need to prefix this with "some". I'm not sure your point even holds for "most"
An economic model that includes capitalism explains a lot of the world including having some close process analogs in nature.
A capitalist sounds like a label you're trying to apply in an attempt to label someone as being maximally for profits. A lot of companies admittedly work that way and it's important to include that concept.
By my reading you're taking the use of the first term and then saying they are using the second term. I think this is called equivocation.
For profit system!?
I'm pretty sure every time I've seen humans get together there's someone trying to get more of something than the other people. Even in communes or communities without money like jails (and in the romanticised tribal past). Some parts of economic theory help predict these outcomes even in places that aim for these ideals.
Where are you seeing evidence of a system that's close to what you're describing that's functional, stable over time, and more than a few isolated individuals?
What specifically in the original post did you have issue with? There's not a lot too that post, and you have agreed with part of it, so it seems like it would be faster to list out the issues