Absolutely we agree. Being able to recognize and intelligently question bad science does not appear to have much overlap with conservatives, at least in America.
The only point I'm making is that it's nonsensical for you to claim to be receiving "Soros bucks" for shilling ultra-processed food as healthy. That's not a stance the Soros foundation takes.
It's true, some people do lack the language skills to understand vague or ambiguous terms, even in context. Ultra-processed is certainly a vague term. "Incoherent" is a trait on the recipient's end rather than a trait of the term though.
The solution is to improve our education system so these people can understand ambiguous language. Not only will this resolve arguments around the colloquial use of "ultra-processed" but it will improve society overall by increasing the communication ability of some of its currently less skilled memebers.
I'm sure the label seems incoherent to you. It must be frustrating seeing others discuss things that you can't make sense of.
The insight I offer, is that for many, a term may be both vague and lack a rigorous scientific definition, while still being meaningful and useful. This is a foundational concept and if you manage to internalize it I suspect that "ultra-processed" will be only one among many things that will begin to appear coherent to you.
We've already established liguistics is not your field. You would benefit from gaining even a layman's understanding of it though.
I do work as a scientist, but it's not so core to my identity that I throw tantrums over internet comments failing to adhere to the same professional rigor.
> I don't care if it's useful to you
> such sloppiness would never be accepted in my field.
Braden dismissing useful tools and willful blindness to things beyond your exact field, I daresay you are a bad scientist.
Do you genuinely not understand the difference between "tends to be unhealthy" and "is always 100% unhealthy"? Do you not understand how the classification is useful even if it contains exceptions?
You're missing that from the conversation, where myself and others have stated it repeatedly, not from the wikipedia page.
> How is the food unhealthy? By having lots of fats?
Yes.
> Or high salt?
Yes, that too.
> Or high sugar?
Yes, very much this.
> Is it perhaps the ingredients that make it unhealthy?
Also true. For example: while preservatives like sodium benzoate are not used in unhealthy quantities in any individual item of food, a diet high in ultraprocessed foods can consume unsafe levels.
Sure my point is that what we’re actually talking about is the ingredients themselves, not how they’re processed. Except it’s through this roundabout way; if your worry is sodium benzoate, it doesn’t matter if the food was extruded, deep fried, or emulsified, all that matters is if it has sodium benzoate.
And we don’t need a proxy for that. We need proper labelling of ingredients.
> if your worry is sodium benzoate, it doesn’t matter if the food was extruded, deep fried, or emulsified, all that matters is if it has sodium benzoate.
Sure, but my worry isn't just sodium benzoate. It's also deep frying, or lots of sugar, or just being vacuously caloric while not providing saiety.
There are a lot of different things done to foods that tend to make them variously unhealthy to consume in quantity, a problem not shared by, say, cucumber or carrots. "Ultra-processed" is a useful linguistic catch all for these.
Some people lack the language skills to deal with terms that are not rigorously defined from a scientific sense, which honestly speaks to a failure of the education system rather than the term being a problem.
I have no idea what you're trying to say here. What it sounds like you're saying is that it is possible for processing to make a product unhealthy, and unlikely for processing to make a product more healthy.
What other people are saying is that this communicates almost nothing. What it does is allow people who are doing very bizarre things to food to hide among people who are doing pretty well known, well-tested, and ancient things to food. It's literally an argument to ignore the specifics, it's an argument for ignorance.
Certainly your first sentence is true. And you're right; what you said you think I said, communicates almost nothing. If it were what I were saying, it would be an argument for ignorance.
The analogy would be if whatever company releases a product that people see out in the wild and it's so good at what it does that they want more of it based on word of mouth.
Performing is just showing up at comedy shows and doing your bit. That alone would not have made him successful.
He aggressively promoted and marketed himself!
Biggest example: Going on Letterman and other corporate talk shows / interviews (he went on Letterman 12 times to promote himself, not making much money, purely for driving awareness - classic pr marketing technique that he used repeatedly)
He also went far beyond live acts when he started monetizing his recorded acts that were playing/distributing through corporate partners. Those recordings and specials were heavily marketed and he benefited from it because it created scale.
The quantity of people isn't relevant, it's the quantity of people by age.
Older people, en masse, become a burden. If you add another 43 million people aged over 60 on top of your 43 million from 1900, suddenly that 86 million is less productive than the original 43 million.
Currently Japan has ~41 million people aged 0-40, ~41 million aged 40-60, and ~41 million aged 60+
Inflation-adjusted price per piece has actually been declining over the years, dropping from ~$0.25 to a current $0.10 on average. This set is $0.06 per piece, so even less expensive than a median set by that metric.
Someone should invent a metric for when prices inflate across the board, making the purchasing power of a currency unit go down. Then people could control for prices over time.
reply