Nutrition researchers know a lot about diet. Or at least what constitutes a good diet.
The reason you think “they don’t know” is a media ecosystem that hypes weak minor contrary results that usually disappear in further research and an entrenched trillion dollar food industry that spreads misinformation to get you to continue eating the foods they sell that have the highest markups, such as processed foods, meat and dairy.
I don’t believe we are seeing the investments necessary that would indicate this will happen.
Memory makers, for example, have sold out their inventory for several years, but instead of investing to manufacture more, they’re shutting down their consumer divisions. They’re just transferring their consumer supply to their B2B (read AI) supply instead.
Thats likely because they don’t expect this demand to last past a few years.
They have seen boom and bust cycles previously and are understandably wary of expanding capacity for expected demand that may fizzle. If they stay too conservative, China’s CXMT is chomping at the bit to eat their lunch, backed by the Chinese government, but that’s not going to help until late 2027 at best.
Consumer demand likely depends on how local models end up working out. Nothing else really needs serious local computing power anymore. My guess is that even high-end games will probably stagnate for a while.
Many users will not want to risk their privacy, data, and workflow on someone else's rapidly-enshittifying AI cloud model. Right now we don't have much choice, but there are signs of progress.
I would argue that the segment of the market whose purchases incentivize personal responsibility on their PCs is outweighed by the segment of the market blowing their disposable income on tablets and smartphones who just want things to work and want whatever they see other people using on social media.
We both know which segment of the market the large companies want to win that battle. They want to sell rented compute resources through nothing but impossible-to-locally-administrate devices where every sensor spies on you and it's impossible to store any data or documents locally, let alone privately.
Even One Drive is pushing hard to literally erase your hard drive and only host your documents on their servers.
High level games are far from stagnating, when viewed from usable performance.
Many new games cannot run max settings, 4k, 120hz on any modern gpus. We probably need to hit 8k before we max out on the returns higher resolution can provide. Not to mention most game devs are targeting an install base of $500 6 year old consumer hardware, in a world where the 5090 exists.
That's what I mean by stagnating... most players already can't run with max settings, or even close to them. From the developers' point of view there's not much point raising the bar any higher right now, while the best GPU hardware is so far out of reach of your average PC gamer.
How much capital would you invest in a capacity expansion for a trend that may or may not yet be durable? Now, how much would you invest when there are two major state-backed chinese entities that essentially aren't allowed to go bankrupt and have infinity money are competing with you?
All the reporting I’ve seen indicates that he left of his own accord and that Apple was blindsided, indicating that they didn’t even consider getting rid of him.
> It is objectively bad to feed your children ultra processed foods
It’s not “objectively bad”
To feed your children ultra processed foods.
Once you do the work of defining what ultra processed food is in the first place (which you cannot because there is no definition and your argument is already lost), you will find that many ultra processed foods are objectively good for children and adults.
But then your comment only tells you what parents shouldn’t feed kids. It doesn’t tell you anything about what they should.
And when you look into that things get a lot harder. Meat? Not ultraprocsssed but almost certainly bad for health, especially in anything more than minor amounts. You know what else isn’t ultra processed? Alcohol.
And I can’t help but comment on the ridiculousness of pointing to the percentage of children being the outcome of rape being less than 1% as a somehow low njmber, while ignoring that it was 64,000 children. And rape isn’t the only way parents may struggle or regret having kids. And you’re pretending post partum depression doesn’t exist. Then you ignore all the children born with illnesses that may make it difficult or impossible for parents to manage them. Then you’re ignoring all the states that allow abortions but parents may still not opt for them because of cultural, religious, or even personal ethical considerations. Then you’re ignoring the fact that so many American marriages end in divorce and even the ones that don’t may not remain as tight knit as they were when the parents made the decision to have a child.
Your entire comment is a whole bunch of wrong based on your personal experience, which thankfully appears to have been positive.
> It’s not “objectively bad” To feed your children ultra processed foods.
It is though, it's in the definition, UPF are distinguished from processed food by having additives of no culinary nor nutritional value. So at best, they aren't better than processed food, at worst, they have additive that increase negative health outcomes.
note that if an additive (let's say high-fructose corn syrup) have inferior nutritional value than the product it replace (let's say honey),it is considered UPF, even if the process is quick and easy (i.e: you don't need a big industrial process to be classified UPF)
That's the definition in my country at least, maybe it's different in the US. I think you mistakenly think UPF are the same as processed food. This isn't the case.
[edit] you're right that it isn't objectively bad, because its rare something is "objectively bad". It is objectively worse though.
A good example for upf that is not likely to be bad for you is (European style) frozen pizzas.
And I think your comment is wrong. Parent is right in saying that there is no clear definition of what exactly ultra processed food is. However, in general, processed does not mean having additives, it means processed, running through multiple industrial processes to be made.
> Parent is right in saying that there is no clear definition of what exactly ultra processed food is
The definition of upf is 'food having additive of no culinary or nutritional value'. That's the current definition.
The original nova definition is 'food with additive of no culinary value', which isn't useful for nutritionists, hence it evolved.
I seriously doubt all frozen pizza are upf, the main advantage of frozen food is that you don't have to add nitrite salt or other conservatives. Maybe in some pizzas, to keep colours bright?
That’s not a misleading statement for what they’re trying to say.
They wouldn’t disagree with what you say. The point they’re making is we don’t know. Maybe 92% of the remaining money is being spent usefully towards programs and 0% as overhead. Or maybe 0% usefully and 92% as overhead.
The IRS disclosure requirements are not sufficient to know. And yet we will give those donating to both organizations the same tax breaks.
The argument is to increase disclosure requirements for organizations through which so much money is passing so that we have a better idea as to how nether those tax breaks we’re giving are actually giving us any value in return.
My issue with this post isn’t so much the post itself but with what it demonstrates about culture today.
20 years ago one would have written the same post on Blogger but the odds are it would have been framed as “here’s how you can clean up the Firefox menu”.
It’s not like vitriolic content didn’t exist. But the vitriolic content was usually limited to holy war posts, when a Mac user was disparaging PCs or vice versa, or if it was a vim vs emacs conversation. And even then there was an understanding that no one was being entirely serious.
But in today’s social media/political environment, every post is turned up to 11.
I'm sure part of this is hindsight bias, but software was less intentionally user hostile in the before times.
Firefox used to release features that improved privacy. Today they add features that reduce privacy. Enabled by default, with no easy way to disable or remove the spyware link.
The tone should shift, in step with how much disrespect companies decide to inflict on their users.
This would be more relevant if the ui features being 'discussed' were privacy violating, but they're not. Anger about privacy violations (mostly by other software and companies) doesn't justify vitriol about right click context menus in an open source browser.
Objecting to your reply is exactly why I made my original comment. It's the same thing as the cliche; "we can talk about who's turn it is to do the dishes; but first we need to talk about why you're so upset about it?", or the other "you might not shoot the messenger, but you also won't invite him to dinner".
You might not feel the vitriol is warranted for this specific example, but you tell anyone that they are wrong to feel the way they do, at your own peril.
Is it that big of a deal? IMO, no and I say that as someone who was pissed off by it too. But then again the straw the breaks the camel's back never does seem heavy.
But in context:
> every post is turned up to 11.
Everyone is being disrespected all the time, from every direction. Here, it feels like Firefox is doing it too. Every one is already at 11, Firefox added an AI button nobody wanted, with no (real) way to disable it. And we now have an 11.05 post. As everyone paying attention would expect.
They want more users, so logically it cannot be intentional. More generally, we cannot know others' intentions, so the speculation is always redundant.
> It has enabled prosperity in some areas, like aiding drug research.
At first I scoffed at your idea that computing itself may not have been a good advancement.
And then I saw your example of where computers have helped and I’m wondering that even there, did the lives saved and the quality of life improvements from the accelerated drug research, outnumber the lives lost and the worsened lives quality of life because of hundreds of millions of people’s work now becoming being stuck in a chair behind a monitor and keyboard all day?
Working at a computer isn't a worse quality of life any more than any other job. It's actually pretty nice versus being a plumber or something. No sewage in the workplace.
CLI tools are designed to provide complete documentation using —help. Given LLMs are capable of fully understanding the output then how is the MCP standardization any better than the CLI —help standardization?
If the U.S. is losing talent to anywhere else in the world isn’t it losing a relative advantage or increasing a relative disadvantage with China, even if China is not the one benefiting from the lost talent?
The reason you think “they don’t know” is a media ecosystem that hypes weak minor contrary results that usually disappear in further research and an entrenched trillion dollar food industry that spreads misinformation to get you to continue eating the foods they sell that have the highest markups, such as processed foods, meat and dairy.
reply