dream_weasel

Is red lobster run by sovcits? Was the article written by sovcits? Where are the sovcits, Mr Bones?!

I have been to some nice places for seafood, but in my city there's only red lobster if you need a crab fix. It does the job, but it's getting pricey for what you get.

Or at least the same number of numbers.

That definitely looks like a guy who would have ploopy open source headphones.

It's just another source of information. Treating that source as absolute truth without understanding it yourself is ignorant.

And thinking your cursory understanding of a subject from a few sources you picked is just as good as someone who DID study it is equal parts naive, arrogant, and stupid.

Lol shut up I have two kids, a PhD and almost 20 years experience running a university research lab BEFORE my current job.

You don't have to understand that low dose fluoride is good for your teeth for it to be true. You don't have to understand that vaccines improve community health, or that getting enough movement throughout the day is good for heart health, or that eclipses don't cause electromagnetic anomalies for those things to be true either.

Planning to trust yourself more then experts in a field is naive to the point of being delusional. Especially if you're thinking you can go read a paper or two and "understand" it enough to be an intellectual peer of someone who actually invested years of time. No matter who you are, even if you're Einstein reincarnated, you're not that smart.

You don't have to listen blindly to every person, but listening to the consensus of people who know more than you isn't religion, it's a heuristic for making better decisions.

No that is not how expertise works. You cannot be an expert at everything: there's not enough time for one and not everyone is even capable for two. In fact, most people are decidedly NOT capable of being experts about MOST things. If someone spends their life working in an area (not watching YouTube videos about it), their perspective in that area is BETTER and is more worthy of consideration. A consensus among experts prevents any one individual from taking advantage of a situation and is even more worthy of consideration.

Have you ever been wrong? If so, there's no reason to consider to your comment because your input is irrelevant.

It is possible to be a good source of information that has come to the wrong conclusion using the best information provided. As long as you update your conclusions as more information becomes available, no harm no foul.

Needs washed, but you can just heat the oil on the stove if you've seasoned the thing in the first place.

Thx sorry I didn't read all your comments in the post, I was using that question as a proxy to whether or not your discussion was in good faith. It seems like the answer is yes.

I frequently wonder how many better metrics are available that just aren't as easy to capture as stepping on the scale, grabbing blood oxygen, and taking blood pressure. I'm sure that part of the balance is value of vitals versus time or effort to collect them.

What science would change your mind? There's never going to be a magical cutoff number for cholesterol or height or weight that separates healthy and not healthy.

Heuristics are useful tools and sometimes that's the best you get. You need water to live, clogged arteries cause heart attacks, insulin resistance leads to diabetes. Exactly how much of any given thing causes bad outcomes is going to vary case by case, but doesn't negate trends.

I say all this as a former wannabe body builder who hasn't had a BMI under 25 in about 20 years, but I still know a BMI of 60 or 80 is no good.

Doesn't this defeat the point of taking your shoes off inside? If your concern is tracking in dirt or germs on your shoes, tracking them on your feet is arguably worse unless you've got foot wash stations at the doors.