Everyone can read papers. Not everyone is qualified to understand them in proper context.

Unless you have at least a masters in the related subject, ideally a PhD, your ability to vett the papers in that domain should be assumed to be rather limited, especially when you are arriving at conclusions that the experts aren't by consensus.

In biology and medicine, evidence works differently than in tech. Controlling for confounders is much harder.

PBS is primarily (85%) privately funded. It will continue to produce shows like Masterpiece, Nova, Frontline, and Sesame Street and people in places like Boston or Philadelphia will continue to benefit from them.

What public funding does is give viewers in poorer, more rural areas access to the same information that wealthy cities enjoy. It pays for access for people who don't have it.

By opting out, Arkansas public broadcasting saves 2.5 million dollars in dues, sure. But it loses access to about $300 million dollars in privately funded programming annually.

Seriously, the idea that we know all the practically important physics there is is the kind of thing only somebody who's never done science or engineering would believe.

Industrial R&D is important, but it is in a distrant third place with respect to importance to US scientific leadership after (1) Universities operating with federal grants and (2) Federal research institutions.

It's hard to convince politicians with a zero sum mentality that the kind of public research that benefits humanity also benefits US competitiveness. The mindset shows in launching a new citizenship program for anyone who pays a million bucks while at the same time discouraging foreign graduate students from attending universtiy in the US or even continuing their university careers here. On average each talented graduate student admitted to the US to attend and elite university does way more than someone who could just buy their way in.

Republicans equate being pro-market with being pro-big-business-agenda. The assumption is that anything that is good for big business is good for the market and therefore good for consumers.

So in the Republican framing, anti-trust, since is interferes with what big business wants to do, is *necessarily* anti-market and bad for consumers, which if you accept their axioms would have to be true, even though what big business wants to do is use its economic scale and political clout to consolidate, evade competition, and lock in consumers.

That isn't economics. It's religion. And when religious dogmas are challenge, you call the people challenging them the devil -- or in current political lingo, "terrorists". A "terrorist" in that sense doesn't have to commit any actual act of terrorism. He just has to be a heathen.

no problem.

I'm actually responding to the AC above you. He is arguing that the attack wouldn't make any sense for either country to make, based on *national* interest. I'm pointing out that's not the only framework in which *regimes* make decisions.

Just put it in context: Today Russia struck the Pechenihy Reservoir dam in Kharkiv.
Russia launched the war because they thought it would be a quick and easy win, a step towards reestablishing a Russian empire and sphere of influence, because Putin thinks in 19th century terms. Russia is continuing the war, not because it's good for Russia. I'd argue that winning and then having to rebuild and pacify Ukraine would be a catastrophe. Russia is continuing the war because *losing* the war would be catastrophic for the *regime*. It's not that they want to win a smoldering ruin, it's that winning a smoldering ruin is more favorable to them and losing an intact country.

You might have misremembered it. Or the author was dumbing it down for the ease of the audience, especially if it was a lay-public science magazine.
It's a scientific category. Legal definitions are local. The term did not originate in US and it took a while to take hold in US.
Here is the Brazilian epidemiologist who coined it.
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F...

> things that couldn't be made in a normal kitchen

It's a definition that a random influencer would give, not one used in science.

Nova is the most recognized classification/definition.
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F...

The stuff you mentioned fall under: "minimally processed foods". That's the healthiest category.

Cottage cheese is in the minimally processed category.
Cheddar is processed. You don't need any special technology to make it. It was made by aging it in damp caves in the 12th century.
Cheese singles are ultra processed.

> Although I don't buy the worst food because we have health standards here

We have health standards to protect us from food poisoning and poisoning from additives.
We don't have health standards to protect us from chronic diseases.

> if I would switch over to completely healthy my grocery bill would become two to three times more expensive.

It would not. It would actually be cheaper. Mine is. You are doing it wrong.

Regular cheese, yogurt and sauerkraut are not considered ultraprocessed.
Are there ultraprocessed cheese products and sugar loaded flavored yogurt products with fillers? Sure.

Not really. US is a large country with a large range of cost of living.
Where I currently live, it's below median. The store nearby often has great sales.

The basic stuff you listed cost about the same. $1 pasta. Bananas 59c/lb etc. Chicken thighs 45c/lb on frequent sales. Legumes are cheap everywhere.
If you cook for yourself with traditional ingredients, food is highly affordable in US. The low income people have food banks and get money from the government. Food is perhaps 2% of my expenses unless I need to eat out at work.

Unfortunately, ultra processed food consumption is 55% of caloric intake in US. It's much worse in the young.
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.npr.org%2Fsections%2Fs...

Even as a busy professional, I cook for myself (about 3 times per week) and have my teen waist line and weight in late 40s. BMI is 21.4. Normal and basic food is inexpensive. I don't specially exercise. I just walk rather than drive.

However, even those on food assistance buy a lot of prepared and processed food. Whenever I ate processed food, I gained weight fast, even when I wasn't buying sugary stuff. I just avoid buying prepared food and include enough vegetables and fiber in my diet. My carb intake is only complex carbs. US is not protein deficient at all, but vegetable and fiber intake are inadequate on average.

That's all it takes, some basic common sense about diet. Food is very affordable in the developed world.

That wasn't *all* I said, but it is apparently as far as you read. But let's stay there for now. You apparently disagree with this, whnich means that you think that LLMs are the only kind of AI that there is, and that language models can be trained to do things like design rocket engines.