You know that they are talking about hypertension, right?
In this meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies, we found further evidence for a reduced risk of hypertension with higher intake of nuts. These findings support dietary guideline recommendations to include a serving of nuts per day.
Homotherium hunted large game through persistent hunting and not ambush like other big cats. They hunted in packs and were able to hunt across large distance using their keen day time eye sight.
I'm going to block this account as well. Finding my comment buried deep in a discussion yet again and feeling compelled to jump in with the same snarky condescension is exactly why I don't want to interact with you. Your reliance on hostility, bad-faith caricatures, and aggressive profanity to "win" a performance is why I blocked you in the first place. By setting up a false binary where any attempt to discuss specific historical structures is automatically labeled a "noble savage" trope, you created a framework that leaves no room for actual historical specificity or nuance. There was never room for a genuine conversation.
To be clear for anyone genuinely curious about this historiographical distinction: resisting reductive materialism is not an assertion of moral innocence or 'noble savagery.' It is a recognition of historical contingency and structural logic. Human violence is real, but it is not a uniform mechanical reflex. Kinship-based warfare and state-sponsored, capitalist settler-colonialism operate under fundamentally different cultural schemas and institutional logics. Recognizing that culture actively shapes how human societies utilize power and resources rather than treating all humans as uniform cogs in a deterministic equation is standard social theory.
If you are not PugJesus and happen to see his point and the errors I made, I'm very open to hearing them. Please do take the time to understand my interpretive frame. I think I've carefully situated it such that it doesn't preclude the possibility of this happening, but recognizes the role of culture in providing a mitigating factor. I just ask that you engage in direct discussion and assume a modicum of good faith on my part. It is something I take seriously.
Here are some thinkers and movements who have influenced my views:
The Cultural Turn: Thinkers who argue that culture is not merely a passive byproduct of an economic base, but an active, creative force that shapes human behavior and historical outcomes on its own terms. If they made any major mistake, it was that there was no theory making.
Logics of History by William Sewell Jr: He critiques the radical particularism of the "cultural turn" while rejecting mechanical materialism. Sewell bridges the gap by arguing that historical events can be bracketed to reveal how Schemas (cultural logics/rules) and Resources (material power) dialectically interact to transform social structures over time. If there's anything I would want anyone to walk away with, its the understanding and value of bracketing when doing history.
Antonio Gramsci: His cultural hegemony notes that cultural frameworks, ideas, and "common sense" actively shape material realities and must be engaged with as an independent site of struggle.
Bertell Ollman: Develops the idea that social relations are a web of internal relations where the individual, culture, and material conditions co-constitute each other simultaneously.
Ernst Bloch: He rejected linear material determinism, showing that humans live in overlapping cultural temporalities that prevent consciousness from simply "mirroring" the immediate economic base.
When it comes to doing history, I reject predetermined trajectories and defend culture as an active, open-ended variable. Humans are universally bound by material realities, their cultural systems dictate how they respond to those realities, making historical development fundamentally open-ended rather than mechanically predictable.
The limited interaction I had with him was him coming into a conversation between me and another commentator a level deep into one of his posts. He came in hot, dismissive, and condescending towards me. When I pointed it out, his response boiled down to, "Your bad take deserves it". I tried to clarify my position and it became clear that anything I said wouldn't soften his judgement. I ended up blocking him because it wasn't worth my time. But it left me effected.
Bad faith debates aren't about the argument and, in this case, ended up being about a personality
In principle, being the preferred world currency and reserve currency means that Treasury bonds are a safe way to build their reserves while gaining interest. This keeps the American dollar and the American led world relevant. In other words, if America goes down, so will you. This also gives the US a lot of coersive leverage over developing nations to exploit their land and labor. This means that the core of the US empire gets access to cheap resources and labor. What the US gets is highly malleable power.
The values aren't a score. They normalized the average score to 100 for non-AI in both homework and exam. Then noted the deviation. People using AI to get very high scores (130% of the average) were tank the test (40% of the average) six months later.
The Tribunal on Slightly Exaggerated Memes will now hear your case. So.... You think this was funny? WRONG! Straight to gulag.
You think that's unfair? WRONG! Everyone goes to gulag.
You want to see funny. Gulags are funny.
This Tribunal is now closed.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/black-phillip-real-story-behind-871974
Cool
They don't distinguish it because it's a meta-analysis. You can review the study selection criteria if you want. The study is linked in the text.
You know that they are talking about hypertension, right?
It's based on a meta-analysis of eight studies and they didn't filter specific nut type.
When I collapse and unable to move, how long will it take before my cat begins to eat my body?
Also, these fuckers.
Homotherium hunted large game through persistent hunting and not ambush like other big cats. They hunted in packs and were able to hunt across large distance using their keen day time eye sight.
Well, speak of the devil.
I'm going to block this account as well. Finding my comment buried deep in a discussion yet again and feeling compelled to jump in with the same snarky condescension is exactly why I don't want to interact with you. Your reliance on hostility, bad-faith caricatures, and aggressive profanity to "win" a performance is why I blocked you in the first place. By setting up a false binary where any attempt to discuss specific historical structures is automatically labeled a "noble savage" trope, you created a framework that leaves no room for actual historical specificity or nuance. There was never room for a genuine conversation.
To be clear for anyone genuinely curious about this historiographical distinction: resisting reductive materialism is not an assertion of moral innocence or 'noble savagery.' It is a recognition of historical contingency and structural logic. Human violence is real, but it is not a uniform mechanical reflex. Kinship-based warfare and state-sponsored, capitalist settler-colonialism operate under fundamentally different cultural schemas and institutional logics. Recognizing that culture actively shapes how human societies utilize power and resources rather than treating all humans as uniform cogs in a deterministic equation is standard social theory.
If you are not PugJesus and happen to see his point and the errors I made, I'm very open to hearing them. Please do take the time to understand my interpretive frame. I think I've carefully situated it such that it doesn't preclude the possibility of this happening, but recognizes the role of culture in providing a mitigating factor. I just ask that you engage in direct discussion and assume a modicum of good faith on my part. It is something I take seriously.
Here are some thinkers and movements who have influenced my views: The Cultural Turn: Thinkers who argue that culture is not merely a passive byproduct of an economic base, but an active, creative force that shapes human behavior and historical outcomes on its own terms. If they made any major mistake, it was that there was no theory making.
Logics of History by William Sewell Jr: He critiques the radical particularism of the "cultural turn" while rejecting mechanical materialism. Sewell bridges the gap by arguing that historical events can be bracketed to reveal how Schemas (cultural logics/rules) and Resources (material power) dialectically interact to transform social structures over time. If there's anything I would want anyone to walk away with, its the understanding and value of bracketing when doing history.
Antonio Gramsci: His cultural hegemony notes that cultural frameworks, ideas, and "common sense" actively shape material realities and must be engaged with as an independent site of struggle.
Bertell Ollman: Develops the idea that social relations are a web of internal relations where the individual, culture, and material conditions co-constitute each other simultaneously.
Ernst Bloch: He rejected linear material determinism, showing that humans live in overlapping cultural temporalities that prevent consciousness from simply "mirroring" the immediate economic base.
When it comes to doing history, I reject predetermined trajectories and defend culture as an active, open-ended variable. Humans are universally bound by material realities, their cultural systems dictate how they respond to those realities, making historical development fundamentally open-ended rather than mechanically predictable.
20$ says they tried to fuck during class.
The limited interaction I had with him was him coming into a conversation between me and another commentator a level deep into one of his posts. He came in hot, dismissive, and condescending towards me. When I pointed it out, his response boiled down to, "Your bad take deserves it". I tried to clarify my position and it became clear that anything I said wouldn't soften his judgement. I ended up blocking him because it wasn't worth my time. But it left me effected.
Bad faith debates aren't about the argument and, in this case, ended up being about a personality
Daisy chained vcr watch parties.
In principle, being the preferred world currency and reserve currency means that Treasury bonds are a safe way to build their reserves while gaining interest. This keeps the American dollar and the American led world relevant. In other words, if America goes down, so will you. This also gives the US a lot of coersive leverage over developing nations to exploit their land and labor. This means that the core of the US empire gets access to cheap resources and labor. What the US gets is highly malleable power.
Just remember, it's not the kids' fault. Somebody our age made that game. That somebody sucks.
I had to scroll to far to see the actual answer. I get that people hate the answer, but this is the answer.
It references the OP.
The values aren't a score. They normalized the average score to 100 for non-AI in both homework and exam. Then noted the deviation. People using AI to get very high scores (130% of the average) were tank the test (40% of the average) six months later.
This is the main confusion. I had to scroll to find this and every other comment was confused by the axis. Can you edit and add this to the post?