They concede that the actual scientists found that
ultra-processed foods are associated with increased incidences of chronic diseases such as obesity, heart disease and Type 2 diabetes
And dismissed it all because there's not a randomised controlled trail for ultra processed vs home cooked from ingredients foods, but their counterpoint to that, their main gotcha from that article, is it a randomised controlled trial? Does it measure obesity, heart disease and type 2 diabetes? No! Let's see what it tests:
To answer this question, researchers in an USDA-funded study published in The Journal of Nutrition planned a seven-day, 2,000-calorie daily diet that was based on the recommendations in the Dietary Guidelines but with more than 80% of the foods coming from Nova’s ultra-processed food category. The results showed that this planned diet achieved a Healthy Eating Index (HEI) score of 86 out of 100 points. The HEI measures the diet quality and evaluates to what extent Americans are following the Dietary Guidelines. For reference, the current HEI for Americans is 59 on average, meaning many Americans are consuming a diet below what is considered desirable.
So if you use one set of guidelines to make a diet plan (no one actually eats it) and you deliberately pick foods that are processed but reasonably healthy according to those very same guidelines, you achieve a great score on what basis? Long term health outcomes? No. Short term health outcomes? No. What basis? Oh, the very same guidelines you used to cherry pick the foods? Why isn't it 100%?! What an absurdly vacuous claim.
In their enlightenment and dismissing all the science, they've replaced it by calculating some points of disagreement with some older healthy eating advice? That's IT!?!
You have swallowed a bunch of pseudoscience. You're as bad as RFK.
It's a fucking industry funded pseudoscience pseudoprogessional pseudoeducation body. Did you even think about where they're coming from?
Danone North America
Eli Lilly and Company (weight loss drugs)
Gatorade Sports Science Institute
National Confectioners Association
National Dairy Council
National Honey Board
National Cattlemen's Beef Association
Nestle Health Sciences
Quebec Maple Syrup Producers
Sodexo
Splenda®
Wonderful Pistachios
No wonder they're dismissing all the science associating ultra processed food with all-causes mortality with a single diet plan!
It's not the processing, it's the preservatives and other edible non-food junk they put in to make it last longer and keep customers coming back for more and more and more.
It's called food science, and it works. It works very well indeed. Way too well for our health. You test for moreishness and you manufacture the ones the panel loves and wants more of. Result? Food that people really want more of. Its not magic and it's not deliberately bad, it's just that the inevitable result is the obesity epidemic.
When you actually look in to the details of papers on this topic you’ll find that it’s actually not defined consistently across the literature.
This is such anti-science crap, and it's exactly what various industries said all along about climate change and lung cancer studies.
When you dig into the reason why any specific “ultra processed” food is bad it boils down to:
No, no when you dig into the reason why ultra processed food is bad, it boils down to all-cause mortality. As in earlier death and shorter healthy lifespan.
You're being overly literal. That you made it yourself with real ingredients is a good rule of thumb for not ultra-processed. You're unlikely to have partially hydrogenated vegetable oil, mono and diglycerides of fatty acids or high fructose corn syrup lying around, and you won't test your recipe repeatedly until humans want more of it than any of the competing products on the supermarket shelves.
Yeah, everything's a chemical, but that's not what people mean when they say there's chemicals in the food. They mean there are edible non-food ingredients whose only purpose is to cheaply make it last longer on the shelf or be more moreish or reduce costs.
There's a significant correlation between proportion of ultra-processed foods in diet and all-causes mortality. Don't pretend there isn't.
"Scientists can't agree therefore it's not true" has been bogus through smoking and lung cancer, fossil fuels and climate change, and now ultra-processed food (UPF) and all-causes mortality and obesity.
A good rule of thumb is that if you made it in your home from real ingredients it's probably much healthier than if some company did food science on it until it human testers said "yeah I'd love more of that one". It's not a coincidence, it's not even malice, it's just they're selecting for overeating.
The malice is when the food industry tries to get you to believe that their products are healthy, that there's nothing to see or be concerned about with UPF, and the malice is also when they're lobbying and suing governments the world over that tell you to avoid UPF.
Yeah, unpasteurised milk and other crap is bonkers anti-science nonsense, but so is dismissing the correlation between larger quantities of ultra-processed food and all-causes mortality. It's real. Don't spread their lies that it's not.
There's a proof. The main point is that any number that settles into a repeating pattern is rational, so irrational numbers can't possibly have a repeating pattern.
Notice that the pattern has to repeat, so 1.010010001000010000010000001000000010000000010000000001 etc is a pattern, but because it doesn't repeat it's irrational, whereas 0.123456789123456789123456789123456789123456789123456789 and so on repeats, and it's rational.
I'll do an example, which hopefully makes it clear how it works.
If x = 0.123123123123123123123...... then
1000x = 123.123123123123123123123123123....
but then if we subtract the original number we get that
1000x - x = 123
so 999x=123
and so x = 123/999
If you had something that takes a while to start repeating, you could just multiply it by 10000000 or something so that it starts repeating straight after the decimal point and use the same argument, and surely 10000000y can be written as a fraction exactly when y can. But you can do it directly, a bit like this one:
If y = 44.332211007438743874387...... then
100000000y = 4433221100.7438743874387438....
and then
1000000000000y = 44332211007438.743874387438....
so that
1000000000000y - 100000000y
= 44332211007438 - 4433221100
which means that
999900000000y = 44327777786338
therefore y = 44327777786338/999900000000 so it's rational.
Now personally, I think that's less informative than the first one with the middle argument, so whilst it's more direct, I think doing the simple case and then arguing why it covers the complicated case is actually better.
Interestingly, proving the other truth that all rational numbers eventually repeat is much harder!
You're right that limw->0 sin(wt)/w = t, because for small values of x, sin(x) is increasingly close to x,
but unfortunately limt->0 sin(wt)/w=0 because sin(0)=0
@Buildout has a good solution for the computation problem - a math library with sinc will compute t sinc(wt) much better than trying to compute sin(wt)/w for small values of w.
I don't know what's going on in the real world context when w or t are zero - this is an interesting question. Are either or both of them likely to actually be zero (or close enough that your processor uses zero to represent the number)? If so, can we deduce whether f(0,0)=1 or f(0,0)=0 is a better answer? Maybe f(0,0)=0 gives more surprising and jerky behaviour than f(0,0)=1, but I can't be certain of that.
Yes, when w->o, sin(wt)/w -> 1
(and hopefully sinc(0)=1 in any math library),
but also when t->0, sin(wt)/w -> 0.
I know that 0x1=0, but it's not true that there's a continuous function from the plane to the reals based on sin(wt)/w and OP has an interesting problem trying to decide what to do there.
Your answer gives much more accurate answers near zero and is absolutely the best practical solution, but the question of actual zero is interesting and might need context to decide what's best.
If you don't like answering questions, then simply don't, and if you just like shitting on students asking questions then please just shut the fuck up and grow up.
We all start somewhere and asking people for help is absolutely NOT the massive moral and studying failure you're making it out to be.
If you'd put anywhere near as much thought and effort into the mathematics as you did into gatekeeping learning, you'd see that there's a genuine issue approaching zero from different directions in this function RxR->R and it's not obvious what to do about that.
This is not stackoverflow. Stackoverflow was dying before LLMs, and it's this kind of critical and/or hostilenon-answering response to beginners' questions that killed it.
You can't be bothered to think about or answer the question, and somehow you've concluded that the student who has actually done some work on the project is the lazy one who needs to be belittled.
Yes, indeed. If you're randomly generating colours and you want to evenly cover the {0,1,...,255} integer space, then generate a random integer in that range directly, or truncate a random float in [0,256). Generating a random float in [0,1) and converting it afterwards, then complaining you're not getting enough 0 or 255 is silly.
This is a stupid debate. Of course you should use 255. Everybody uses 255.
The standard algorithm means that if you go from int(0-255) to float, black stays black and white stays white. The silly new one turns the extremes very slightly grey.
This needs stomping on, because inventing a conflicting standard where there's currently only one is really really stupid.
If you actually want an even distribution of random colours (who on earth wants that?) then instead of generating random floats, generate random int(0-255). It's not hard. It really isn't.
I bet you that float values that round to 0 come up in float colour data way, way, way more frequently than values that round to 0.5/256, nullifying the silly mathematical point that you might get 0 less often. No. No you won't. Not in real data.
"Just let me slip it between your thighs, bro, I won't go in your hole, I promise."
"You promise?"
"Sure."
"OK, just make it quick"
"Dude this is taking ages"
"I know a way I'll finish faster. I'll pull out, I promise"
"You promise?"
yyyy-mm-dd is an international standard. It's better because it's sortable.
There's a right answer, and it's yyyy-mm-dd.
That's MMM d yyyy, not mm dd yyyy. It removes the ambiguity but also removes the sortability. yyyy-mm-dd for the win.
I like your style. I'll start doing that, (unless a format is specified, because I'm no protocol breaker.)
This is the way.
They concede that the actual scientists found that
And dismissed it all because there's not a randomised controlled trail for ultra processed vs home cooked from ingredients foods, but their counterpoint to that, their main gotcha from that article, is it a randomised controlled trial? Does it measure obesity, heart disease and type 2 diabetes? No! Let's see what it tests:
So if you use one set of guidelines to make a diet plan (no one actually eats it) and you deliberately pick foods that are processed but reasonably healthy according to those very same guidelines, you achieve a great score on what basis? Long term health outcomes? No. Short term health outcomes? No. What basis? Oh, the very same guidelines you used to cherry pick the foods? Why isn't it 100%?! What an absurdly vacuous claim.
In their enlightenment and dismissing all the science, they've replaced it by calculating some points of disagreement with some older healthy eating advice? That's IT!?!
You have swallowed a bunch of pseudoscience. You're as bad as RFK.
It's a fucking industry funded pseudoscience pseudoprogessional pseudoeducation body. Did you even think about where they're coming from?
https://www.eatrightpro.org/about-us/who-we-are/advertising-and-sponsorship/meet-our-sponsors
Some highlights for you:
Danone North America
Eli Lilly and Company (weight loss drugs)
Gatorade Sports Science Institute
National Confectioners Association
National Dairy Council
National Honey Board
National Cattlemen's Beef Association
Nestle Health Sciences
Quebec Maple Syrup Producers
Sodexo
Splenda®
Wonderful Pistachios
No wonder they're dismissing all the science associating ultra processed food with all-causes mortality with a single diet plan!
Why on earth do you fall for this crap?
It's not the processing, it's the preservatives and other edible non-food junk they put in to make it last longer and keep customers coming back for more and more and more.
It's called food science, and it works. It works very well indeed. Way too well for our health. You test for moreishness and you manufacture the ones the panel loves and wants more of. Result? Food that people really want more of. Its not magic and it's not deliberately bad, it's just that the inevitable result is the obesity epidemic.
I'm all out of entertaining things to say! Have a great week.
This is such anti-science crap, and it's exactly what various industries said all along about climate change and lung cancer studies.
No, no when you dig into the reason why ultra processed food is bad, it boils down to all-cause mortality. As in earlier death and shorter healthy lifespan.
You're being overly literal. That you made it yourself with real ingredients is a good rule of thumb for not ultra-processed. You're unlikely to have partially hydrogenated vegetable oil, mono and diglycerides of fatty acids or high fructose corn syrup lying around, and you won't test your recipe repeatedly until humans want more of it than any of the competing products on the supermarket shelves.
Yeah, everything's a chemical, but that's not what people mean when they say there's chemicals in the food. They mean there are edible non-food ingredients whose only purpose is to cheaply make it last longer on the shelf or be more moreish or reduce costs.
There's a significant correlation between proportion of ultra-processed foods in diet and all-causes mortality. Don't pretend there isn't.
No, this is crap.
"Scientists can't agree therefore it's not true" has been bogus through smoking and lung cancer, fossil fuels and climate change, and now ultra-processed food (UPF) and all-causes mortality and obesity.
A good rule of thumb is that if you made it in your home from real ingredients it's probably much healthier than if some company did food science on it until it human testers said "yeah I'd love more of that one". It's not a coincidence, it's not even malice, it's just they're selecting for overeating.
The malice is when the food industry tries to get you to believe that their products are healthy, that there's nothing to see or be concerned about with UPF, and the malice is also when they're lobbying and suing governments the world over that tell you to avoid UPF.
Yeah, unpasteurised milk and other crap is bonkers anti-science nonsense, but so is dismissing the correlation between larger quantities of ultra-processed food and all-causes mortality. It's real. Don't spread their lies that it's not.
There's a proof. The main point is that any number that settles into a repeating pattern is rational, so irrational numbers can't possibly have a repeating pattern.
Notice that the pattern has to repeat, so 1.010010001000010000010000001000000010000000010000000001 etc is a pattern, but because it doesn't repeat it's irrational, whereas 0.123456789123456789123456789123456789123456789123456789 and so on repeats, and it's rational.
I'll do an example, which hopefully makes it clear how it works.
If x = 0.123123123123123123123...... then
1000x = 123.123123123123123123123123123....
but then if we subtract the original number we get that
1000x - x = 123
so 999x=123
and so x = 123/999
If you had something that takes a while to start repeating, you could just multiply it by 10000000 or something so that it starts repeating straight after the decimal point and use the same argument, and surely 10000000y can be written as a fraction exactly when y can. But you can do it directly, a bit like this one:
If y = 44.332211007438743874387...... then
100000000y = 4433221100.7438743874387438....
and then
1000000000000y = 44332211007438.743874387438....
so that 1000000000000y - 100000000y
= 44332211007438 - 4433221100 which means that
999900000000y = 44327777786338
therefore y = 44327777786338/999900000000 so it's rational.
Now personally, I think that's less informative than the first one with the middle argument, so whilst it's more direct, I think doing the simple case and then arguing why it covers the complicated case is actually better.
Interestingly, proving the other truth that all rational numbers eventually repeat is much harder!
You're right that lim
w->0sin(wt)/w = t, because for small values of x, sin(x) is increasingly close to x,but unfortunately lim
t->0sin(wt)/w=0 because sin(0)=0@Buildout has a good solution for the computation problem - a math library with sinc will compute t sinc(wt) much better than trying to compute sin(wt)/w for small values of w.
I don't know what's going on in the real world context when w or t are zero - this is an interesting question. Are either or both of them likely to actually be zero (or close enough that your processor uses zero to represent the number)? If so, can we deduce whether f(0,0)=1 or f(0,0)=0 is a better answer? Maybe f(0,0)=0 gives more surprising and jerky behaviour than f(0,0)=1, but I can't be certain of that.
Yes, when w->o, sin(wt)/w -> 1
(and hopefully sinc(0)=1 in any math library),
but also when t->0, sin(wt)/w -> 0.
I know that 0x1=0, but it's not true that there's a continuous function from the plane to the reals based on sin(wt)/w and OP has an interesting problem trying to decide what to do there.
Your answer gives much more accurate answers near zero and is absolutely the best practical solution, but the question of actual zero is interesting and might need context to decide what's best.
If you don't like answering questions, then simply don't, and if you just like shitting on students asking questions then please just shut the fuck up and grow up.
We all start somewhere and asking people for help is absolutely NOT the massive moral and studying failure you're making it out to be.
If you'd put anywhere near as much thought and effort into the mathematics as you did into gatekeeping learning, you'd see that there's a genuine issue approaching zero from different directions in this function RxR->R and it's not obvious what to do about that.
This is not stackoverflow. Stackoverflow was dying before LLMs, and it's this kind of critical and/or hostilenon-answering response to beginners' questions that killed it.
You can't be bothered to think about or answer the question, and somehow you've concluded that the student who has actually done some work on the project is the lazy one who needs to be belittled.
Yes, indeed. If you're randomly generating colours and you want to evenly cover the {0,1,...,255} integer space, then generate a random integer in that range directly, or truncate a random float in [0,256). Generating a random float in [0,1) and converting it afterwards, then complaining you're not getting enough 0 or 255 is silly.
For the record, I have enjoyed our exchange a great deal and found it amusing throughout. Also it was a fun comic and title, thanks for posting it.
This is a stupid debate. Of course you should use 255. Everybody uses 255.
The standard algorithm means that if you go from int(0-255) to float, black stays black and white stays white. The silly new one turns the extremes very slightly grey.
This needs stomping on, because inventing a conflicting standard where there's currently only one is really really stupid.
If you actually want an even distribution of random colours (who on earth wants that?) then instead of generating random floats, generate random int(0-255). It's not hard. It really isn't.
I bet you that float values that round to 0 come up in float colour data way, way, way more frequently than values that round to 0.5/256, nullifying the silly mathematical point that you might get 0 less often. No. No you won't. Not in real data.