What a great find! I guess back then, they didn't think too much about the "rights" for a fragment of code lifted from a magazine. I don't think movie studios would do this today.
Please don't use multiple accounts to comment on or vote for your own posts. You succeeded in getting this perfectly good submission buried by our software. I had to manually restore it.
You should make a biography about what it took [you] to moderate HN once this site blows over, then you can just spill anything, man. Insert Deity; I guess this is hard work; or some wayfaring good algorithms.
Thanks man. I'll troll less, knowing how much dung (huh) you're in daily.
Please write the tricks once HN goes under or whatever.
I appreciate that! also, I don't think I've seen that inflection of dang before.
It would be nice if HN continued beyond all of us, though. Sounds grandiose and dumb, but why not? There's already a rich archive (a dozen years' worth and counting) and the site has certain properties that prevent it from growing too much.
Maybe eventually we (or our successors) will come up with an anti-abuse system that makes the current one obsolete and then we can publish the old one and HN can have a retro thread about it, like about 1980s Lisp AI programs.
i looked at your tumblr and dont see any discussion of copyrights or attribution. I thought that's what parent was talking about. Maybe i missed it on your site -- i didn't read the entire blog.
There's a substantial difference between grub password protection, a feature which I've never seen anyone use in practice and the ubiquitous login prompt.
The OP specifically said the login prompt was defeated by backspacing alone.
Not really. You can use Syslinux in place of GRUB (in fact, I was when this bug was first appearing in the news). I also think it's bad practice to generalize things to that point. There is of course the obvious issue of Linux just referring to the kernel, making it hard to talk about just the kernel if you get into the bad habit of referring to many things by that same name. More importantly, though, if there's a bug in GNOME or your file manager, it feels very wrong for someone to say it's a problem with "Linux". I think this distinction matters more due to the modularity of GNU/Linux and all the choices of programs for basic tasks.
The food we have in the U.S., particularly in low-income areas is atrocious. However there are a lot of excuses being made about obesity, including that it's caused by poverty. Yes poverty is a component, but the obesity epidemic is striking all income groups, with no particular correlation to income [0]. It's more about the diet and exercise choices that people choose to make, include the middle class and upper class who most definitely have the ability to make choices around the food and beverages they consume.
Further many of the most wasteful calories are not caused by high-sodium, high-fat processed foods but by excess sugar consumption in the form of sugary drinks. Switching to water, black coffee, or unsweetened tea could help the "Big Gulp" demographic big time.
Almost everyone in the US is a prisoner of their car. Our built environment presumes that you have a car. We make it very challenging to live without one. And then we have to listen to Stephen Hawking be judgy about how we "choose" to not be active, which he can't understand from his wheelchair.
Most Americans are confined to a wheeled chair for many hours a week. We just call it a car, but good luck getting free of it.
(I have lived without a car for about a decade, so this comment is not expressing discontent with me feeling trapped. I escaped that trap and walking everywhere has helped me shed a lot of weight without intending to.)
We switched to one family car around 7 years ago, as I quickly realized it would be a lot less hassle and expense for me to just use public transportation to get into the city.
Fast-forward to now and I'm seriously contemplating buying another car (which I am utterly loath to do), solely because of how unreliable public transport is in my part of the world.
Besides the above, I had a conversation with a cyclist in work earlier this week who is considering giving it up and going back to driving (also against his will) because he finds it hard to breathe with all the diesels on the road that have had the particulate filters ripped out (a law that is completely ignored here, so is commonplace).
(As a side note, if you're wondering how he knows which cars have had this done, Google "coal-rolling" and you'll understand quickly.)
This is far more nuanced (and ridiculous) than people understand. While it might be healthy in the US to walk and cycle rather than drive, in Europe it's borderline hazardous.
Half of the problem is not the infrastructure, but peoples priorities and the public perception of the pros/cons of a car. Also the value of the car as a symbol.
A couple will make 3 kids and say "I can't do without a car". But the couple never ponder the cost of making a family. The fact or having a car or not, and other matters of life style, are an after thoughs. And if you raise the issue, you are a cold robot for thinking that way instead of with your "heart".
The vast majority of human babies are the result of either "Whoops! Babies happen!" or "We tried for years for this one!" The families that try for years tend to have one or two kids, not three or more. The people with many children who complain of being trapped typically have a lot of other things going on that lead to them having too little control over their lives.
I am super uncomfortable with statements that suggest people just need to exercise some self control and stop cranking out babies. That position is incredibly dismissive of very complex issues, including lack of access to health care in the US. Historically, health insurance that paid for Viagra did not pay for female birth control. We have this underlying assumption that men have a right to get laid, even if they need chemical help to get it up, but women do not. Yet, most of those men are getting laid with women, not with other men.
Questions of reproduction and sexual morality are incredibly complex and a very touchy subject because when two people have sex where the result may be a child, there are a great many people impacted. It isn't as simple as her rights vs his. The rights of the child are an issue, but so are the rights of the rest of society.
It really isn't a discussion I care to see injected here.
A couple will make 3 kids and say "I can't do without a car". But the couple never ponder the cost of making a family.
This is simply mistaken. The cost of making a family is nearly always what people are thinking about in that situation.
If you're saying that people aren't careful enough when they have sex, then yeah, that's always been a problem. But what's to be done? The kids exist now and you need to provide for them. Now what?
The complain here is about practicality of car vs bicycle/walk. What does that have with cost of making a familly? They don't complain about car being expensive.
And no, in many places in USA a car is just about the only way how to get kids to school. Which you have to. And yep, cycling along unsafe road when you are adult and when you are 8 is not the same. So ype, familly with children needs car more then single healthy adult.
And yep, unless you want to face aging population problem later on, 3 kids should be doable. Just to get replacement level of population.
Its effecting all income levels, but I suspect not evenly. The pattern I see (which is anecdotal) is higher income people appear healthier (i.e., are on average less overweight).
Sometimes I wonder if that's cause or correlation. That is, ill and wealthy just don't go together.
I am rich enough to not need a second job, of which the time I have not working allows me to educate myself on nutrition and cook for myself regularly.
But has is also a function of decisions, which is also related to knowledge / awareness. No doubt, lower income areas have less / worse selection. But that kinda doesn't explain why the better off don't choose and consume those same things as they are just as available to them.
I am a strange mix of privilege and poverty. I was in gifted programs in public school and I have six years of college. I also am a woman and I have serious health issues.
I am getting healthier and I am getting more well off as a consequence. I think a lot about the details of the very complex relationship between health and wealth.
It is a really complicated thing that cannot be pinned down to any one thing. Education, social fabric, enhanced personal agency, greater de facto rights and a whole raft load of stuff tends to be involved in who is both rich and healthy and who gets access to neither.
I do agree with you. There's no magic bullet. But I still have a hard time comprehending why soda is a good choice. Even juat switching to water would make a difference. I think.
Some sodas have medicinal effects. I have a genetic disorder, so my diet is absolutely not the root cause of my health issues. I was diagnosed late in life. That empowered me to finally start getting healthier. With getting healthier, I consume less diet coke.
A couple of excerpts from my food blog:
I basically live on diet coke. Coca cola products contain extract from the coca plant. This has medicinal benefits. No other cola products have this. Other cola products tend to be mostly sugar water -- though I do sometimes drink ginger ale because ginger helps with nausea.
Bad food, far too little sleep, and sedentia... the perfect trifecta to cause depression, anxiety and obesity (and later diabetes, heart disease and Alzheimers).
Yup. But, evidently, the cost of healthcare is due to the system. What those critics fail to admit is that the biggest component of that system are the people seeking care, and the average baseline health there of.
Americans want to abuse their bodies (and minds) and expect healthcare to remain cheap. It doesn't work that way. Healthcare resources are limited. Increase demand and prices increases.
Not just France, but most European countries.. every time I travel in Europe there's always this initial realization that I'm no longer surrounded by obese people. None of the places I've been to over there encourage the same eating habits that you find prevalent in the US.
It does not help that in the US (or at least in California) you have to drive everywhere. I live in Europe now, but when I lived in the US I barley walked anywhere since it was just too far.
In Europe I do not even own a car anymore. Most things can be done with a bike, by foot, or by public transport. For a few things where I prefer a car, I just use car sharing. So now I am way more active every day.
And thanks to certain trains always be running late, I am running at least once a day as well!
Well portion sizes are smaller, but most people walk, bike or transit to work. For example this week I haven't done any exercise due to a "sports"-related injury, and yet managed to burn an average of 2571 calories -- and before you think I'm lucky to live near work, my one-way commute is 30 miles. Even just 40 minutes of daily physical activity built into a commute can make a huge difference.
Oh yea, totally. I bicycle to work almost every day (it's ~6 mi one way), but I'm lucky enough to live in a location with decent cycling infrastructure. I think another aspect of why most folks drive here (the US) is because a lot of locations have little or no infrastructure for getting around without a car. In the area where I am originally from (different part of US), you'd get smashed by cars pretty fast because you'd be forced to travel on highways/freeways.
Besides different eating habits, one of the reasons is that there is a huge stigma of being obese in most of Europe. The fact that it is relatively rare makes any such person stand out even more, and makes it harder to justify (since your peers somehow manage to keep their weight in check)
Not sure we should be giving advice. Our situation has worsen during the last 15 years. The quality of food is going down (and the prices for good food up), the health habits are too. Not in the same proportion of the US yet, but it's significant.
Compared to my parents or grand parent generation, the new ones:
- spend much more time seated;
- spend much more time in front of a screen;
- have much less people knowing how to cook. Or choose tasty fruits or vegetable for that matters, and hence they believe good food taste like crap.
- have more fat people, especially young ones;
- eat less home made food;
- consume more cereals, dairies, meat and refined sugar and less vegetables or fruits;
- eat more, and more often;
- consume products with less nutritional density, and a bigger concentration of additives of all sorts;
- eat while doing something else, faster, with less mastication.
So clearly our society is starting to fail on the health part as well.
Look at how much more expensive cigarettes are in France and the graphical warning labels that accompany them and then look at how much more commonplace smoking is in France, particularly among the youth. Regulations don't change cultures to nearly the effect many want them to.
Yes and no. I live in the USA. I shop in a few different supermarket each catering to a particular class (if you will). Mind you, the overall selection reflects the income level the store serves. But that doesn't completely explain what goes into the carts.
Long to short, I'm not so sure the less well to do are making decisions that keep them healthy. Soda, ice cream, sugary cereals, etc. These things are in the upper class stores aw well, but it seem less people are interested.
I agree with you. But I want to added that the consumers' choices factor in as well.
The way I’ve heard it explained is that poor people will base their grocery purchases based on price, and that gets to GP’s point about not subsidizing corn. The reasoning goes: cheap corn leads to low-end food being filled with corn syrup, which leads to poor people eating tons of sugar, which leads to health problems among poor people. The solution, under this scheme, is to help steer the schedule of food prices so that it’s cheaper for people to eat healthy food (eliminate corn subsidies).
In fact approx 10+ yrs ago the NY Times Sunday mag ran an article that said what you just did. In short, corn subsidies lead to cheap sweeteners, and those to cheap (but frutose based) foods.
Ironic that cities (e.g., Philadelphia) have a (so called) sugar drink tax" but their tax dollars (via subsidies) were already used to lower the cost of those drinks. Ultimately, the consumer pays. The consumer always pays.
Yet we're all hypersensitive about telling women they are overweight or obese.
One of the reasons for this is that women don't really get told they should work on their fitness to improve their own quality of life. The framing is almost always that the only real value a woman has is as a sex object. Telling women they need to lose weight is also a blame game where people with relatively little control over their lives are tasked with yet one more standard to meet instead of being given the support they need.
I am a woman. I am still alive when I should not be in part because I refused to cave to enormous social pressure to diet and force my body to conform to certain expectations. After getting the right diagnosis in my mid thirties, I was empowered to finally take proper care of myself. I shrank dramatically, even though that was not a goal of mine and my doctor was not trying to get me to lose weight because my condition usually leads to people being severely underweight and this helps kill them.
Our built environment used to be designed with fitness is mind. Now, many Americans are prisoners of their cars, spending long periods driving to and from work or school and finding nothing within walking distance. Elevators and escalators have replaced stairs. Sedentary office jobs are more the norm than hard physical labor. Everyone is too time stressed to go home and cook a real meal from scratch, so folks eat crappy microwave meals or get fast food at the drive through window or some other equally unhealthy option.
From my perspective, women giving push back and saying "I'm not your bitch, don't hang your shit on me. Quit judging me for how I look and pressuring me to conform." is actually the essential first step for trying to take control of their lives. That control leads to better health. Women starving themselves to try to conform does not lead to better health. It is just one more source of stress and problems for people who already tend to have too little control over their lives.
Or maybe some people legitimately were concerned for your health? The statistics are indisputable, being obese causes permanent damage to your body and reduces both the quality and length of your life. Wanting someone to frame this differently is a bit of an odd complaint.
I also used to be obese, and I also made my own decision to become healthy. I don't think you can force someone to become healthier, but I doubt that I would be in my current state today if nobody mentioned my weight to me. Maybe you feel differently, but ignoring a problem rarely helps make it go away.
Blaming your environment (Elevators? Really? Every building has fire stairs...) or society at large for people not being motivated to lose weight is an odd perspective (especially blaming people who are trying to help by bringing the problem to your attention). Letting things slide, and a lack of constant affirmation is what caused to me to remain obese for several years. There are better ways of helping (offering to go for a run with someone), but ultimately that's just a nicer way to remind someone of their weight.
Also, GP was pointing out the double standard when it comes to how anorexia and obesity are treated by society.
Or maybe some people legitimately were concerned for your health? The statistics are indisputable, being obese causes permanent damage to your body and reduces both the quality and length of your life. Wanting someone to frame this differently is a bit of an odd complaint.
No, not at all. If you don't frame it differently, you won't change anyone's mind. That reveals the goal for what it is: to feel good about thumbing your nose at obese people, rather than actually persuading them to do something about it.
If you want to persuade people, it's best to be clear about that in your own mind. But if you only want to feel superior then being like "You're fat, yo" is a fine way.
Or maybe some people legitimately were concerned for your health?
I know the motives of the judgy people who were a part of my life better than you do.
This kind of comment really should just never happen. In one sentence, you are casually dismissing conclusions about my own life that have taken me decades to arrive at.
Also, GP was pointing out the double standard when it comes to how anorexia and obesity are treated by society.
The article is about France, not the US. The observation that Americans are oversensitive about this could be deemed "off topic." The article lays out the completely valid reasons why France is concerned about a) excessive emphasis on thinness in its country and b) photos not simply lying to you about how people look.
Really, it is kind of BS to act like there is something wrong with requiring a two word label notifying you that the photo has been retouched. We are inundated daily with endless photos. Knowing which are legitimate representations of what actual people look like vs photo shopped fantasy bull seems like a completely valid desire for a long list of reasons.
Most likely very little of the kind that qualifies them to express such opinions.
I've had experiences that are reminiscent of Michele's over the past 10+ years.
I can tell you that neither your own comments, nor the comments others made to Michele that you're now trying to defend, are at all helpful, and in both cases can be quite damaging.
> Or maybe some people legitimately were concerned for your health?
If this was the case, why specify women and not men, why use shaming techniques that are scientifically proven not to work, why argue that this is to protect the feelings of women as if it is a bad thing, when there is proof that making women feel bad about their bodies with unrealistic media actually contributes to obesity?
You talk about these like they are two distinct problems, but they're closely related. Unhealthy body image drives a lot of unhealthy food behaviors and weight gain [1]. That negative body image is driven by many things, including fashion culture promoting atypical or fictional bodies [2][3]. It is also driven by a culture of fat shaming. [4]
So if you are really serious about reducing harm from obesity, promoting more realistic, healthier body images is a valuable step in that direction.
I don't think the first link really provides any real insight into the problem. First of all, the study isn't experimental. There could easily be many confounding variables here, such as depression causing more body satisfaction issues. Another issue could be that overweight people with low body satisfaction are less satisfied because they have been warned more about it (chicken-and-egg); for example, if a child had a binge eating disorder to begin with, their parents/doctors/friends would intervene more to try to stop them from gaining so much weight. The study also doesn't clearly define how the survey worked, and the study referenced for the survey didn't explain much either [1]. It doesn't seem like there's any measure of whether low body satisfaction means weight is too high/weight is too low (I think there's some nuance to this, for example someone desiring larger breasts may want to gain weight even if they see themselves as fat, and there's a big difference here based on culture). Finally, keep in mind the jump back to weight gain with "Very high body satisfaction". These are separated into 4 groups (apparently by quartile, although clearly every group is a different size just by looking at the chart), but this information could reveal a sharp spike as you get to the top 1% or something. Also, look at the difference in size between the 4 groups, the first is 4x larger than the last, which seems really strange.
Sorry, when you say it isn't experimental, are you proposing a study where we abuse people enough to give them an unhealthy body image and then see if they gain weight? That seems... well, unlikely to pass an IRB, for one.
[ Disclosure: As Brit I have no idea how the US treats these issues, I'm only going on how the UK does ]
> Yet we're all hypersensitive about telling women they are overweight or obese.
The UK already tackles these issues by banning a great deal, if not all food adverts on TV channels at times that children will typically watch, it's very easy to say that we should be focusing more effort on some subject but actually in fact we are focusing on the problem of obesity the one of the things we haven't really focused a huge amount of effort on is anorexia which still kills people ( and even more tragically, typically young people )
> Deaths from Anorexia are about 150/year
I actually went through and read the paper that you sourced that quote from and I think the author actually misses a big issue source of possible fatalities, primary it's not focusing on the suicide numbers. Instead it goes to focus on the death certificate counts for anorexia, there's probably doesn't mean that it's going to have a very good representation in the same way that you can't directly blame a lot of deaths on obesity directly because it causes other long-term issues
Generally people know they're overweight, and there is no shyness about telling people so. Especially women.
What there is a lack of is compassionate, practical help. It's quite a bit like smoking; few people would argue that they didn't know they were smoking, the issue is whether they care about the negative health effects and how they can actually do something about it that sticks.
In Australia (after we introduced plain packaging laws for cigarettes, banned advertising, and made many other related laws) smoking has dropped significantly[1]. It's amazing how much advertising and education plays into this. What if it was not legal to advertise junk food to children, or you had plain-packaging style laws for junk food?
I used to be obese, so I completely agree that fat people usually are somewhat aware of how fat they are and of the health impacts. It's just hard to make them care, and they need help with going through a lifestyle change that they are going to make mistakes during.
One problem is that "junk food" is an ill-defined term, even though it may seem obvious.
For example, years ago Greek Yogurt became popular in supermarkets in the U.S. If you look at the nutrition label of a yogurt like Chobani, it contains roughly 4 teaspoons of sugar in one small container. And yet yogurt is advertised as a healthy food.
If you "quit sugar" in the U.S., you'll quickly realize just how many items at supermarkets have added sugar. I'm more concerned about "sneaky calories" then straight-up junk food.
You make a good point about defining junk food, buy I'm not sure Chobani yoghurt is the best example; the only sugar in plain Chobani yoghurt is lactose from the milk that was used to make it - lactose has a much lower glycemic index than that of glucose.
And there's no "shyness" of overweight people telling healthy-weight people they're "skinny". I hear it every day, and my weight is dead-smack-in-the-middle of the "healthy" range for my height.
> Yet we're all hypersensitive about telling women they are overweight or obese.
Also smoking is very normalised in many parts of the world, thanks to American lobbying. I really wish more countries would follow Australia's lead on smoking legislation. Smoking kills ~500,000 a year[1].
> It would be like spending weeks in urban schools talking about how to avoid poisonous snake bites and spending 15 minutes on automobile safety.
As an aside, in Australia we teach both (not to mention spider, tick, blue bottle, jellyfish, and octopus safety).
There was a kids' cartoon from the U.K. I think, where one of the episodes was about how spiders are our friends and you don't need to be afraid of them, etc.
When the show was broadcast in Australia they left that episode out, because all the spiders in Australia probably will kill you. :)
Is it American lobbying? As an American, I could never live in Europe since the cigarette smoke everywhere disgusts me. Too bad because they have a lot of other things figured out but will still be smoking the cigarettes outdoors in a crowded restaurant seating or worse, around children. I've never seen anything like it in the US though the current riser of ecigs is concerning.
Quite a lot of lobbying to prevent anti-smoking laws all over the world is done by the American tobacco industry (Marlboro is a particular offender). To be clear, some EU countries (Germany especially) have had a bad track record with smoking legislation as well as EU lobbying. But usually they are lobbying for the goal of protecting an EU directive from being passed that affects their own country (which is effectively just standard lobbying).
But I don't recall stories about Reemtsma trying to interfere in Australia's laws about anti-smoking. Marlboro did (they failed spectacularly, but that's a separate topic).
I live in the EU and agree on the smoking issue; thankfully more places are disallowing smoking in their outdoor seating now, and chewing tobacco and vaping are becoming much more popular.
treatment for anorexia has got very much better. It used to kill about 20% of people with the diagnosis. More people get full recovery than used to, and more people live long term (either maintaining low weight, or relapsing & remitting) with anorexia.
But, also, deaths from anorexia are often coded as something else.
I don’t have the expertise to comment on the effectiveness of this legislation, but your simile doesn’t work. Both anorexia and obesity are symptoms of the same problem: society projecting unrealistic body imagery, more generally over focus on physical appearance over health indicators, contributing to serious body image psychological issues, particularly among females. People with either diagnosis often have related eating activities like restriction and many overweight people have been underweight or undernourished previously. These are complex physiological and psychological topics and we won’t make holistic progress as long as diet and health advice, including government programs, are dominated by pseudoscience — case in point, the joke that is the food pyramid.
Both anorexia and obesity are symptoms of the same problem: society projecting unrealistic body imagery
It is interesting to note that several centuries ago, when far more of the population was underweight, being somewhat overweight or even obese was considered the ideal. Now that the average weight has increased significantly, it seems the "unrealistic body imagery" has gone in the other direction.
It would have been more accurately if I had included psychological unrealistic body imagery. Others in this thread have suggested that the manipulation is to make people look fit, but there are regular articles that describe those clicks of the mouse resulting in physiologically extreme, if not impossible body proportions.
This observation distracts from the fact that that nutrition and body science is young. Hypothesizes that have experimental support come from the last 130
years, but even then most of popular theories of the last decades have contradictory evidence.
What I do like about your observation is that it brings to my mind that although there has always been artistic license in previous centuries, for the most part the images were attempting to accurately represent the specific persons show.
What is your point here, beyond "Fat people are fat"?
Do you believe that obese women don't know they're fat? What would telling them they're fat accomplish? None of this makes sense and it's just an excuse to be unkind.
TFA is about France targeting advertising that is known to cause anorexia. GP's point is that (in the US) obesity is a much larger issue and should have far more resources put into tackling that problem. Not being allowed to advertise to minors would be one idea. But since TFA is about France the situation is different.
Your comment is a perfect example of being hypersensitive about this issue. As someone who used to be obese, I find it quite horrifying that more isn't being done to protect children from harmful advertising. I'm lucky that I found my motivation to combat my weight problems in my late teens, many people aren't so fortunate.
I didn't see the 300,000 number in your CDC link. I'm curious where you found a number so low.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm says that some 2.6 million Americans die each year. I think it's safe to estimate that more than the 36.5% obesity rate for the entire population applies to this group, implying that some 958 thousand people died while obese (ignoring cause). The top 10 causes of death include heart disease at #1, strokes, and diabetes; these factors alone total to 853 thousand deaths due to conditions largely caused by obesity. Furthermore, studies suggest that some fraction of the almost 600k cancer deaths are caused by obesity. I think you're at least a factor of 3 too low.
I will play devil's advocate for a moment, though, and say that among high school girls, anorexia is a much more frequent problem than death by heart attack. No, it doesn't lead to death, but that doesn't mean it's not a problem.
> Yet we're all hypersensitive about telling women they are overweight or obese.
Women don't need to be told they're overweight and obese, all fat people know it, they think about it every day. Are you really so insensitive that you think they need to be told?
Humorously going through K12 in Texas I remember multiple safety lessons before doing (literal) field trips in grade school about rattle snakes and I never received drivers education through a school.
Seems like a facetious over-simplification of what the poster said.
If it's hard (socially) to approach something, because people are hyper-sensitive, then it's simply hard to help those people.
In a lot of Western culture it generally seems accepted to tell people they're too skinny, but not to tell people they're too fat—obviously I don't just mean walking down a street and saying this to a stranger, but in appropriate settings.
You're right. I wrote the comment without having read the article, which is why I wasn't able to put it in context. After having read the article, I agree, I think he makes a good point.
Although I still think telling a person that you consider he or she to be either overweight or skinny is quite meaningless. If they ask you for your opinion, it makes sense to answer, but I have a really hard time believing that an over/underweight person wouldn't have noticed this already while looking in the mirror.
It's a bit like telling a cigarette smoker that smoking is unhealthy and that they should quit. The chance that they didn't know this already is practically zero, which means you're not offering any help.
I don't think it's about not knowing if they're under- or over-weight or not. I'm sure there's a massive amount of research into why we knowingly do things that are harmful to our selves too.
What I took away from the original poster is that, it seems more appropriate in many Western societies to make available help for those who are under-weight or who smoke. It also seems more appropriate to proactively try help others too.
AFAIK too, we don't have the equivalent with smoking of people promoting that being severely overweight is okay. As for the equivalent with being under-weight, from what I see, many years ago the focus was being on skinny for the sake of being skinny as it's attractive. These days it seems to be a focus on being fit (and healthy), which generally means not being skinny, but having a more toned body, or rather, simply not excess fat.
So you think the problem lies in obese people being unaware of how much they weigh?
Actually, yes. Maybe not obese, but everyone compares themselves to the general population. In a society where everyone's carrying a couple of stone more than is really healthy, noone thinks of themselves as "fat", they think they're just average.
This is one issue our President should take some executive action on, if at all possible. At the very least, people should not be charged for credit freezes for the next few years, and existing laws should be reviewed. Taking action against Equifax would be supported by the vast majority of Americans.
He can direct the FBI and justice department to interpret the law with regard to equifax the way they would interpret it for a small business or individual.
(obviously under the table because above the table would acknowledge the double standard)
This is a great video, and accurately sums up MongoDB and NoSQL. I can't imagine why they need to raise money, why they spend so much money as it is, and why they think there's a big growth business in NoSQL.
The example image contains a large scale object spanning the whole image and has lots of fine-grained detail. While an impressive demo, it probably won't work as well on black-and-white documents, because the edge will have very little information to determine adjacency. Additionally, shredded documents can have two sides and the shredded stripes might be so small that it becomes difficult to tell up from down. That adds another exponential search space on top of the Traveling Salesman Problem.
That said, reconstruction of shreds is probably possible in most cases, although there is still lots of research to be done in this space. For example the Fraunhofer Society has a project to reconstruct torn documents of the East German StaSi surveillance agency [1]. There seem to be very few detailed publications on their methods, but I did find a high-level overview [2]
