Wikipedia also states that "Kellogg's funded $2 million to set up the Nutrition Foundation at Harvard. The foundation was independent of the university and published a journal Nutrition Reviews that Stare edited for 25 years." But I cannot find this is Taubes's book.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45100222

Points: 13

# Comments: 2

Instead, I launched a compilation.

"lack of suspension"

The author did not see the large, outsized, springs that keep the cabin insulated from both the road _and_ the engine.

What was wrong in this design was just that the technology to keep the heavy, vibrating, motor sufficiently insulted from both road and passengers was not available (mainly inflatable tires). Otherwise it was perfectly reasonable, even commendale, because it tried to make-do with what was available.

Maybe the designer can be critizised for not seeing that a wooden frame was not strong enough to hold a steam engine, and maybe that there was no point in making the frame as light as possible when you have a steam engine to push it, but, you know, you learn this by doing.

> I can't because a world with magic and world peace is more realistic and believable.

I don't know, in my country advertising tobacco products is forbidden since at least 20 years, how did they pull this magic trick?? go figure

If those are 2nd order functions in the 2d plane, then we don't agree on terminology.

The reason why I feel an expert is that it is clear at first sight to me that if you really implement the Newton method in that situation, the approximating functions that you will get are totally different from those that were drawn in the illustration.

The third parable from the left on the lower left figure, is definitely not a second order approximation to the target function: the convexity is reversed!

The illustration of the Newton method is wrong, isn't it? The approximating second order polynomials that were drawn are not really graphs of second order polynomials, they are not even functions... those are parables in the 2D plane, but Newton's method won't work like that... Besides, the convexity of the target function looks negative near to the first guess, the Newton method shall probably miserably fail here

The combined result of the three experiments can be either surprising or absolutely obvious: if the standard deviation of each of the three experiments was around 1 cm, it would be troubling, if it was 100 cm, it would be troublesome yet, but if the standard deviation is 5000 cm, there would be nothing wrong in what happened.

Sorry but this is totally preposterous. Why should we look at our past through a fictional creation of one author? Why don't we go directly to the sources that that same author had? Makes much more sense.

This i contentious, I have actually read scholars that argue the opposite.

"There is plastic in the environment"

It does not say "plastic harms this or that".

The equality "plastic presence"=="plastic harm" is not obvious to me

To me it is just like "man-made electromagnetic waves are everywhere, they are not natural, ergo this harms the environment"

I remember the time when the press cried "there is no cork left on earth!!".

I remember the time when cheap wine came with plastic corks.

I remember the time when cheap wine had cork corks again.

? I'd like a clear and obvious reference.

https://www.rai.it/programmi/report/inchieste/Un-espresso-a-...

aluminum was at around 1/6 of the EU recommended maximum safe concentration. But you could cut this in half using the stainless steel moka. Apparently about half of the aluminum came from the coffee powder itself and half from the moka.

A lot of metals from the coffee itself, apparently because of fertilizers and insecticides.

Anyway the moka itself released around 0.3 mg per liter of aluminum

can something that happens over a 50 years span be correctly described as a "collapse"?

go figure