edit: Another thing I will say is that I've noticed both HoL and Backrooms seem to act like a kind of shibboleth for a particular demographic (not even really the same demographic) and you often see this in how people write/talk about both. I think it maybe stems from how dense/unapproachable the two works are, how innocuous they seem on the surface such that you really have to sink some effort to get at them.

I have a feeling this particular brand of hair splitting is going to be an interesting fixture in the history books.

My hope is that by smooshing people together randomly and making it harder to move, people will have a new way (new old way?) of interacting online that has more of the good aspects of offline socialising. But you're 100% right that without a reason to engage it's going to be very quiet. I'm looking at different ways to tackle this that range from "it's a video game now" to something much more subtle.

Tech I'm using: Sprites, Cloudflare Workers, SQLite, Litestream, React SSR

Will give these a try. These are exciting times, it's never been a better time to build side projects :)

I wanted to create a place where people can talk and hang out and build communities at a more human scale. A site where people are smooshed together more or less randomly and sheltered for long enough that they can hopefully find some common ground.

I'm building Isles ( https://isles.app/ ), which is just this really simple/dumb forum that has two things that set it apart:

1. When you sign up, you're put on an island randomly. You can only see posts from others on that island. Island populations are capped

2. Very occasionally, two islands will 'link up' basically at random. For a short time, both islands can interact with each other. When the islands separate, you can choose to stay on the other island. If you do, you can't go back unless those two islands link again.

That's it. My hope for Isles is that it gives people a break from big homogenous social spaces. It's really early days and still more of a sketch than an actual product, but I wanted to share it to see if the idea resonated with others. I'm looking for any feedback at all.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46718951

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

> The DGAs recommend a variety of animal source protein foods (ASPFs) and plant source protein foods (PSPFs) to provide enough total protein to satisfy the minimum requirements set at the Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) of 0.8 g/kg body weight for adults and to ensure the dietary patterns meet most nutrient needs [3, 4]. However, over the past 20 years, an extensive body of research has underscored the unique and diverse metabolic roles of protein, and now there is compelling evidence that consuming additional foods that provide protein at quantities above the RDA may be a key dietary strategy to combat obesity in the U.S (while staying within calorie limits by reducing nutrient-poor carbohydrate foods). Instead of incorporating this approach, the past iterations of the DGAs have eroded daily protein quantity by shifting protein recommendations to PSPFs, including beans, peas, and lentils, while reducing and/or de-emphasizing intakes of ASPFs, including meats, poultry, and eggs. The shift towards PSPFs was intended to reduce adiposity and risks of chronic diseases but was primarily informed by epidemiological evidence on The Scientific Foundation for the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2025–2030: Appendices | 350 dietary patterns, even in some cases when experimental evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was available to more specifically inform this recommendation. Another key aspect that DGA committees have inadequately considered are the nutrient consequences when shifting from ASPFs to PSPFs. ASPFs not only provide EAAs, they also provide a substantial amount of highly bioavailable essential micronutrients that are under-consumed. Encouraging Americans to move away from these foods may further compromise the nutrient inadequacies already impacting many in the U.S., especially our young people. Compounding this is the recent evidence highlighting the fallacies of using the unsubstantiated concept of protein ounce equivalents within food pattern (substitution) modeling, leading to recommended reductions in daily protein intakes and protein quality since ASPFs and PSPFs are not equivalent in terms of total protein or EAA density. Given that 1) there is no Tolerable Upper Intake Level (UL) for dietary protein established by the Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs) and 2) consuming high quality ASPFs above current recommendations has shown no negative health risks in high quality RCTs, it’s unclear as to why previous DGAs encouraged shifts in protein intake towards limiting high quality, nutrient dense ASPFs. It's essential to evaluate the evidence to establish a healthy range of protein intake and to substantiate whether or not limiting ASPFs is warranted and/or has unintended consequences. An alternative approach that may be more strongly supported by the totality of evidence is the replacement of refined grains with PSPFs like beans, peas, and lentils. Given their nutrient dense profile (e.g., excellent source of fiber, complex carbohydrates, & folate, etc.; good source of protein) nutrient dense PSPFs complement but do not replace the nutrients provided in ASPFs (i.e., excellent source of protein, vit B12, zinc, good source of heme iron, etc.). By including high quality, nutrient dense ASPFs as the primary source of protein, followed by nutrient dense PSPFs as a replacement for nutrient-poor refined grains, a higher-protein, lower-carbohydrate dietary pattern can be achieved which likely improves nutrient adequacy, weight management, and overall health. -- https://cdn.realfood.gov/Scientific%20Report%20Appendices.pd... Appendix 4.9

Agree that g/kcal isn't perfect but g/g has its own corner cases like water content skewing things badly (e.g. dried spirulina is 57% protein by weight but you'd never eat more than like a gram in a serving). I never meant to suggest that people should be eating broccoli _in place of_ turkey, only that by _de-emphasising_ the protein content of many vegetables in favor of animal proteins, the graphic encourages meal planning that must always contain an animal protein. More insidiously, in my experience at least, it blurs the line between the nutrition content of different animal proteins ("I have my veg I just need 'a protein' now") which leads to more consumption of red meat regardless of quality.

The graphic that I wish someone would make is the 'periodic table of macro nutrients' that positions foods along multiple dimensions at once but I don't know how you would actually do it in just two dimensions.

I guess I'd challenge the 'no downsides' claim. Few people stick to super lean grass-fed cuts, and the picture on the site is even a ribeye steak :P

The protein density (g/kcal) of a ribeye steak is basically the same as tofu (I think like 14g/100kcal vs 11g/100kcal in tofu)

I know I'm moving the goal posts slightly (I admit I didn't know about bio availability, and see now that I have more to read up on e.g. Broccoli), but am learning as I discuss rather than arguing a fixed point.

I hope that research into understanding LLM qualia eventually allow us to understand e.g. what it's like to [be a bat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_It_Like_to_Be_a_Bat%3F)

I've disabled YouTube history now and it's almost exactly what I'd hoped for. Shorts are disabled, no 'feed', no suggestions, just my subscriptions. I owe you a beer.

My understanding is that entropy is a way of quantifying how many different ways a thing could 'actually be' and yet still 'appear to be' how it is. So it is largely a result of an observer's limited ability to perceive / interrogate the 'true' nature of the system in question.

So for example you could observe that a single coin flip is heads, and entropy will help you quantify how many different ways that could have come to pass. e.g. is it a fair coin, a weighted coin, a coin with two head faces, etc. All these possibilities increase the entropy of the system. An arrangement _not_ counted towards the system's entropy is the arrangement where the coin has no heads face, only ever comes up tails, etc.

Related, my intuition about the observation that entropy tends to increase is that it's purely a result of more likely things happening more often on average.

Would be delighted if anyone wanted to correct either of these intuitions.