Facebook Allegedly Detected When Teen Girls Deleted Selfies So It Could Serve Them Beauty Ads
lmmarsano @ lmmarsano @lemmynsfw.com Posts 0Comments 422Joined 7 mo. ago
lmmarsano @ lmmarsano @lemmynsfw.com
Posts
0
Comments
422
Joined
7 mo. ago
Humans should not be on social media.
Fixed.
Which is why I think it was all on purpose.
Occam/Hanlon's razor: it's stupidity with opportunistic grift.
Project 2025 had pro- & anti-tariff proposals (they were split on the issue of fair vs free trade & argued both). This administration is running wild with the pro-tariff proposal, which ties tariff imbalances to trade deficits (seen this theme before?).
While the fair trade camp argued higher tariffs would somehow create jobs, the free trade camp called for realism & skepticism
trade policy has limited capabilities and is vulnerable to mission creep and regulatory capture
will fail for the same reason that a hammer cannot turn a screw: It is the wrong tool for the job. Conservatives should be similarly skeptical of recent attempts on the Right to use progressive trade policy to punish political opponents, remake manufacturing, or accomplish other objectives for which it is not suited. The next Administration needs to end the mission creep that has all but taken over trade policy in recent years.
countered that no trade policy (fair or free) creates jobs
Neither free trade nor protectionism will create jobs. Trade affects the types of jobs people have, but it has no long-run effect on the number of jobs. Labor force size is tied to population size more than anything else.
and argues more inline with textbook economics about trade, comparative advantage, specialization.
Interestingly, the free trade camp gave a brief history lesson about the interconnectedness of the economy from its agrarian beginnings
In 1776, nearly 90 percent of Americans were farmers. For 10 people to eat, nine had to farm. That meant fewer people could be factory workers, doctors, or teachers, or even live in cities, because they were needed on the farm. Accordingly, life expectancy was around 40 years, and literacy was 13 percent.
through the loss of jobs from agriculture to industry increasing the output of both
Many displaced farm laborers got jobs making the very farm equipment that made intensive agricultural growth possible, from railroad networks to cotton gins. Each fed the other. Agriculture and industry are not separate; they are as interconnected as everything else in the economy. None of this could have happened had the government enacted policies to preserve full agricultural employment.
to argue that jobs in a particular sector are the wrong measure of value
economic policy should treat value as value, whether it is created on a farm, in a factory, or in an office. A dollar of value created in manufacturing is neither more nor less valuable than a dollar of value created in agriculture or services.
growth increased as service sector surpassed manufacturing
Farmers’ share of the population continued to decline through this entire period, yet employment remained high, and the economy continued to grow. Factories were not the only beneficiaries of agriculture’s productivity boom and the labor it freed; services also grew. In fact, service-sector employment surpassed manufacturing employment around 1890—far earlier than most people realize.
economic decline based on manufacturing is a myth that disregards the big picture
In trade, as in most other areas, few people ever zoom out to see the big picture, which is one reason why so many people mistakenly believe that U.S. manufacturing and the U.S. economy are in decline.
trade leads to specialization that affects the types of jobs, not long-term employment level
The data do not show American economic carnage. They show more than two centuries of intensive growth, made possible by a growing internal market throughout the 19th century and a growing international market in the post–World War II era. The transition from farm to factory did not shrink the labor force or farm output. Later, the transition from factories to services did not shrink the labor force, factory output, or farm output. Both transitions affected the types of jobs, not the number of jobs.
declining tariffs in the post-war era made this continued prosperity possible
population growth, the U.S.-led rules-based international trading system, and the steady 75-year decline in tariffs after World War II have made possible decades of continued prosperity
That position was too nuanced for this administration.
If you buy a bag of flour, it will say (type) flour, and maybe give you the average protein content of the flour.
The bags of flour I find usually list more, typically something like
Bleached Wheat Flour, Niacin (a B vitamin), Iron, Thiamin Mononitrate (vitamin B1), Riboflavin (vitamin B2), Enzymes, Folic Acid (a B vitamin)
After the common milling process tempers the grain, separates constituents through rollers & sieves to extract flour from endosperm, with coarser constituents (bran & germ) optionally ground up & reintroduced, it's usually far removed from its natural state. Mills have existed for millennia.
Salt may often include an "anti-caking agent". Ingredients for baker's yeast may include some unfamiliar chemical compounds. Baking soda & sugar aren't naturally found in the states they're used for baking. Oil is often pressed from some seed & filtered. They've all been prepared in controlled conditions that yield an unnaturally pure state.
Unless the bakers are sourcing unbroken wheat & raw ingredients, then mashing it themselves into something ancient Mesopotamians might have made, they're probably starting from some highly processed ingredients.
Nutrition resources linked in other comments typically identify bread as highly processed.
A lot of places like this will also be happy to explain exactly how they make their products too, as they know that information can be crucial due to allergies, cultural stuff,
Processed ingredients can be okay with all these things, too.
While the bakery bread could be better in some way (we could be wrong), a word like "processed" explains it poorly.
I get your point that the word means something. I took claims regarding processed food seriously, then found the idea unsustainable when close examination indicates nearly any prepared food we'd consider healthy also classifies as processed, sometimes highly. While some types of processing are unhealthy, there ought to be better ways to identify them.
Welcome to the internet? Learn skepticism?
If you didn't, then you got us genocide+™.
Right, that supermarket bread is definitely way more processed, probably ultraprocessed.
However, is the bread from the bakery ultraprocessed? Where'd that flour, yeast or baking soda, sugar & other purified ingredients come from? Do the ingredients not have strange, synthetic additives? Is that enough to qualify as ultraprocessed for nutrition guidelines? Could we be biased not to count it as ultraprocessed just because bakeries feel better?
I suspect the supermarket bread is worse, but I'm also aware I could be wrong, or they could both be so bad the difference doesn't matter, so I honestly don't know.
If the bakery bread is definitely better for you yet ultraprocessed, then that label isn't particularly useful. It's really unhelpful if avoiding industrial ingredients would have gotten us the same results without the overanalysis.
But it is definitively objectively definable.
Already criticized as not very precise or reliable. When tested, experts who agree on the intension of these definitions fail to settle on consistent extensions for them. Their difficult interpretation makes for unhelpful guidelines & discussions.
One of the articles cited pointed out that difficulty & inconsistent examples the definers offered to clarify.
Because of the difficulty of interpretation of the primary definition, the NOVA group and others have set out lists of examples of foods that fall under the category of ultra-processed foods. The present manuscript demonstrates that since the inception of the NOVA classification of foods, these examples of foods to which this category applies have varied considerably. Thus, there is little consistency either in the definition of ultra-processed foods or in examples of foods within this category.
It’s not like this is a weird health nutter concept.
Not claiming that it's fringe, only that attempts to define it with enough objective reliability & precision for anything serious have been largely inadequate. Researchers attempt to use it. Outside operational definitions of specific studies, it's hard to be sure what technically fits/doesn't fit the concept in general.
A definition that states extraction & chemical modification may seem clear at first glance. However, if you examine regular cooking with sieves, tea filters, baking, fermenting, cheese-making, or even salting meat before cooking to retain juiciness, they technically fit. Cooking is filled with everyday chemistry.
Yes, we both agree on this. Organic, natural, etc. are all, scientifically, ill defined, advertising labels.
Cool.
it is used in common lexicon, rather than a scientific, or technical one.
Which also isn't very clear and seems mostly buzz & connotation. While it means something, it can get awfully vague.
In common parlance, "processed" is often in context of health & medical claims attributed to scientific research: the page from Harvard is an example.
Food that contains a synthetic additive or preservative uncommon in households is certainly different. Other mass-produced food merely seems like scaled-up foods I could make at home with varying effort: bread, pastries, cheese, fermented foods, ham, sausage, sauce, etc. If they were presented with wrappers removed, I wouldn't honestly know where it came from.
Salting, smoking, adding some preservatives like vinegar, lemon, or salt are also traditional. Extracts like vanilla don't require much industry (about as much as coffee or tea) and are often used in home cooking.
When I critically examine the food we make, the label "processed" more often puzzles me than tell me anything helpful. Avoid processed foods. Cool: which? It often causes me to wonder if the person saying it has cooked, looked at cooking shows, or seen other cultures cook.
Pretending otherwise
Seems the pretense is clarity: even researchers criticize it.
How is cheese not ultraprocessed? It's acid & rennet or bacteria transforming milk significantly.
The Harvard article someone else linked to define ultraprocessed lists examples hotdogs, cold cuts, cakes.
Anyone can bake a cake from scratch. Anyone with a meat grinder can make sausages & mortadella traditionally. Without industry or a meat grinder, anyone can make hams or cured meats.
Is the hot sauce I make by passing peppers & garlic through a blender, then adding some salt, oil, vinegar processed?
Industry isn't necessary, only kitchen ability. You're making this about industry when the concept on examination is suspect.
That's 1 presentation. Is there much uniform agreement on it? Is the classification objectively precise & reliable?
Their School of Public Health acknowledges problems with definition & attempted standards
the definition of processed food varies widely depending on the source
The NOVA system is recognized by the World Health Organization, Food and Agriculture Organization, and the Pan American Health Organization, but not currently in the U.S. by the Food and Drug Administration or USDA. NOVA has been criticized for being too general in classifying certain foods, causing confusion.
Other scholarly review articles criticize the classification as unclear even among researchers.
Processed food classification: Conceptualisation and challenges regarding classifications:
There is no consensus on what determines the level of food processing.
Classification systems that categorise foods according to their “level of processing” have been used to predict diet quality and health outcomes and inform dietary guidelines and product development. However, the classification criteria used are ambiguous, inconsistent and often give less weight to existing scientific evidence on nutrition and food processing effects; critical analysis of these criteria creates conflict amongst researchers.
The classification systems embody socio-cultural elements and subjective terms, including home cooking and naturalness. Hence, “processing” is a chaotic conception, not only concerned with technical processes.
The concept of “whole food” and the role of the food matrix in relation to healthy diets needs further clarification; the risk assessment/management of food additives also needs debate.
Processed food classification: Conceptualisation and challenges regarding a single classification system (NOVA):
The present paper explores the definition of ultra-processed foods since its inception and clearly shows that the definition of such foods has varied considerably.
Thus, there is little consistency either in the definition of ultra-processed foods or in examples of foods within this category.
The public health nutrition advice of NOVA is that ultra-processed foods should be avoided to achieve improvements in nutrient intakes with an emphasis on fat, sugar, and salt. The present manuscript demonstrates that the published data for the United States, United Kingdom, France, Brazil, and Canada all show that across quintiles of intake of ultra-processed foods, nutritionally meaningful changes are seen for sugars and fiber but not for total fat, saturated fat, and sodium. Moreover, 2 national surveys in the United Kingdom and France fail to show any link between body mass index and consumption of ultra-processed foods.
Some research articles find the leading definition unreliable: low consistency between nutrition specialists following the same definition.
Although assignments were more consistent for some foods than others, overall consistency among evaluators was low, even when ingredient information was available. These results suggest current NOVA criteria do not allow for robust and functional food assignments.
If experts aren't able to classify "ultraprocessed" items consistently, then what chance has anyone? At the moment, "processed food" seems more buzz & connotation than substance.
It might make more sense to classify food by something clearer like nutritional content.
The post title is know the Reddit rules, so ridiculing them is apropos to the topic.
This place could easily fall into the same trap if people ease up. 🤷
ultra/highly processed foods
Cool: define that objectively.
Cheese, fermented food, or baked goods: ultraprocessed?
I look at the food I (could) make at home or get in a restaurant and wonder what these words mean.
Reddit, moderators, the community: you name it.
processed foods
Cool: define it objectively.
If it's cleaned, peeled, or cooked, is it processed?
They overpolice opinion that could be true. Can't even squeak out a fart without someone banning you.
Rule 3 of commenting
Reddit has great rules…
screenshot of text
no link or alt text
Dude, charge your battery.
they get upvote because “look at this idiot!”
seems like a great reason: upvoted
you can get banned here
It takes special effort here, though.
And like it was always going to be like that anyways.
It's not inevitable: some places are very laissez-faire.
Centralized social media is an advertisement platform that targets advertisements according to information & conduct users feed the platform, and some of those users are teenagers?
They're advertising cosmetics to teenagers unlike ever before in the history of teen-centric media?