So many memories… Thanks !

Wikipedia defines snack as a small portion of food that is eaten between meals. The way I think about it, that is the only distinction between a meal and a snack. That “in between meals”.

This, as far as weight goes, carries with it an inherent quality that makes regulating weight harder. If not impossible, depending on your sleep patterns (the etymology of the term breakfast indicates exactly how this is relevant to what I am saying here). It’s nearly impossible to find snacks that have zero insulin response in your body. Insulin not only promotes energy storage, but it also prevents the body from using energy already stored. Making a habit of doing that, even when you don’t face weight problems (which are related to health issues), is essentially making a habit of preventing your metabolism of using energy already stored from previous meals.

This is also probably the most important reason why people speak highly of intermittent fasting or low carb diets. Most of them, through these two approaches, regardless of the other positive/negative aspects, completely eliminate the habit of constantly spiking their insulin levels, effectively allowing the body to regulate energy levels through both the energy still available from a meal and the energy stored from previous meals.

Imo, there’s no shame in getting orthodontia just because you prefer that aesthetic or really don’t like the way your teeth currently are, either. None whatsoever.

Even though I agree with what you say, I think the article was not an attempt to shame people who get their teeth fixed for whatever reason, cosmetic or functional. I perceived it more like an attempt to explore the extend of the unrealistic standards propagated through media, cinematic or web based.

I mean, what about body dysmorphia? It’s not the people who fall into this trap that are the issue. They are not vain, and they probably actually suffer in more ways than one. They are actually the victims of unrealistic standards propagated by media. I believe that attacking those standards is not the same as attacking the people that identify themselves in them.

And it doesn’t really stop at the teeth. It’s everywhere. Bodybuilders struggling for years to achieve physiques that are not only impossible to achieve without PED’s but actually also harmful to their health (especially if they start using drugs). Men injuring their bodies in countless ways to match false standards of what strength is supposed to look like. Women performing dangerous and sometimes clearly unhealthy plastic surgeries to match false standards of what attractive female figures are supposed to look like. Young people getting their faces changed permanently before they actually get a chance to experience the world fully.

This is not a new thing either. If you start looking into our past, there have been countless types of clothes that fit like a fingerless glove which people used to wear in order to conform to whatever social standards were at the time.

What is new though, is the extend to which these standards spread through modern media… Comparing the current situation to the one before the web, like for example the extend to which magazines or tv shows could influence people’s standards, looks scary to me. Oppressive to say the least.

Sunflower plant here.

I feel like a cannibal munching on sunflower seeds while reading the description of my type of plant XD

I don’t think there is a way to have both the option to host images and have zero risk of getting such image uploads. You either completely disable image hosting, or you mitigate the risk by the way image uploads are handled. Even if you completely disable the image uploads, someone might still link to such content. The way I see this there are two different aspects. One is the legal danger you place yourself when you open your instance to host images uploaded by users. The other is the obvious (and not so obvious) and undeniable harmful effects contact with such material has for most of us. The second, is pretty impossible to guarantee 100% on the internet. The first you can achieve by simply not allowing image uploads (and I guess de-federating with other instances to avoid content replication).

The thing is, when you host an instance of a technology that allows for better moderation (i.e. allowing certain kinds of content, such as images, only after a user reaches a certain threshold of activity), actually helps in a less obvious manner. CSAM is not only illegal to exist on the server-side. It’s also illegal and has serious consequences for the people who actually upload it. The more activity history you have on a potential uploader, the easier it becomes to actually track him. Requiring more time for an account before allowing it to post images, makes concealing the identity harder and raises the potential risk for the uploader to the extend that it will be very difficult to go through the process only to cause problems to the community.

Let me also state this clearly: I don’t have an issue with disabling image uploads here, or changing the default setting of instance federation to a more limiting one. Or both. I don’t mind linked images to external sites.

I am sorry you had to see such content. No, it doesn’t seem to go away. At least it hasn’t for me, after almost 2 decades :-/

As someone who grew up with a (quite) younger sibling in the most disabling end of the spectrum, witnessing all the development from infancy to adulthood, I am very reluctant to recommend for/against any specific approach, because I think that what matters most is the people who actually practice it. So, I absolutely agree with the last sentence of your comment.

The negative aspects of ABA are not entirely in the past. I am not in a position to verify the information I will quote, but this is mentioned in the third of the linked articles:

Mandell says ABA needs to renounce that history — especially the early reliance on punishments like yelling, hitting, and most controversially electroshocks, which are still used in a notorious residential school in Massachusetts called the Judge Rotenberg Educational Center.

To be clear: I am not arguing with your experience here. Rather, I am pointing out how important is the kind of practice of whatever theory and what the focus of the practice actually is. It’s really very difficult to find professionals who are actually both able and willing to care properly for autistic people. At least in the place I live.

Beyond that, I have to say that there are many things that now have positive effects on people’s lives that weren’t exactly positive in their original forms.

At least, not at first. As the scandal heated up, EFF took an impassive stance. In a blog post, an EFF staffer named Donna Wentworth acknowledged that a contentious debate was brewing around Google’s new email service. But Wentworth took an optimistic wait-and-see attitude—and counseled EFF’s supporters to go and do likewise. “We’re still figuring that out,” she wrote of the privacy question, conceding that Google’s plans are “raising concerns about privacy” in some quarters. But mostly, she downplayed the issue, offering a “reassuring quote” from a Google executive about how the company wouldn’t keep record of keywords that appeared in emails. Keywords? That seemed very much like a moot point, given that the company had the entire emails in their possession and, according to the contract required to sign up, could do whatever it wanted with the information those emails contained. EFF continued to talk down the scandal and praised Google for being responsive to its critics, but the issue continued to snowball. A few weeks after Gmail’s official launch, California State Senator Liz Figueroa, whose district spanned a chunk of Silicon Valley, drafted a law aimed directly at Google’s emerging surveillance-based advertising business. Figueroa’s bill would have prohibited email providers like Google from reading or otherwise analyzing people’s emails for targeted ads unless they received affirmative opt-in consent from all parties involved in the conversation—a difficult-to-impossible requirement that would have effectively nipped Gmail’s business model in the bud. “Telling people that their most intimate and private email thoughts to doctors, friends, lovers, and family members are just another direct marketing commodity isn’t the way to promote e-commerce,” Figueroa explained. “At minimum, before someone’s most intimate and private thoughts are converted into a direct marketing opportunity for Google, Google should get everyone’s informed consent.”

Google saw Figueroa’s bill as a direct threat. If it passed, it would set a precedent and perhaps launch a nationwide trend to regulate other parts of the company’s growing for-profit surveillance business model. So Google did what any other huge company caught in the crosshairs of a prospective regulatory crusade does in our political system: it mounted a furious and sleazy public relations counteroffensive.

Google’s senior executives may have been fond of repeating the company’s now quaint-sounding “Don’t Be Evil” slogan, but in legislative terms, they were making evil a cottage industry. First, they assembled a team of lobbyists to influence the media and put pressure on Figueroa. Sergey Brin paid her a personal visit. Google even called in the nation’s uber-wonk, Al Gore, who had signed on as one of the company’s shadow advisers. Like some kind of cyber-age mafia don, Gore called Figueroa in for a private meeting in his suite at the San Francisco Ritz Carlton to talk some sense into her.

And here’s where EFF showed its true colors. The group published a string of blog posts and communiqués that attacked Figueroa and her bill, painting her staff as ignorant and out of their depth. Leading the publicity charge was Wentworth, who, as it turned out, would jump ship the following year for a “strategic communications” position at Google. She called the proposed legislation “poorly conceived” and “anti-Gmail” (apparently already a self-evident epithet in EFF circles). She also trotted out an influential roster of EFF experts who argued that regulating Google wouldn’t remedy privacy issues online. What was really needed, these tech savants insisted, was a renewed initiative to strengthen and pass laws that restricted the government from spying on us. In other words, EFF had no problem with corporate surveillance: companies like Google were our friends and protectors. The government—that was the bad hombre here. Focus on it.

I don’t know whether it is illegal for someone to open a letter addressed to you or not, in the country you live, but this is pretty important. If the information presented here is accurate, this is not simply EFF focusing on the government, its EFF actively resisting similar rules to be applied on e-mail as those applied on regular mail. Would anyone use any of the non-electronic mail service providers or courier services if it was a given that for each piece of mail sent, there would be exactly one open and read, shared with multiple other parties besides the sender and receiver?

It seems to me that this is the whole point of this (quite long, but interesting) article and this instance probably illustrates it better than any other chosen to discuss in the article.

So what is it with Anakin’s picture? Javascript is the dark side of the, web development, force? XD

Seriously tho, valid points.

The Reddit-style presentation of topics and ranking comments isn’t really conducive to lengthy, quality discussions that persist over a period of time.

I don’t know whether @Penguincoder@beehaw.org had all these in mind, but as far as lengthy & quality discussions go, everything you wrote to support this sentece, in my experience, seems 100% correct. There was a time, when forums when used more, during which a discussion on a subject would carry on for weeks, even months, between different individuals. Taking the time, thinking over the subject and coming back with a response after days was not at all uncommon.

It’s nearly impossible to pick one, I find beauty in each kind.

I would go with Platanus. They exist near rivers and get really big. I like everything about them.

Then all the wild versions of cherry trees, if not every single stone fruit tree. Most wild versions of them, exist across multiple human lifespans (platanus too), so beside their amazing flowering season, I like the idea that some of them have been standing there for centuries, marking memories of many human generations with their beautiful presence.

Eating less is not that hard

There are always hundreds of excuses, but hardly any of them are reasonable.

but blaming everything on external factors is addict behavior.

Okay, I 'll give it a go too. Even though @storksforlegs@beehaw.org already mentioned what I am about to say, obviously to no effect.

You say you are speaking from experience. That you 've lost some weight. And then you make claims that go way beyond your experience, that are far tοo general. I won’t go so far as to say that the position you support is ignorant. This won’t be nice. I will assume you are more educated than I am. But I will point out, that your experience alone hardly constitutes solid ground to speak for everyone. There is room there for you to be mistaken.

Addictive behavior is not rational. People get addicted to stuff, whether there are inherent addictive qualities to whatever they get addicted to or not, not because they choose so, but because they are vulnerable to addictive behavior. This, more often than not, is something indicating other psychological issues that need to be addressed. It can be insane amounts of stress, it can be depression, it can be many other issues that need to be addressed in order for someone with addictive behavior to get to a place where that person no longer needs crutches to function. Attacking how an addict rationalizes the addiction, not only doesn’t address the issues that lead to this behavior but it probably adds to to them.

So, since you can’t know why someone is displaying addictive behavior, implying, for example, that a person with severe anxiety that turns to food for comfort is lazy, is actually neither nice nor helpful. It’s not even speaking the truth as you said. It’s just negative, probably adding to the problem causing the unhealthy relationship with food.

I won’t bother with the rest of the generalizations you 've already made, but I will suggest this. If you want others to respect your experience when you speak about it, try to consider its limitations before you draw assumptions that include other people’s lives.

True, for some reason I was under the impression it was a little older. No, not that old though. I won’t edit the comment, my sense of time is pretty bad anyways…

Yet when you go to the doctor how much time do they spend talking about your cardio routine vs popping you on the scales or talking about weight?

Well, last doctors I 've seen actually got angry when I mentioned that I 'll get back on my bike. They said 2 weeks after the surgery to insert plate and screws after my crash were not enough. They didn’t bother to ask my weight at any instance. Orthopedic surgeons… XD

Seriously though, effects of exercise on human health are not exactly lacking in research. Its pretty old, but I found it really very interesting.

Focusing excessively on being overweight as its own risk factor for mortality, independent of biomarkers or metabolic health, does not seem warranted.

I 'll quote this from the article for emphasis. The obesity range tho, is not challenged as far as health consequences go. While treating both ranges as if they are same is probably wrong, one doesn’t get obese without being overweight first. As for the excessive part, I laughed at the percentages :-)

As for the overweight part, in my experience, when it comes to my heart, whether it is just extra fat or extra muscle, it’s still extra weight to carry. Life is much easier without it. Beyond a point, I need a really good reason to maintain extra weight even if it is just muscle tissue and vanity is not even a bad one.

I am getting old.

When I was a kid, my parents, my siblings and I would go to very crowded beaches during the summer. Sunny weather, vibrant colors, cool water. It was nearly impossible for me to bother with whatever everyone else was doing. My attention was focused to everything that was fun and new to me. I would swim for hours, climb rocks and attempt the most challenging dives I could, run on the wet sand. Even build castles!

And then, gradually, every next year each summer visit to the beach would become less magical. Every next year, my attention would start to focus less on the beach and more on the people. And not just people who were calm, friendly and enjoying themselves there. No. I would focus on people who were rude, stressed out and annoying. Loud people who would disregard everyone else around them.

Until, at some point, it started actually feeling bad visiting crowded places. Felt like there was no way I could enjoy being at the beach if I were to share it with other people. Now, I can point you to places that very few people know how to reach. And they are great. As long as you have your own company.

I envy my kid self. If you were to ask that kid what it felt like to be at the beach, you would get a lot of excitement and zero negativity.

Now, even though I will mostly avoid crowded places it’s not always possible to do so. So, when I end up in a crowded place I actively focus on what is important for me to enjoy my time. Laughter is music for my ears. Kidding around my friends, swimming and all the good stuff my kid self knew how to do better. I try. Sometimes I succeed, others I feel old and tired ;-)

What if you are toxic to an user, on the other side of your screen, who happens to have depression or other mental disorders, and you don’t know that fact? Would you feel OK knowing that you’re driving someone to hurt themselves, or worse?

This is probably one of the most important things to consider before posting something in a public space.

And this is not something that occurs recently or during the last 5 years. I’ve been browsing internet since 2006, and it was as bad as it is now, just with other intermediaries, like online chats, forums, etc.

What you describe here and above this sentence is true. It happened, it happens still. But, in my experience, not to the same extend. I 've been spending time in online communities since the early 90’s and I believe there is a reason the toxicity is getting worse. Part of it is what @daredevil@kbin.social said. I mean most of the platforms offered by huge corporations try to drive engagement for profit. To achieve this, to get more people involved and engaging as much as possible, the interactions have to get limited to the least common denominator. It’s not just reaction buttons, it’s much more than this. Another part of it is the technological shift. The web was populated by significantly less netizens before certain technological advancements, with probably the most important of these being the smart phones. I believe this combination is the reason. The huge increase of people surfing the web and the appearance of huge corporations actively controlling how new people get used to surfing the web.

Btw at 2006 google was already there and quite big and facebook was already starting to get big.

Anyway, thanks for the link, as a fediverse newbie, I really appreciate it!

Hey have you ever been to https://www.neocities.org? It’s reminiscent of geocities and kind of cool.

No, haven’t even realised that Sheldon Brown’s site was hosted there. I used to have a website up on geocities when I was a kid, browsing neocities brings back so many happy memories… Thanks!

Sorry if I sounded disagreeable, I didn’t mean to be. I was just taking a trip down memory lane.

No worries. Felt exactly like that. That’s why my mind went to how I felt when altavista’s babelfish appeared, I did the same thing for a few minutes before responding :-)

Well, I guess not everyone had the same experience. Maybe I should have spoken only for myself. It’s not that I didn’t use search engines before google appeared or that I don’t do it now. Just the fact, at least in my experience, that I would get to know way more and way better web locations, related to what interested me, through discussions with other people with similar interests, than I would through search engines. Even when discussions are not possible (like in magazines) or are too massive to follow, it is often, especially in technology-related subjects, preferable to have them archived (through subscriptions) and search directly those archives when I need something specific. It was true for me back when engines didn’t have as good indexes, it is true for me now that their role as businesses is becoming obvious. I guess it also depends on what someone considers interesting.

I did love how altavista translation service was called though, really liked the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy :-)

There was a time before google’s search engine, when all the previous attempts had not managed to become the dominant entry point for the web. During that time, we would find interesting web pages through people and/or specific interests. Then, google came, and for a time it was good (read like The Second Renaissance Part I story from animatrix). Ads and SEO were not everywhere yet, content mattered more than those two. So, while I came here to suggest what @bbbhltz@beehaw.org commented, when I read your post text I thought that maybe, at least for what we tend to constantly look for news, articles and discussions, we shouldn’t constantly rely on search engines. For example, most technologies have news letters, weekly/monthly magazines, mailing lists, community boards or other forms of group communication through which you can gradually discover better content sources (individuals or groups) on what interests you. Without the search engine service and its cost (direct or indirect) between you and the content.