frofroggy's comments

Please drop some names if you've seen meal delivery services that are rigorously quantitative in nutritional checking. It's common for these services to check off requirements for different food groups, but rare to see a meal delivery service show how their daily set of meals satisfy all the 30+ dietary reference intakes/upper limits/adequate intake for specific age/gender/weight of patrons, at least in the United States under the Institute of Medicine's guidelines.

> Also, society is conditioned to believe there is something objectionable about the poor being made to drink a tasteless subsidized potion because they cannot afford the other kind of good food.

Others might object to a mandated government subsidy for a product without relevant prior analysis of the existing market for minimum-cost diets (e.g., determining the cost of the Stigler Diet for the region).

Suggestions to eat in a specific way for long periods of time seem even more untenable when the predominant way of meeting the guidelines is manual guess-and-check, and at worst guess-and-check-and-ignore.

I wonder if they chose the angry reaction to follow the nonviolent communication pattern: <emotion> due to <specific action leading to emotion> followed by <need hindered by action> followed by <specific request to meet the need>.

For example, "I felt angry when you wrote that any realistic web browser has to support Javascript. I have a need for using a text browser to bypass abuses of Javascript on websites with articles, so I would like you to view <specific article> with both w3m and Firefox."

The "dislike" action would not fit the nonviolent communication pattern.