jdkuepper's comments

If you’re referring to the shiny pieces in soil you buy from a garden shop, that’s actually perlite - a natural volcanic glass that’s added to improve soil drainage.

Counterpoint- I have three children (one still not biking in his own) and have exclusively used a cargo bike to cart them to school since Kinder unless it was exceptionally icy roads.

That said, I live in a very bike friendly city now, close to their school, can afford a cargo bike, etc.

Yes, but also, stock correlations are so high that it's not as big of a difference as you might think.[1]

1: https://www.macroaxis.com/invest/pair-correlation/DIA/%5EGSP...

Here is a more in-depth counterpoint to that preprint:

https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2021/08/16/a-...

Dollar-denominated debt in emerging markets is the big exception. If the dollar rises, those debts become more expensive to repay, regardless of the emerging market's underlying economy. That's why Ukraine, Argentina, Turkey and Brazil have seen the recent volatility.

The question is whether these problems are limited to those countries with high dollar debt or whether it could cause a regional capital outflow that reduces economic growth in neighboring countries or trade partners.

Or the market's reaction following the announcement. I would imagine that they have to have two draft titles ready for every piece written about earnings announcements.

I think it's important to look beyond hypertension before completely ending the war on salt.

Very high salt intake may influence the risk of H. pylori infection - the main cause of stomach cancer. It increases the risk of atrophic gastritis (chronic inflammation of the stomach), which makes the stomach more prone to infection, and increases the susceptibility of mucosa to neoplastic change once an infection occurs.

If you think nobody consumes this level of salt, the Chinese and Japanese had extremely high levels of stomach cancer decades ago before reducing their salt intake and preservative consumption. To some extent, these problems persist to this day. Completely ignoring salt (especially in convenience foods) could reignite the issue.

Another paradox is why the media always seems to portray meta studies (correlation) as fact (causation).

This just in: Margarine Causes Divorce in Maine [1]

1. http://tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations (99.3% correlation between Maine's divorce rate and margarine consumption)

I have an interesting anecdote related to ketosis: I was in nutritional ketosis for three months to test its effects on my body. My ketones were consistent with being in the ketotic state, but my LDL-P and triglycerides skyrocketed with no meaningful improvement in HDL. It's debatable whether this is "bad" for you without inflammation (atherosclerosis relies on both), but I certainly wasn't comfortable with the elevated levels and went out of ketosis.

Saturated fat sensitivity seems to have been my issue (VERY difficult to be on that diet without high levels of saturated fat) and I'm now on a low-carb monounsaturated fat diet that has dramatically improved my blood lipids.

So, for me at least, I would have to disagree with "the rest is just calories" statement. I think too many people are trying to simplify nutrition with a single book, diet, or pill, when in reality, it's a complex system that might very well be impossible to predict.

Thanks for the post-

It would be interesting to see some more detailed N=1 studies posted regarding Soylent. In particular, I'd be very interested in seeing a blood lipid profile, blood pressure readings, and blood glucose readings before and after to see its effects on key markers for metabolic syndrome.

I'm not opposed to the idea of engineered food (it would certainly be convenient), but I'm not convinced that the same macronutrient profile is ideal for everyone. My other big concern is that there's potential harm in the lack of diversity - e.g. "unknown unknowns" so to speak.

Unfortunately, the field of nutrition is not very WELL studied despite the high NUMBER of studies published, so I won't pretend that I have a better answer than Soylent to the problem with nutrition in society. It's good to see that people are at least working on the problem in creative ways, so long as they aren't harming anyone.

Let's look at it another way.

You own a company that's trading with a P/E of 100x. Investors expect a lofty growth rate to justify that multiple and organic growth only lasts for so long as a market leader. In finance, price-earnings to growth ("PEG") ratios tend to be 1.0 at fair value, meaning a 100x P/E means investor expect 100% annual growth. Your high valuation makes acquisitions easier (assuming your overvalued now, you are buying assets at a discount). And, those acquisitions are perhaps the only way to achieve/maintain those lofty growth rates over the long-term. So, what's stopping you from making those acquisitions when others are in the same boat?

The concept of air wells has been around for awhile, but it's good that they're able to keep the costs low and build it from local materials with local labor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_well_(condenser)

Peter Attia wrote a great article on sugar here: http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/is-sugar-toxic

The conclusion at the end of that article is:

"So, in response to the question, “Is sugar toxic?” it seems to me the answer is, “yes, sugar is probably chronically toxic to many people.” And so is water. And so is oxygen. My sincere hope, however, is that you now understand that this is probably the wrong question to be asking. The better question is probably “What dose of sugar can I (or my child) safely tolerate to avoid chronic toxicity?” The goal should be to figure out your toxic dose, then stay well below it. (It’s probably not wise to consume 95% of the toxic dose of APAP just because you have a really bad headache.) What makes this important, of course, is that with water and oxygen, the toxic doses are so far out of the range of what we normally consume, it’s not really necessary to expend much mental energy worrying about the toxicity. But with sugar, at least for many of us, the toxic dose is easy to consume, especially in world where sugar resides in almost everything we eat."

Maybe if they get enough chargebacks at up to $100 a pop they'll stop trying these things.

I applaud efforts like these for at least doing something to address the problem, even if it doesn't turn out to be the most effective use of capital in the end as some suggest here.

That said, I think some of the best projects fighting homelessness are supportive housing projects that help people get an apartment and provide additional services for medical/psychiatric treatments, food stamps, etc. [1]

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supportive_housing

The same profit margins exist for tobacco and alcohol, especially cities like NYC, but there are relatively few bootleggers in both markets. I think the legal risk significantly offsets the increase in price from taxation. But then again, cannabis differs from tobacco and alcohol in many ways in that an underground market has become highly developed. It will indeed be interesting to see...

I think it's important to remember that just because someone can do something doesn't mean that it's healthy or optimal to do so. I could and did eat fast food every day, but despite being thin and feeling fine, had a poor lipid panel.

Similarly, I suspect that deviating from the norm (evolutionarily) has consequences that may not be immediately realized. After all, humans are 99.9% similar genetically.

> Then, as has happened before, it will climb back up to $1200 and beyond, probably up to somewhere between $4K and $10K before the next big crash. If you do want to speculate on crypto currencies, wait a day or three and you’re about to get a great deal on Bitcoin.

These kind of statements are a red flag for me. The majority of the people trading bitcoins seem to be interested in capital appreciation or alternative assets (e.g. Chinese stashing assets), rather than using it as a currency for transactions. Currencies are embraced for their stability and predictability... that's why the USD is a reserve currency for the rest of the world.

The Economist sums some of this up in their recent article: http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21590901-it-looks-over...

A great read on this same topic: http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/is-sugar-toxic

"What I find frustrating about this debate is that most people yelling and screaming don’t fully define the terms, perhaps because they don’t appreciate them (forgivable) or because they are trying to mislead others (unforgiveable). The wrong question is being asked. “Is sugar toxic?” is a silly question. Why? Because it lacks context. Is water toxic? Is oxygen toxic? These are equally silly questions, I hope you’ll appreciate. Both oxygen and water are essential for life (sugar, by the way, is not). But both oxygen and water are toxic – yes, lethal – at high enough doses."