You might want to read the rest of the studies - or at least try to no misrepresent before commenting. There are elementary differences in the studies.
Study 1: "What to Eat", Specific Demographics, Primary Clinical Trial, Mechanistic/Physiological Outcome, Conclusion: High-Protein breakfast is superior for suppressing appetite and maintaining satiety, while a High-Fiber breakfast promotes better weight loss and a healthier gut microbiome,
Study 2: Whether to Eat, Broad Demographics, Systematic Review (meta analysis), Broad Clinical Outcomes, Conclusion: eating breakfast increases total daily energy intake compared to skipping it, and that skipping breakfast resulted in slightly greater weight loss.
Recently, I've researched browser battery consumption for laptops. Every test I've seen rates Firefox the worst out of the big 3 or 4. Are there any settings/extensions that may have been overlooked for these reviews that can be used to help Firefox be more energy efficient?
A municipality's decision to implement common locally-owned internet as a public utility IS the free market. The State should not get to decide what's a "waste of resources" for me and my neighbors.
> The criticism should instead be directed towards Microsoft,
Totally agree that MS deserves criticism as you correctly point out. However, criticism towards the script and similar is equally valid (and important).
I have used TurboTax pretty much my entire working life and never have been audited. The one time I decided to use a professional due to "complex" tax issues that year, I was audited, which became a huge pain in the ass.
I appreciate this comment but I have some questions/comments:
> I may find this article emotionally somewhat appealing but still don't think it's a useful view about philosophy. The first and foremost thing about philosophy laymen should realize is that the vast majority of philosophers do not consider philosophy a science.
I don't think the article was making a claim about philosophy being a science. On the contrary, it seemed make a pretty clear distinction between them and highlighted some perils of falsely mixing the two.
"Often implicit empiricist assumptions in epistemology, metaphysics and the philosophy of language are relied upon as if they were self-evident, and without awareness of the threat that those very assumptions pose to the author’s own reasoning. We can call this phenomenon scientistic pseudophilosophy."
"While pseudoscience can perhaps be counteracted by science education, the cure for pseudophilosophy is not science education but philosophical education."
> If you don't like a particular philosopher's work, you generally don't read and support it, and that's it. Calling the work pseudophilosophy will only enrage people who disagree and not help with anything.
The article wasn't about disagreeing with opposing philosophers' work, it as a critique of those non-philosophers who "fail to grasp the content of many of the philosophical claims and arguments that they criticize"
"There are two kinds of pseudophilosophy, one mostly harmless and the other insidious. The first variety is usually found in popular scientific contexts. This is where writers, typically with a background in the natural sciences, walk self-confidently into philosophical territory without realising it, and without conscientious attention to relevant philosophical distinctions and arguments.
The insidious kind of pseudophilosophy, which I will focus on here, is an academic enterprise, pursued primarily within the humanities and social sciences." (e.g. phenomenon obscurantist pseudophilosophy)
They want a break from their present situation so they can concentrate on planning for their future plans since it's hard to plan for the future when they are fully involved in the present. That's why. Not vague at all.
> I read this twice just to make sure I didn't miss something, and I don't actually see a reason why. I don't actually see a reason why.
(Stated right in the sixth paragraph.)
I’m going to take a break, and a research fellowship, as a place to think about what’s next. It’s hard
to think about your future when you’re fully in your present, and for the past seven years, I’ve been
fully present for this movement. But as I look around, I see global challenges such as polarization,
inequality, and climate change, as well as opportunities for generational renewal and optimism. As a
Wikimedian, I lean toward optimism, and plan to head in that direction.
Not mentioned in the article, but Amazon also hasn't fixed its problem with fake reviews at Audible either. Thousands of 5-star ratings are similarly worded blurbs by accounts with 1 or 2 book reviews.
> I wonder if YouTube removed his channel for the cybersecurity videos, or if they removed his channel for posting walkthrough videos on how to pirate Burp Suite Pro ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I don't know, but I'm going to automatically berate YouToob's motives/competence, compare some other topics that I feel are less censored than cybersecurity (which is confusing since I haven't bothered to read YouTube's content policy), and preach about the importance of local backups!
> Yeah, for sure. Call it freedom of information, add a little bit of common sense to it, and your argument renders itself completely invalid.
No it doesn't. Obviously you aren't grasping the concept of free speech (and its limits).
> Google demonstrates that it doesn't follow a revenue driven agenda with these actions. It involves itself in selecting political views that it deems acceptable to influence the opinions of a world wide audience.
As is its legal right to do so.
> It is large enough to take on a quasi governmental role. If it was just acting as a neutral platform, I would buy your argument, but it obviously doesn't.
"Quasi government" is a meaningless word and doesn't really help your argument. Why would it have to act as a neutral platform?
Curious. Why even bother?