> We don't even have configurable search engines from the settings anymore
It's annoying, but you can still toggle `browser.urlbar.update2.engineAliasRefresh` to true and it will restore the add/edit/remove buttons for search engines.
Moka pots don't make espresso though. True espresso requires ~9 bars of pressure to make. Moka pots can create at max 1.5 bars (though optimally it would hover between 0.5 and 1 bar).
So while they make very good, rich, full-bodied coffee, it's just not espresso.
There was actually a study done on this [0] that found LGBTQ youth are around four times as likely to attempt suicide compared to their non-LGBTQ peers.
I went looking for a 'new' pager a couple years back and settled on this [0]. I've since gone back to `less` since it got annoying jumping between systems and having different pagers, but when I used it it was quite nice.
> "Ultraprocessed" is at least a tangible definition
The Nova system's classification for UPFs seems to be what the majority of people who refer to them use as a definition.
In the Nova system, there are four main groups of food:
- Group one has 'unprocessed or minimally processed' foods, e.g. grains and fresh fruits.
- Group two has 'processed culinary ingredients'. These include foods that use naturally-derived ingredients like salt and flour.
- Group three has foods that combine the first two, like salted nuts, and can also include things with some added preservatives or flavourings.
- Group four is ultraprocessed foods. These are defined as industrially-manufactured foods made with multiple ingredients (typically multiple oils, sugars, fats, and salt) and ingredients with minimal culinary use.
The issue with group four is that it's far broader than it should be. For instance, under the Nova system sparkling water is a UPF because it's carbonated, and carbonation is considered a chemical additive. It also classifies anything with, say, Stevia as a UPF even though it's a perfectly safe artificial sweetener. It's broad enough that it covers tofu, various cheeses, and various breads, to name a few.
It also ignores the actual nutritional content of the foods (which the original Nova paper touches on, I think, specifically saying it's not meant to be used for nutrient profiling).
> How would you prove that a given food item is "hyperpalatable"?
I was recently looking at a study about this [0]. The three criterion that have been found to best define hyperpalatability are as follows:
(1) Foods with over 25% of calories from fat and more than 0.3% sodium by weight
(2) Foods with over 20% of calories from fat and more than 20% of calories from simple sugars
(3) Foods with over 40% of calories from carbs (not counting dietary fibre and simple sugars) and more than 0.2% sodium by weight
Even if you do eat them, there's no evidence (or I suppose I should say no evidence yet) of microplastics being harmful when ingested. Nanoplastics, on the other hand, have been found to impact animal embryos and cells grown in labs.
Very cool project! When I was regularly using a multiplexer on my personal machines, I did something similar with `abduco` [0] for session management and `dvtm` [1] for the actual multiplexing.
I agree that many hyperpalatable foods are ultraprocessed so that they can be made more cheaply, but I don't think that's reason enough to say that the, uh, process of processing foods is entirely aligned with the concept of hyperpalatability.
This article equates ultraprocessed foods and hyperpalatable foods (foods designed to make people want to eat them more). While many hyperpalatable foods are classified as ultraprocessed, simply being hyperpalatable does not mean it's ultraprocessed.
Worth noting that the Nova food classificationvsysten (which this article references) completely disregards the actual nutritional content of foods.
For a good primer on a lot of the misconceptions around UPFs, check out [0].
I've found lnk [0] to be a nice tool for this. Similar to GNU Stow as another comment mentioned, but plays a bit nicer with git (and, in my opinion, is nicer to use).
Edit: just remembered there was a good comparison of lnk and stow on the HN discussion of lnk from a few months back [1].