This is not a problem with the nutrition of foods, it is the metric that is poorly designed. One more argument against the chart
On the Fediverse also as @mapto@qoto.org
Можете да намерите и като @mapto@masto.bg
Abito in Italia @mapto@feddit.it
This is not a problem with the nutrition of foods, it is the metric that is poorly designed. One more argument against the chart
Your seem to insist to twist this towards vegan wars, but this is you. It’s not the graphics, it’s not me.
Upfront analysis and design is very close to independent from the technology, particularly at the I/O level
What’s wrong with reducing density through absorption (of water)?
To me it seems that your interpretation completely disregards the Y-axis. On the other hand, I wouldn’t think the colour coding does a good job in separating along the carnivorous-vegetarian-vegan scale.
Q: what do we do? A: profile and decompose. Should not be that distant as a thought
So much wrong about this chart. It is factually correct, but it answers the wrong question.
This chart makes it way too easy to optimise for cheap protein, which is misleading. It is not this what it takes to have a healthy organism. It takes a varied diet, with balanced quantities of liquids (see milk), vitamins (see sprouts), fatty acids (see salmon), minerals (see shrimps, eggs, walnuts), actually carbs (potatoes, rice, spaghetti), and much more…
Definitely my preference. However, for someone just starting (and not used to pressing TAB or calling help() ), an empty prompt might be intimidating.
That’s why I typically suggest interactive tutorials, e.g. any of these two: https://www.learnpython.org/en/Hello%2C_World! https://futurecoder.io/course/#IntroducingTheShell
If you do that, nothing will actually be checked. You need to explicitly run
pyright
in CI.
Are you suggesting that you prefer to do the type validation upon execution? I’d like to have the checks done beforehand, be it in the IDE during coding or in CI. This way the feedback loop is shorter.
Then, backwards compatibility is a big thing in python, unlike node. So when typehints were introduced in 3.5 with PEP 484, they had to be optional.
At least Typescript defines the semantics of its type hints. Python only defines the syntax! You can have multiple type checkers that conflict with each other!
It is a bit more complicated than that. Here’s a quote the above-mentioned PEP (3.5 was back in 2015, we’re at 3.12 now and typehints have evolved):
Note that this PEP still explicitly does NOT prevent other uses of annotations, nor does it require (or forbid) any particular processing of annotations, even when they conform to this specification. It simply enables better coordination, as PEP 333 did for web frameworks.
Have you looked at this one? https://pypi.org/project/onboot/
Let’s say that for millions of years a healthy biosphere grew around forests and the balance worked. Now you come to tell us it doesn’t. Wouldn’t you think it’s a bit unconvincing?
I wonder why forestation is not present in this chart, as it is a low-cost carbon capture with side benefits. Sure, it is hard to scale, but reducing current deforestation rates would be a big step.
Why would the logs be emitting CO2 (rotting?) if they are alive and growing?
https://github.com/pgp/XFiles is what I’ve been using and am pretty happy about it
I guess you misunderstood my providing illustrative examples in parentheses. Replace or remove the examples, the argument is still valid.
In another subthread they’ve pointed out that processing food also changes its protein density, most obviously by water transfer.