" but I no longer think it is really scientifically tenable to call most fruit "healthy"."
This doesn't appear to be even slightly tenable. The amount of sugar one consumes in a normal serving of fruit if not added to the massive amount we actually consume wouldn't be even slightly unhealthy.
Saying fruit isn't "healthy" doesn't mean it is unhealthy, there are plenty of neutral things here. But if you are treating fruits and veggies as the same (e.g. X servings of fruits and veggies), generally, anyone making X be 100% fruit is likely going to be less healthy than anyone making X be 100% veggies. And since all fruits do contain a lot of sugar (EDIT: and thus calories, which generally we already get too much of today), you should indeed moderate your consumption of fruits.
It is very hard, by contrast, to say a person can eat "too much veggies", unless they are doing something crazy like eating extreme amounts of the same greens high in oxalates or something.
Basically, enjoy a fruit or two a day, if you like them. Or don't. But you aren't "eating healthy" just because you eat a lot of fruit, nor are you eating unhealthily if you eat zero fruit.
Yes, although the evidence for those having meaningful or large health effects is far weaker, more suggestive / possible rather than clearly established. For sure though, "berries are healthy" is a far more general truth than "fruit is healthy" to be true.
A healthy diet has always had a range of components. Insofar as you are eating a normal healthy amount fruit is healthy not neutral even with a higher sugar content you won't get an overdose of sugar just from any reasonable amount of fruit.
It is without meaning to compare incoherent dietary ideas like 100% veggies or 100% fruits.
Let me put it this way: I don't think it is an uncommon belief that "adding fruit" to an existing diet will have benefits. But, in fact, if you are meeting your caloric and nutrient needs already, it is unlikely it adds anything (except fiber), and it is plausible it is causing problems (increasing possibility of diabetes, adding extra calories). Veggies are a safer add.
In both cases, you probably need to be rebalancing and not adding things, but, for the same reason, it is sensible to err on the side of much more veggies than fruits. However, because fruit tastes like candy (and perhaps because you don't have to cook them, generally), people reach for adding more fruit to their diets, and this is likely sub-optimal. You should almost certainly be eating much more vegetables than you should be eating fruit. I.e. I'd say healthy is more like 80% veggie, 20% fruit, if you are putting them in the same category.
Maybe 50/50 is perfectly good too, but it seems pretty clear 100% fruit and 0% veggie is the worst possible choice, but 100% veggie and 0% fruit is perfectly fine. This should bring into question the appropriateness of the label "healthy" for fruit.
This is basically a built in limit of X. The only exception is that monitors that support variable refresh rates may be able to offer this feature in multiple monitor configuration subject to software and hardware options.
I'm personally very dubious of the claim. This has basically never been supported because x treats all screens as one big screen unless you run multiple X screens which disallows moving Windows between screens which is a pretty big barrier to normal usage
> unless you run multiple X screens which disallows moving Windows between screens which is a pretty big barrier to normal usage.
Is it? Or is it forgotten?
Around 1994 I had a Pentium 133 with 16MB. In it a Diamond Speedstar 24(Pro?) (Tseng ET 4k) Vesa Local Bus, some ISA Trident 8900, and an ISA Hercules, driving one 17", one 15", and the Hercules at something like 12" IIRC. One could choose in the BIOS which "GPU" ...err... frame buffer should have priority at boot, or rather which slot, so when you've chosen VLB it took that, and the others were a matter of the OS to initalize and drive way after boot.
At the time I compared 386BSD, NetBSD, SLS(Softlanding Systems), early Slackware and SuSE, and lo and behold, I could move windows across all of them on all of them!1!!
With proudly created custom modelines for all of them, even the Hercules, with different Hz & DPI for each screen.
Though it didn't really make sense, because X on the Hercules was very laggy and jerky, coz' 8-Bit ISA. Was more useful for syslogs and debugger.
Anyways, it worked, even if only as POC, to show off.
Now that wasn't Xorg, but XFree86, but still?
1994. Worky, worky!
IIRC that also applied to Accelerated-X, at least for the Tseng and Trident.
In 1994 the only way to have multiple monitors was to run X with multiple X screens which did not allow moving windows freely between screens. In 1998 X11R6.4 brought xinerama and proper multi-head with many physical screens but only 1 X screen removing that complication.
May I submit that it is more likely that you are speaking of 1998 instead of 94 rather than this entire technology working differently.
> May I submit(suggest?) that it is more likely that you are speaking of 1998 instead of 94
No. I'm not pulling this out of thin air, or misremembering. It wasn't easy, and it wasn't in the manpages, or only some of it. It was rather involved, and didn't work on first try. Not only that X-thing, but also which TTY/VT was on which head for tailing syslogs, std-error, and whatnot else. But it worked. And with no X on the Hercules, just between the Trident and Tseng, even reasonably fast.
I remember exactly because I moved shortly after that. I also remember which relief Xinerama brought me, when it appeared :-)
Edit: I also remember frying the Hercules and the attached screen with both of them giving me the magic blue smoke, because I've overdriven them a little. But it didn't matter, because that was already abandoned cybertrash at the time, used, and collected just for fun :-)
> With proudly created custom modelines for all of them...
Yep. I remember that pride very clearly. I'm also so glad I never have to do that math ever again.
> SLS(Softlanding Systems)
I'd never heard of this one. If the claim that its slogan was "Gentle Touchdowns for DOS Bailouts" is true, then that's a really great pairing of distro name and slogan.
TBH I've been mostly unimpressed with the early Linuxen. At the time they had almost nothing which NetBSD didn't have, and I knew that really well. Gentoo 'ricing' well.
But it was clear that there was momentum behind the Linux hype. It was on CD-Roms in magazines, in book stores. While *BSD wasn't known generally, just by some guys in Universities, or similar. Bad marketing. FUD because lawsuits, and whatnot else.
$ xrandr | grep -A1 ' connected' | sed 's/^/ /'
eDP connected 1920x1200+0+240 (normal left inverted right x axis y axis) 286mm x 178mm
1920x1200 60.03*+ 40.02
--
DisplayPort-0 connected primary 2560x1440+1920+0 (normal left inverted right x axis y axis) 597mm x 336mm
2560x1440 59.95 + 200.00* 179.96 144.01 120.00
> This has basically never been supported because x treats all screens as one big screen unless you run multiple X screens which disallows moving Windows between screens which is a pretty big barrier to normal usage
Hmm.
I'm not sure what windowing system you've been using over the past ~thirty years, but you seem to be unaware of both Xinerama (released in the late 1990s) and XRandR (version 1.2 [0] of which was released in like 2006). Maybe you've been using an X11 implementation provided by some proprietary *NIX for all of these years, but whatever you've been using, it has certainly been neither XFree86 or xorg.
> The only exception is that monitors that support variable refresh rates may be able to offer this feature in multiple monitor configuration subject to software and hardware options.
1) Monitors have been able to support multiple refresh rates for ages. This is a big part of why EDID and friends exists.
2) I note that VESA standardized Adaptive Sync in ~2009, and that VRR-supporting monitors were extremely uncommon in the consumer space until the introduction of GSync and the addition of Adaptive Sync to the DisplayPort standard... which both happened in ~2014. Add to that the fact that my secondary monitor does not support VRR, and it becomes very clear that VRR is not a prereq for driving multiple monitors at different refresh rates.
[0] IIRC, 1.2 is the version that gave it feature parity with Xinerama
>However, even though the overall number of cases rises as the population grows, fewer people are getting and dying from cancer. Between 2000 and 2021, the incidence rate — or the rate of new cancer cases per 100,000 people — declined by 5.7%, while the annual mortality rate fell by 27.5%.
Cancer is a broad term encompassing many sorts of malfunction and nearly 40% of Americans will be diagnosed with it at some point because if you survive other hazards and maladies cancer is often what gets you.
This is just a failure of understanding. This particular advancement is part of a decades long slog which taken together allows a substantial number of people to live meaningful additional durations every single year. 6 months average by itself means that John got another 3 years even if Jane only got 3 more days.
If I pulled one person out of a burning building it would be newsworthy. Doctors are and have been pulling train loads every day.
I support doctors. They're doing great work. I understand that in today's US I probably should have said that explicitly, as many Americans seem to have joined the side of the cancer, viruses, etc., and now oppose doctors (or even blame doctors for the diseases). I'm not one of those irrational people.
I agree that 6 extra months (on average) means some patients get much more time than that. I agree that a statistically significant improvement on the survival rate for this terrible cancer is a very promising result longer term.
My disagreement was much narrower than that. I disagree that 6 extra months is equivalent to 5 extra years. I disagree that people living an extra 6 months on average is equivalent to one person living 3 extra years and one person living 3 extra days. I think 3 days and 3 years average out to about 1.5 years, not to 6 months.
Think of me as a living fossil who takes it for granted that everyone appreciates how much medicine improves our lives.
In my comment I pointed out that "5 years" was a bit of an exaggeration compared to the results in the article (6 months). That seemed unfortunate to me. To me 5 years seems much better than 6 months.
I got mine when I was 12, IIRC. Not a credit, of course, it was a debit card, but not all countries bother to differentiate between the two, it was just a “bank card”. And I believe it had a credit card BIN because all local banks did that to get more in processing fees.
I do not specifically believe you can run up a $6000 bill on AWS with a kids card. It beggars belief as does the idea that this is a literal rather than mental child
Isn't USA famous for letting parents take out credit cards on their newborns and pushing them into debt even before they learn to walk? I recall seeing at least a few snippets of movies and TV shows showing that.
If you mean parents using their children SSN to open a credit card, this is because US banking system is always decades behind the rest of the world, so they just accept the number blindly even though technically the children aren't allowed to open a loan yet, being minor.
In theory once the child grows up and shocked that their credit score is ruined, they can file a police report to wipe the debt, but that also means their parents will go to jail, a large risk considering they're likely not in a good physical/mental health in the first place.
Other countries solved this by either having national ID or a working KYC system.
It is possible to defraud a lender and cause your own child grief from bad credit reports and creditors but ultimately the debt isn't collectible or lawful as should be obvious.
If you let your car drive you backwards on the sidewalk while you scrolled reddit even people adroit enough not to be in any danger might reasonably suppose that helping you crash would be best for everyone.
Yes our government purportedly used technology to work up a list of targets in the Iran debacle as well just not with a LLM a distinction that to me just isn't that meaningful
reply