jj4211

Not everyone's school time was shitty.

Especially those of us who had school before "A Nation at Risk" incited changes in education.

Reagan's department of education concluded that falling scores meant kids were slacking and needed to be pushed harder on standardized testing. The result was culling of recess, gym, arts, and things like home economics/shop class. To make more room to hammer in "important" stuff. So the experience became razor focused on some of the most soul crushing material without much reprieve. Note that there's a thought that making people take the tests they didn't used to take caused scores to go down, rather than some soft laziness of the system, so we might have 'fixed' the wrong things.

Then COVID happened and schools dramatically cut back on social events and interactions. Even as the critical threat of COVID subsided, I think administration found it easier to manage the students this way, so students did not access to lockers back (because that would encourage congregation in hallways) and on top of everything else, they have to lug all their school stuff around. Somewhat a mixed bag as most of the 'textbook's are digital now, but still have a few big ones.

For me, school had carved out time to socialize pretty freely, to be vaguely active in a gym class, to just do some woodworking stuff, to do some cooking and sewing. Recess until like 13 years old. Current kids stop getting recess about 10 or so and unless they join a sports team likely never see physical activity from school again, and while there are still electives, much more rare. I don't think I even saw an option for a 'home ec' class in my kid's elective options, everything seemed to be more 'substantial' than those sorts of classes I had growing up.

Man I hope so.

I'm skeptical, but I hope so.

Also sharing the concern that people are able to vibe code some crap and too many words in their writing as a cause rather than more positive changes.

I have no idea, but if I had to guess based on a couple of court cases that came up on youtube, the stalker has some carve out where they can go to work, but they have to take very inconvient ways to get there to minimize proximity to the victim.

Taking a few hours twice in an election cycle to cast a vote is not some intolerable wast of organizing energy.

It's at least worth a try to influence the elections and candidates.

"It's not possible to reform so don't even try" is a stupidly bad take. It seems accelerationist, that you hope for a civilization wide disaster that would leave hundreds of millions desperate in hopes that it will at least open up the path to some non-democratic result which you somehow hope will be your desired result as opposed to a myriad of competing interests that is likely to institute any number of even worse results.

Obviously not everyone who has a reasonable amount of sugar gets fat or diabetes.

However, NO ONE has actually claimed that straw man. This culture of 'only drink things that have at least a hundred calories of refined sugar added' is a huge problem for weight gain and diabetes.

In your analogy, yo usay removing the pancreas causes type 1 diabetes. This is absolutely a cause. Yet on the other hand you seem to be arguing that since there are other causes besides high sugar diets that can also cause type 2 diabetes, you shouldn't say high sugar diets cause diabetes.

High sugar diets are a huge risk. Some people manage to get away with such a diet without diabetes (but likely get other issues with weight gain), and some people have the misfortune to get it anyway, but the fact remains a high sugar diet can result in diabetes, though arguments can be had about how direct/indirect the relationship is.

Just because something is a cause of diabetes doesn't mean it's the only one.

It's a fine line to walk, reassuring those that didn't cause their issue (and particularly 'easier' for type 1 diabetes, where lifestyle choices don't factor in), but then you may also encourage people that can avoid type 2 diabetes to think "I'm golden, sugar doesn't cause type 2 diabetes, let me drink a sugar drink 4 or 5 times a day".

It may or may not be direct, but weight management on a low sugar diet is far more plausible than high sugar diet.

Plus theories about constant bombardment of sugars and what it means for insulin resistance.

Short of it is that if you go nuts with the sugar, T2D is a quite plausible outcome. If you keep sugar low, your weight will probably also be reasonable and your insulin response is probably fine.

Yes, there are the unlucky souls that get it even if they seemingly do everything right, but the vast majority of folks I know including a lot of family got T2D after years of unmanaged obesity. In three cases I know personally where they got their weight under control and exercised, they had perfectly normal A1C and fasting blood sugar levels even if they were given a full blown T2D diagnosis.

Note that there's also nuance in the sort of sugar.

Orange Juice has the natural sugars of the fruit, which is at least less of an issue than the refined sugars added to other sorts of drinks.

Eating the orange seems to be healthier than drinking the juice, but it seems like drinking the juice isn't too bad either, presumably as long as you don't overdo it.

Yes, the "did I stutter?" If everything is a file philosophy.

Sadly, the browser variants lack functionality. In my experience, particularly powerpoint, a colleague says the same of excel.

Thankfully, I rarely need that functionality so I only have to resort to Windows once every few months.

Between libre and office in the browser, 99% of my needs are met.

Collaborating on a powerpoint however, it's very quickly 'powerpoint application only', whether I like it or not.