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/
Then there’s paying attention as in comprehending, and paying attention as in internalising. The latter takes more effort and time, as it includes relating to previous knowledge. It is not as often that lecturers manage to guide students to think along.
I guess when taking notes, it is beneficial if you manage also to abbreviate and summarise. This is another skill that should be acquired at university.
Heh, when it rains, it’s certainly capitalism’s fault. This ways one doesn’t have to solve individual problems, just dream of abstract revolutions
I guess the answer at this point in time is: it allows you to define the function replacements that matter to you in pnk.lang. But if so, ksh is not a first choice for maintainable code.
So it boils down to: can it “transpile” (transpret rather) its own code?
Even looking into the readme and pink.lang, I’m still unsure what this does. I can imagine, but one single example would be nice. Bonus points if it is actually something useful
From Day 1 Google’s business model has been to show sponsored content before search results. You’re probably thinking about the search engines before them.
Isn’t it dangerous to identify untruth with falsehood? Or is it just clickbait headlines? There’s an implicit positivist assumption here anyway.
“Our entire epistemology of science and research relies on the chain of footnotes,” explains author Martin Eve, a researcher in literature, technology and publishing at Birkbeck, University of London. “If you can’t verify what someone else has said at some other point, you’re just trusting to blind faith for artefacts that you can no longer read yourself.”
Isn’t this the natural state of things for the unprivileged majority of us that in the reality of publisher paywalls do not have access to the riches of Anglo-American research centres? Apparently Eve doesn’t know that libraries in the most of the world still struggle with paying fees to Springer. As a consequence, researchers in affiliated institutions do not have access to the corresponding published content.
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.