Search Ideas

Yes. Fat is calorically dense and easy to overconsume, especially from hyper-palatable foods which are often greasy. I try to eat around 60g of fat per day.

Yes. Very easy to overconsume, especially from hyper-palatable foods which are often greasy. I try to eat around 60g of fat per day.

I could see that. Milk is hydrating. Yogurt is a good source of calcium and protein. Can go with low-fat or fat-free options to reduce calories.

I could see that. Milk is hydrating. Yogurt is a good source of calcium. Can go with low-fat or fat-free options to reduce calories.

Per kg of lean mass. Someone who weighs 150kgs does NOT need to eat 300g of protein.

What’s the reasoning behind this claim?

Nuts in moderation. Very calorically dense, easy to overeat.

One answer could be that the more fundamental principle wins.

I think you may be giving these stances too much credit.

There’s something to be said about people who have a high time preference also often being pacifists or socialists. But that may have more to do with the constellation of ideas in that particular memeplex than logical sense.

For example, compromise increases disappointment right away since nobody involved gets what they want, and they realize this immediately when the compromise is made.

Freedom of Association Maxxing:
https://libertythroughreason.com/freedom-of-association-maxxing/

Welcome to Veritula, Brad.

Feel free to chime in on one of the existing discussions to get started: https://veritula.com/discussions

We also have a Telegram channel you’re welcome to join. I can send an invite.

What brings you to V? What are your main interests?

Interesting insight from TheBentist on Instagram. He’s a dentist making a new toothpaste.

He says cavities are caused by a bacterium called strep mutans. A popular misconception says cavities are caused by sugar. That’s not exactly right: strep mutans feeds on sugar and then ‘poops’ out an acid that corrodes your teeth. But sugar itself does not cause cavities – it only feeds strep mutans that’s already there.

The thing is, people aren’t born with strep mutans in their mouths. And they don’t get it from food. They get it from other people who already have it. Like when parents kiss their kids or share food. I’m guessing things like ‘double dipping’, sharing utensils, or drinking from the same bottle are especially problematic.

TheBentist made a toothpase called ‘Zero Pro’ that supposedly kills strep mutans. Conventional toothpastes just scrub it off your teeth. Zero Pro is said to actually kill it. So my understanding is that you could never get cavities again as long as the strep mutans is dead.

That would also eliminate the need for mouthwash, which he calls a ‘scorched-earth approach’ that kills a lot of good bacteria.

Fact-check me on this stuff. I’m not a dentist myself. I’m not giving any medical advice. But this toothpaste sounds interesting and promising to me. Somebody is actually thinking about the root cause of oral disease, and trying to fix it rather than find ways to live with it.

How to tell you’re ahead, objectively:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/-hwx-mUfjAg

I found a clip of Milton Friedman refuting my point:

… prohibition encouraged alcoholism rather than the opposite. To the young people in particular, it became an adventure to go out and get drunk, to go to a speakeasy. Today, with heroin illegal, it pays a heroin pusher to create an addict because, given that it’s illegal, it’s worth his while to spend some money on getting somebody else hooked. Because once hooked, he has a captive audience. If heroin were readily available everywhere, it wouldn’t pay anybody to create an addict, because the addict could then go anywhere to buy.

So if drugs were legal, sellers would have little to no incentive to turn their customers into addicts since the customers could go anywhere to get the drugs. Also, the sellers could always get new customers, so they don’t need to get customers addicted in the first place.

In short, making drugs illegal makes them more dangerous, not less.

To this end, @davies may be able to revive #4058 by editing it to call for the abolition of public property, too.

This is a fair point. I’ve seen videos out of Portland, OR, where most (all?) drugs have effectively been legalized, and public parks are an absolute shit show now.

Opponents of legalization like to point to this footage as evidence that legalizing drugs doesn’t work. But I think it just goes to show that if we’re going to legalize drugs, we also need to abolish public property. (We should do that regardless.)

Regulation begets more regulation. Once you have public property, you need to pass laws about what you will and won’t have on said public property. Conversely, just removing those laws without also abolishing public property causes trouble.

No half measures.

In limited areas like driving it makes sense because people don’t drive 24/7. But outlawing something in general affects them 24/7. So it’s not the same thing.

If drugs were legal, they’d be less dangerous, see #4964. If alcohol were illegal, error correction (including correcting safety errors) would get harder not easier.

I found a clip of Milton Friedman refuting my point:

… prohibition encouraged alcoholism rather than the opposite. To the young people in particular, it became an adventure to go out and get drunk, to go to a speakeasy. Today, with heroin illegal, it pays a heroin pusher to create an addict because, given that it’s illegal, it’s worth his while to spend some money on getting somebody else hooked. Because once hooked, he has a captive audience. If heroin were readily available everywhere, it wouldn’t pay anybody to create an addict, because the addict could then go anywhere to buy.

So if drugs were legal, sellers would have little to no incentive to turn their customers into addicts since the customers could go anywhere to get the drugs. Also, the sellers could always get new customers, so they don’t need to get customers addicted in the first place.

Maybe I’m misunderstanding you but this still sounds different from languages just having different grammar. Some languages just don’t have the subject-predicate structure you spoke of. Still, people who speak them can state true things.

Then that statement, as you just wrote it, may not have any pending criticisms, in which case we assume it’s true. As long we treat ideas as discrete and immutable, even when there’s overlap, we can always still say true things.

One of the problems with cynicism, IMO, is that it ends up with pseudo-problems of language rather than genuine philosophical problems. I think that was one of the big issues with DD’s talk on statements vs. propositions.

I spoke of different grammar, not categories.

This could be a promising approach to formalize HTV:
https://x.com/FZdyb/status/2051352500582641931
https://github.com/deoxyribose/hard_to_vary_posterior_predictive

It’s AI generated, so not eligible for the bounty. And I’m not familiar enough with the probability calculus to evaluate it. But bookmarking it here for the future.

(One of my first criticisms was that HTV has nothing to do with likelihood, which the author granted but addressed by saying it maps onto marginal likelihood. See https://x.com/FZdyb/status/2051004605601898561 and surrounding discussion.)

…the subject-predicate structure…

What could grammar have to do with this? A different language that uses different grammar can still make true statements.

By the way, continuing here may not be in your interest because #4930 breaks the criticism chain. If your goal is to refute the notion that ideas can be true, you’ll probably want to connect your next criticism to #4915 somehow, or one of the ideas above it.

A better framing of what I mean might be «closer to truth». If the theories are consistent with more perspectives (big objects, people, small objects etc.), it is closer to truths. Newton’s theory is in that sense closer to truth than Ptolemy’s geocentric theory.

This sounds like verisimilitude, which Popper worked on a bunch. As I recall, David Miller refuted it toward the end of Popper’s life. Popper was still around to accept the refutation.

I’m not aware that anyone restored or vindicated verisimilitude. But even if someone did, we’d need to formalize and quantify it. Just saying “Newton’s theory is in that sense closer to truth than Ptolemy’s geocentric theory” would be too vague IMO.