If you change inputs then obviously you will get a different output. Crucially using the same inputs, however, produces the same output. So compilers are actually deterministic.
This is irrelevant over the long run because the environment changes even if nothing else does. A compiler from the 1980's still produces identical output given the original source code if you can run it. Some form of virtualization might be in order, but the environment is still changing while the deterministic subset shrinks.
Having faith that determinism will last forever is foolish. You have to upgrade at some point, and you will run into problems. New bugs, incompatibilities, workflow changes, whatever the case will make the determinism property moot.
Many compilers aren't deterministic. That's why the effort to make Linux distros have reproducible builds took so long and so much effort.
The reason is, it's often more work to be deterministic than not deterministic, so compilers don't do it. For example, they may compile functions in parallel and append them to the output in the order they complete.
I also think the article glossed/skipped over the xmax/xmin concepts. And they are fundamental to understand how different isolation levels actually work. It's quite jarring to the point I'm wondering if a whole section got accidentally dropped from the article.
It's really surprising how many people don't realise where omegas come from and just default to "more fish". Fish get omegas from alge. Simply skip the middle man and all the nasty side effects that has in the form of animal exploitation and harmful substances for humans they contain.
Cows eat grass for protein, we can't really skip the middle man and eat grass to get protein.
I don't know if it's true, but it wouldn't be unusual for there to be benefit from getting omega 3 from fish rather than algea because of something like this. AFAIK, we mostly only know about the benefits of eating fish.
I love how google (youtube) starts immediately showing me ads in the language of whatever country I happen to be on holiday at the time. For that country specific services/products. As if they don't know exactly where I'm from and which languages I speak. Absolutely baffling that they get this so badly wrong.
That doesn't seem very practical. The issue is that imgur links are everywhere and you wouldn't want to switch browsers whenever you encounter one. Not to mention it requires per device setup. Author's solution is much better than what you describe.
Prime example: animal agriculture. By far the biggest driver of biodiversity loss and nature destruction. Yet people justify it constantly with trivial things like taste, convinience, tradition, etc.
It looks like we will be forever looking for solutions when we keep on ignoring animal farming in these conversations. Not even a single mention of the orders of magnitude more of water that is required for animal agriculture vs just growing plants directly for human consumption.
Would it solve everything? No. But it would solve a whole lot and the fact that someone that specialises in environmentalism doesn't even mention it shows just how far we are from solving this.
Evolution doesn't work over a span of few generations. If humans are evolving to adapt to the modern weetern diet then we won't see that for a very very very long time.
You're just cherry picking examples while ignoring a mountain of literature that shows exactly the opposite of what you're saying.
> evolution doesn't work over a span of a few generations.
Yes it can
> Over the past two decades, it has become clear that evolutionary change can be fast enough to be observed in present-day populations (Hendry and Kinnison 1999; Kinnison and Hendry 2001; Hendry et al. 2008; Gingerich 2009) and that it can directly affect the dynamics of populations and communities (Hairston et al. 2005; Saccheri and Hanski 2006; Kinnison and Hairston 2007; Pelletier et al. 2009). Much recent interest has focused on the possibility that so-called rapid or contemporary evolution leads to ‘evolutionary rescue’, whereby threatened populations avoid extinction by adapting to an altered environment (Barrett and Hendry 2012; Gonzalez et al. 2013).
It'd be surprising if that applies in this context. In the case of the individuals OP mentions, their parents would not have been exposed to ultra processed food (or barely, perhaps only after they've reproduced), so ehatever gens they passed on would not have been adapted. There's simply not enough generations in this case. Especially not for such significant changes.
In any case, it's moot as by and large the westeren diet is not good for the population, exceptions are simply that.
My great grandparents in the US were eating diets of ultra processed foods. Soda Shopes, hot dogs, sausages, hamburgers, Spam, boxed spaghetti, hamburger helper, Jello molds with canned fruit in them, etc.
My great grandfather in particular used to smoke a box of King Edward cigars a week, and lived mostly on a diet of plain bologna sandwiches on plain white bread, and candy corn.
