50% more protein “per grain” is a comparison I’ve heard here first. The intro of the paper claims “13% protein” but its comparison table states “10.1% protein”. In comparison, regular wheat has around 12.6% protein, while Einkorn wheat contains 19.3% protein. [1]
“In addition to essential fatty acids, Omegas 6 and 9, and amino acids not found in other common grains and minerals, it also has significant levels of glucose, making it a superfood with exceptional qualities for a healthy diet.”
* First, we need much more omega-3 and drastically less omega-6, while we get plenty of omega-9, which is not essential as our bodies can synthesize omega-9. [2] [3]
* Glucose and other sugars are one of the handful things that there’s a consensus it’s bad for our health.
* All plant foods contain all 20 amino-acids, essential and non-essential. [4] Naturally, rice does not lack an amino-acid in their comparison table.
OTOH, this could be an environmental friendly grain if cultivated in open seas on floating platforms instead of disrupting highly vulnerable shallow waters.
That's "50% more protein than rice per grain," though. Presumably they're talking about white rice, which is one of the lower protein grains. 50% more than that would put it just below oat bran, but still well below e.g. spelt, quinoa, sorghum, amaranth, and others.
> All plant foods contain all 20 amino-acids, essential and non-essential
Yes but there's a catch, and you can see it in p 24 of the reference you linked.
Legumes are low on Methionine. Grains are low on Lysine. Ideally a consumption of both is needed to balance things out. (Hence why these "protein $thing" stuff on the supermarket is 100% marketing gimmick since they use the cheapest sources available - soy usually)
(Also of course this is the overall proportion, it says nothing about protein/gram. Yes, broccoli is high protein, but how much broccoli do you need to eat to match the content a steak? - answered on p.27 actually)
Edit: "oh look Gorillas and Cows are vegetarian" Cows actually have their intestinal flora make the proteins for them ;)
> * Glucose and other sugars are one of the handful things that there’s a consensus it’s bad for our health.
Is that really the case? There is a difference between something being inherently unhealthy vs excessive in our current diet. We like sugars because our bodies need readily accessible energy. The issue is that today it is to easy and cheap to produce and consume and we don't control ourselves.
The body makes its own sugar from protein needed. The hypothalamus is very sensitive to insulin.
The when looking for it, you'll prolly find other examples
Sugar is bad, but the true unhealthy sugar is fructose or polysaccharide that degrade into fructose in your stomach, basically. Glucose is only bad in high quantity.
> All plant foods contain all 20 amino-acids, essential and non-essential
Isn’t this well known? It’s the quantities that are vastly different. On the next couple slides it shows that you need 10 cups of broccoli to get 40g of protein, or 2 cups of edamame beans
It is hard to read and impossible to send an SMS on iPad without activating iMessage. I don't understand why this hasn't been considered anti-competitive behavior already. It is completely normal to send and receive SMS messages on Android tablets...
I've fallen in love with Alpine. I'm using it on my bare bone servers running from a ram disk (USB drive) hosting Docker containers and even qemu VMs. All on encrypted zfs volumes. Totally love it
Here are some links for you that I think would be useful for a related setup, however I can't speak for the user that posted that. The headless installation should follow the same principles of using a RAMDisk though.
I don't disagree with you. Some of the decisions that went into the ISO standard are real headscratchers for those of us who have been using North American week numbers
I've found about how to hack the tests quite early on. I've had straight A's until I no longer cared about the grades. I've also realized that entering and pursuing a career at a tech corporations is a game as well.
What has been driving me to startups is the fact that creating a profitable business has no place for hacks.
Fundraising is a game that could be easily hacked though. I thought it was only possible to hack the fundraising game for a couple of rounds but Adam Neumann et al. changed my mind that hacks could carry a business even to post-IPO.
> What has been driving me to startups is the fact that creating a profitable business has no place for hacks.
Not sure that's true. Marketing is a hack, for one. If you have the best product but nobody knows about it, it's no use.
More generally, there's a reason that the tech career ladder is hackable: performance reviews are both important and also too expensive to do right. If you want a real evaluation of what I've done over the past year, what you really need is someone following me 40 hours a week, noting how I contributed (positively or negatively) at small meetings, keeping track of whether my projects are late because I helped someone with something truly important or I spent my time on HN, etc. But you can't assign one reviewer per employee, so you make an approximate process where employees self-report what they did and managers report the fraction they've seen. You also can't get rid of the process, because a simple profit motive demands you incentivize employees for actually delivering business value. So you have a process that's vulnerable to exploits like flashy launches that will wither in a year.
If you as a business owner aren't evaluating your employees, you won't be profitable. If you're watching each moment of your employees, you're wasting time. If you spend your time developing a fairer review process, you're not working on your actual business. If you don't hire employees and just put yourself out there in the market, your customers certainly aren't evaluating you fairly. (And of course your employees and potential hires are evaluating you on partial data, and it's in your interest to hire and retain good employees.) So whatever you do, it's hackable, and if you don't play the game you'll forfeit it.
> What has been driving me to startups is the fact that creating a profitable business has no place for hacks.
I feel that this hack/not hack distinction comes from confusion of goals. If your end goal really is creating a profitable business then hack/not hack is not a useful distinction. Everything you do either gets you closer to your goal (then it is good, hack or not) or not (then it is bad, even if it "feels right"). But suppose your real goal is "doing most good for society" or whatever and you think that you can achieve this goal by building a profitable business. Then if you e.g. create some bullshit product and market the hell of it (thus achieving your proxy goal), it will feel like a hack that doesn't get you closer to your real goal.
TLDR: hack/not hack distinction arises when there are two goals: a proxy and the real one. A hack is something that gets you closer to your proxy goal but not the real one.
Nice find! CM is like an early piece of platform in the digital communications evolution. There're similarities between CM and mammoths. Both of them are thrilling to think about, valuable to understand their contexts and evolutions, and I would wish to have seen one in real life.
> Our clocks don't work that well with more than about a 14-15 hour photoperiod ("day")
Regarding only natural light, what would be the ideal latitude region for psychology year-round?
At 30°N and 30°S days swing between 10 hours to 14 hours through a year. Would it be ideal to live in between 30°N and 30°S, or would you expand/shrink the range?
ps. Any resources on geography-psychology relationships would be appreciated.
SAD and cancer rates go up somewhat with latitude, definitely by 35-40N. But it is complicated because it doesn't affect everyone the same way. e.g., most of Europe is living above 40N.
In some cases, availability of natural light (due to tree cover, weather, and position in timezone) is as important as latitude.
I would guess that some people are simply better at living at more extreme latitudes or with a weaker circadian signal. Several researchers have tried to use particular genetic markers to explain this, but I don't know a specific one that explains all of it.
50% more protein “per grain” is a comparison I’ve heard here first. The intro of the paper claims “13% protein” but its comparison table states “10.1% protein”. In comparison, regular wheat has around 12.6% protein, while Einkorn wheat contains 19.3% protein. [1]
“In addition to essential fatty acids, Omegas 6 and 9, and amino acids not found in other common grains and minerals, it also has significant levels of glucose, making it a superfood with exceptional qualities for a healthy diet.”
* First, we need much more omega-3 and drastically less omega-6, while we get plenty of omega-9, which is not essential as our bodies can synthesize omega-9. [2] [3]
* Glucose and other sugars are one of the handful things that there’s a consensus it’s bad for our health.
* All plant foods contain all 20 amino-acids, essential and non-essential. [4] Naturally, rice does not lack an amino-acid in their comparison table.
[1] research: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32246458
[1] summary: https://youtu.be/6fciEfyYyK4
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega-3_fatty_acid
[3] https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/omega-3-6-9-overview
[4] https://dci.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Food-and... (page 25)
***
OTOH, this could be an environmental friendly grain if cultivated in open seas on floating platforms instead of disrupting highly vulnerable shallow waters.