• 0 Posts
  • 9 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: November 4th, 2023

help-circle

  • OK but do you see the absurdity of the arguments? Jesus.

    Studies previous to over a decade ago slammed whole milk, which is why it was removed in the first place. Only until the last 10 almost 15 years have studies shown correlation with whole milk actually fighting child obesity though no conclusions as the actual ‘why’ have yet been found. Theories in both the biggest meta-analysis study (in English anyway) and some of the latest theorize it may be an indicator of the parents diets that they provide to their kids or it could be that kids simply eat more without whole milk. One study in particular attempted to figure this out by weighting the parents’ BMI’s on a point scale but was unable to really pull a substantial conclusion from it. Take your example of Japan where I think we can agree without me finding any analytics on their diet that it is different enough nutritionally from the US that it is an important distinction, except for a fairly short teen fad, what 7 years ago? Maybe it was a couple of years longer ago.

    But all of that is beside the point. What I was trying to show is the absurdity of Congress’ oversight of nutrition in the school systems. The GOP pushed this forward strictly at the behest of diary lobbyist and in particular a Pennsylvania conglomerate. In their statements, they never mentioned any actual studies and in-fact shat on ‘experts’ multiple times because they have no idea. The entire Santa bullshit from Virgina Foxx sounds almost exactly like a Got Milk? commercial in the 80s with definite the exact same key words.


  • We’ve been warned about this since the at least the 80s maybe earlier. Then when it became more common (still not common I don’t think) that the food pyramid is a sham it explained by school lunches when I was younger didn’t usually seem all that balanced after I thought about it as an adult.

    Couple that with cities that aren’t designed to be walkable and its dangerous to bicycle and it just doesn’t look good.

    But hey, schools are probably going to get to serve chocolate, whole and 2% milk again due to winning arguments like “…fortifying nutrients of whole milk…Protein helps build and repair Santa’s muscles” and “…scientists, experts built the Titanic, and amateurs built the ark.” So, that’ll help, right?



  • I think they should be copyrightable. AI is just a tool for the artist like a paintbrush, an art program (and now some of those even have AI tools built-in) or even filters on photos. Even if using others’ original works to train the AI, the result should be transformative which is already a mechanism that exists within US Copyright Fair Use.

    As AI image generation methods improve, it will become difficult if not impossible to distinguish between an image being generated by AI or with the help of AI or not. Even if the stance will universally become “no” how could it actually be enforced? What sort of objective validation could happen that always gets it right?

    Furthermore, how much would someone need to change the end-product to not be considered “AI created” anymore anyway? How transformative must it be?

    Regardless of the answer now, it is almost certain that the answer in the future will be “yes”.