Your comment prompted me to go read about epicenters and I learned something new. The hypocenter of an earthquake is apparently the point of origin of the earthquake and the epicenter is the point on the earth's surface directly above the hypocenter. Had never heard of a hypocenter before.
I didn't know about hypocenter before too but it's neat how you can sometimes deduce the meaning of a word from its parts (because "hypo" means "under"/"below" in Greek, like in hypodermic, hypoglycaemia, etc).
The class wasn't as interesting as I'd hoped, in part because it seemed to attract older kids hoping for an easy grade, but in my high school we had an etymology class.
(My school also offered Latin, but etymology seemed a much more direct/easier way to get the same basics. I just wish someone had taught me about demographics so I would have taken Spanish instead of German.)
Basically every language works that way? You can say underquake in English if you like, doesn't have to be Greek. In fact, it might make sense to pick a widely understood language rather than one with ~13 million speakers
"Hypocenter", like "epicenter", is English, not Greek. These words, like many words in English today, are made of Greek components, which is why kids are taught in grade school English class about Latin and Greek roots.
No, not every language works this way, because not every language uses Latin and Greek root-words like this.
Ah yeah because everyone in England says hypo the sofa instead of under the sofa. Definitely not Greek
> not every language uses Latin and Greek root-words like this
I was responding to the text above where the person was amazed you can build/recognise a new word from parts. Idk who made the statement you're negating
Interestingly, I learned the word hypocenter in Japan as well, in a much more sobering way. The atom bomb that hit Hiroshima exploded above the ground, and the building directly under that, where the blast would have hit first, is called the hypocenter.
What’s stopping someone from just taking the derivative of a crazy expression, asking stackexchange what the integral is, then answering it themself with what they already know is the anti-derivative
I think this is really wild and interesting. In my experience, they (more like specializations of the Kalman filter) are used almost universally in radar tracking. I'm curious where outside of academia you see ridicule for Kalman Filters?
I've been (kind of) successful with this with my Apple Watch SE and Honda Civic. The issues arise when I have both my phone and watch in the car and it wants to connect to the watch. Then things get confused and don't work out the way you would want. With just the watch, however, it seems to work fine.
On a related note, I've had significant issues trying to play music through airpods through the watch. I can get it to connect, and it plays a few seconds of music, then goes silent. The screen still indicates its playing. Very frustrating.
It's kind of interesting how handling this well varies from hobby to hobby and is tricky to balance from person to person. There's the argument that you don't want to spend too much until you get a feel for how interested you are but there's also the effect of quality of tools on enjoyment/annoyance/learning curve that has a big effect on interest a lot of the time. I guess, you're always just gonna wanna google around to get a better idea, but sometimes there's not great googleable info.
Is there any regulated/"official" definition to the word "processed" in this context? I see the word so much in the context of food in general and I've never known exactly what it means.
Buy foods in bulk, not boxed or in plastic. Make food from scratch from whole grains, veggies, peppers, spices. Avoid all of the seed oils.
My Dad is 101 and doing OK, and he has always preferred large salads, small amounts of lean meat. I feel better whenever I hit the Fuhrman Diet for six months.
For frying, I usually use a mixture of olive oil and butter. The oil slows down the process of the butter burning. It's certainly not as good as ghee, but ghee tends to make stuff greasy.
If you put butter into a pan that is too hot and it starts burning, it can be useful to cool things down by adding some oil. But the milk solids will always burn at a given temperature. A mixture of olive oil and butter won't let you cook at a higher temperature than just butter.
I don’t know if peanut oil is considered a seed oil or not, but it has one of the highest smoke points. (I’m aware peanuts aren’t seeds, but not everyone is.)
Coconut oil varies a lot in its smoke point; unrefined its similar to butter but refined can get up past 400 F / 204 C(similar to canola oil).
I do like cooking with it despite the low heat limitation because it's good for things you can cook at lower temps like eggs and if you get good high quality oil then it will be near tasteless. Which means you can actually taste the egg instead of whatever oil / lard you fried them with.
So the stock photo for "processed food" in MSM reports seems to be a picture of a hamburger. As far as I'm aware, the only processed things in a hamburger are the bun and the cheese. Oh - maybe the secret sauce; but I tell them to hold the cheese and sauce.
For me, processed meat means rubbery hotdog sausages; reconstituted chicken meat; doner kebab; TV dinners; fishcakes, and so on. [Edit: ham and bacon, of course, but only a crazy person eats a quarter-pound of bacon.] I imagine some of those are fine, but if you can't see the unprocessed ingredient, then the 'Lemon Market' rule says it's probably not what it's supposed to be.
> Processed meat refers to meat that has been preserved by smoking, curing, salting or adding preservatives. This includes sausages, bacon, ham, salami and pâtés.
> If you currently eat more than 90g (cooked weight) of red or processed meat a day, the Department of Health and Social Care advises that you cut down to 70g.
Scanning the article, I do not see any definition, except that at one place "fresh" is also mentioned.
I assume that "unprocessed" meat refers to meat that is cooked at home, as opposed to buying sausages, ham or any other industrial meat products, which may contain various additives or impurities from techniques like smoking.
This new study still shows an increased probability of cancer when consuming more than 200 g of unprocessed red meat per day, which is indeed more than should normally be eaten.
I have always been skeptical about these claims about the effects of eating meat, because they do not differentiate between the different methods of cooking the meat. I doubt that eating meat that was fried in oil has the same health effects as eating meat that was baked in an oven.
Other than the pedantic both cured and fermented count as chemically preserved in a broad sense, I think the general modern understanding of "processed foods" means that "ultra-processed foods" per the webmd definition https://www.webmd.com/diet/what-are-processed-foods#:~:text=....
e.g. foods that are doped with additives that don't necessarily occur in the food's base state, including dyes, preservatives, added flavors generated in lab environments, etc.
To be fair I'm not advocating either way, since I'm sure I ate some form of ultra-processed food this morning just by having grocery store brand jelly on my toast, but I think the argument is that by mixing these into the diet frequently there are unknown long-term side effects on the human body by eating these in excess.
Yes. It went through process of cooking, which causes that proteins in the meat will fall apart due to heat - denaturation. So it is processed by definition.
Yep. Removing the skin is a process, and the carrot underneath is then exposed to oxidation.
No clue if there is a health effect due to it. Just pointing out what processing means. Though usually processing is totally destroying the physical structure of something and applying heat/freezing/chemical exposure for preservation or transformation.
Maybe "processed foods" is a completely useless term.
I'm pretty sure it's a backformation from "heavily processed foods," which is a useful way to compare foods that have been picked and washed to foods that have been picked and washed and etc, and etc, and etc. Being meaningful makes is less useful for making grand purity pronouncements, though.
All food is processed, all of it is impure, it will make you dirty on the inside, and make you sick. The food that won't make you sick is the food that humans haven't sinned on between God's hand and your mouth.
Slippery, sloped, and in the case of carrots, roasted with olive oil and some kind of herb (dill, rosemary, thyme, or basil. The "or" is important here), perhaps some onion and garlic. Or on top of salad with balsamic vinaigrette.
The other comment on gradients is a good thought too.
Unless you're paying EU100 per litre, your "balsamic vinaigrette" isn't made with proper balsamic vinegar. It's made from regular vinegar mixed with colouring agents, flavouring agents and preservatives.
Proper balsamic vinegar is made using a solera system, and takes a number of years. I doubt any restaurant chef would use real balsamic vinegar to make a "balsamic vinaigrette"; the real thing is for sipping.
I'm not really being fair. It's just that the standards are terribly confusing. There are two main standards; one is ultra-strict, and the other is so relaxed as to be meaningless.
Well, that's how I see it. I didn't mean that the lower-grade stuff is 'knock-off'; I've never so much as seen a bottle of the 'proper' stuff, except in photos. But I'm sure I wouldn't take snifters of normal deli balsamic vinegar.
I don't generally want to eat food that's already been chewed. Arguably things like applesauce have been industrially chewed though.
When you eat food, your body processes it, exposing it to all sorts of nasty physical and chemical processes.
The objection to 'processed foods' is mostly about when the processing significantly changes the content of the food, whether that's from significant additives, or strucural changes like breaking down fiber. If you're ok with eating meat, nobody much cares about processing that removes parts that people don't eat and don't want to see, but if anything much is added, that's flagged (dye, water, preservatives, etc)
We semantically agree. There is a starting point to "processing" and the commentator's question for whether something applied falls into scope. Whether the connotation is agreeable to denotation is sort of a separate discussion, IMO. Separation of degree, not kind.
Yes. Everything that isn't raw is processed. If processed isn't what you mean by "processed," maybe you should say what you mean, e.g., smoking, adding sulfites, nitrates, sodium, and/or sugar.
I don't need to provide a definition for what is a nebulous term like "processed" in order to argue that the one provided in the original comment is both ridiculous and not congruent with what most other people would consider processed.
You only do if you want to make that argument successfully.
>> Everything that isn't raw is processed.
> Likewise, this is a circular definition.
No, it is not. A circular definition is that everything that is processed is processed, the one you're carefully avoiding in favor of argument by calling something ridiculous.
Except that it was clear that I meant "processed" in the way that it is generally used in the context of "processed food" and not in the sense of "having had something done to it".
I'm not in it for the rightness and wrongness and virtue and exercises of justice to the carrots, I'm in it for your request as to whether peeling a carrot counts as processing, which it does, as sometimes the most banal of examples illustrate a tapestry of lived complexity.
No, that's a meaningful definition. When food is transformed through a process, it becomes processed.
The alternative definition seems to be to throw the word around randomly, and to vaguely mention something like a tv dinner from the 50s as a counterexample.
It's annoying. I wish when people were talking about "processed meats" they'd talk about which meats and which processes. They're not fungible. Once you've learned one process, you haven't learned them all. Whether I'm using sodium chloride or sodium citrate makes a difference if we're doing science.
I don't think that's reasonable because there are certain categories of food where cooking makes them healthier/edible. I'm not sure that eating raw eggs is statistically healthier than boiled ones and would be surprised by such a study concluding as such. I would be very concerned about people insisting on eating raw beans? Lentils? Potatoes?
You'd still need something to handle the nights around new moon, so you'd have to overbuild enough to be sufficient when all you have is starlight.
A bit of Googling suggests that the combined energy per second that reaches Earth from all the visible stars other than the Sun is around 0.0000002% of the amount from the Sun.
I recall reading that the area needed with current solar panel technology to power the entire US would be 10000 square miles. With starlight being 0.0000002% of sunlight, that suggests we'd need 5 trillion square miles of panels to get the same amount of energy at night.
The surface area of the earth is a little under 200 million square miles.
That suggests that it isn't possible to overbuild enough to work off of starlight.
It would be even worse on cloudy nights. On cloudy days you still get a significant amount of sunlight coming through, because the Sun is giving us so much more than we need. Not so with stars.
Being almost completely uninformed on the details of Apple/TSMC's dealings, I'm curious, would Apple ever position themselves to get into chip fabrication? I'm sure there are big reasons this is unlikely but it seems like if anyone could do it, it's Apple.
IT is billions of dollars to get a chip fab. I know of several companies that have looked into it (our core competency is manufacturing - why not add chips to the list of things we make and get out of these supply issues..), but the cost to get into it is far too high. Though I suspect some of those companies are regretting the decision over the past 2 years, they could have made the investment back just because we can make those chips you need for a price (to others who can't get needed chips at any price)
Honestly, I'm surprised they haven't started yet. If TSMC puts up too much of a fight, they might start internally considering how they would get into chip fabrication. They've already done everything else to great success (and to much surprise), so while the problem seems insurmountable, maybe Apple would be able to do what nobody else has been able to do in decades (aside from the Chinese with significant state investment).
If Apple isn't at least working on how to bring chip manufacturing in-house I'd be incredibly surprised. They have $48 billion in cash on hand, they at least have worked out a plan on how they would do it if needed.
It's risky because if they do it, they have to consistently be as good or better than TSMC, year after year. Makes more sense than trying to build a car though.
They only have to be "good enough" with some wins, Apple was able to survive the mediocre Intel performance and likely could survive some mediocre iPhone chip performance.
But they won't do it unless they need to, or they think they can get a major win, and even then likely though a subsidiary.
what does apple manufacture themselves? They don't even assemble their own products. It would be surprising if apple suddenly got into one of the most risky and expensive industries, not the other way around.
reply