There's 44g of sugar in a can of coke. The recommended daily amount of sugar is 24g. Although I take issue that there would be any amount of sugar that should be recommended since it's entirely unnecessary to consume.
Particularly since in soft drinks it is typically balanced out with salt to intensify craving and the amount you can drink without feeling like you're taking in too much sugar. Soft drinks have quite a bit of salt in there too, even if you're not washing down Doritos.
I'm not aware of any soft drinks that have significant amounts of salt added. Certainly for the most popular drinks (e.g. coke, pepsi), the only sodium in them is from the water source.
It'll end up as much as a twentieth of a teaspoon of salt per bottle, depending on the soft drink. This is not a huge dose all by itself but you don't register it as salt: it sneaks in as part of other ingredients, rather than being added by the spoonful in raw form (that said, 'natural flavorings' can cover a lot, so it CAN be just added as part of the recipe.) Leave it out and your flavor balance will be more along 'New Coke' lines.
It's not just too little to register as salt, it's too little to alter taste at all. It's incidental, not deliberately included as part of the flavor. There's as much sodium in some tap waters, and in fact the sodium content of sodas varies by location because of variations in the source water.
Never mind it being "quite a bit of salt" or enough to "intensify craving."
Everyone draws the "code that I like looking at"-line at different places.
Despite our wishes around that, functional constructs do have a hierarchy of abstraction vs power, and skipping a layer is the type of design that backfires in the end, like with Java doubling down on the collection APIs without introducing monads explicitly for users.
> Java doubling down on the collection APIs without introducing monads explicitly for users.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but how has that backfired for Java? It seems as popular as ever, and I don't hear many people lamenting the lack of monads in Java.
Ah thanks for pointing that out as I didn't make myself clear. I definitely didn't mean Java as a whole, as it is indeed a tremedously successful platform and language.
I meant specifically the lack of flexibility in some regards because of the missing of monads and friends.
For example, we have a few newer languages, TypeScript and Kotlin come to mind, implementing the "null operator":
thing?.fieldA?.fieldB
While this is quite handy, and people unfamiliar with the Option monad will think that this new syntax is really cool, it poses two limitations:
1. It doesn't compose with other abstractions
2. I can't use this for my own abstractions
If the language designers had chosen to take one step back and implemented it in a more generic way (in some sense, in the same as my other comment in this thread about implementing "map" without "reduce"), the feature could've still been implemented in the language, but without the limitations.
I'm not sure what you meant with this point:
> people lamenting the lack of monads in Java.
Do you mean that, because you don't see people lamenting, it's not a useful feature?
But monads don't compose with each other, do they? I thought you needed something more (monad transformers, algebraic effects, etc.) to get things to compose. Or maybe you meant something else by composition.
> I can't use this for my own abstractions
Yep. But Java doesn't even let you overload addition afaik, so being able to overload ? is pretty much a pipe dream.
> Do you mean that, because you don't see people lamenting, it's not a useful feature?
No, it's just that if something "backfired" for Java, I'd expect to hear people complaining about it.
I'm not convinced (Bool->) is a legitimate Traversable[0], but that's at least highly concerning and makes me wish the typechecker could properly handle "Instances should satisfy the following laws" comments as actual code.
0: in vaguely the same way that Int isn't a legitimate Monoid because you get nonsense by switching back and forth between sum and product (and min, max, xor, and, or, etc)
> Sucrase bypasses most of these steps, and works like this: Tokenize the input source code into a token stream using a trimmed-down fork of the Babel parser. This fork does not produce a full AST, but still produces meaningful token metadata specifically designed for the later transforms.
While this is fine for simple transformations like transpiling JSX, it's not very suitable for full-on AST analysis like some eslint plugins do. Most notoriously, Sucrase is specifically designed to be garbage-in-garbage-out, whereas Babel will throw proper errors on things like early errors.
Tools written in lower level languages like esbuild can take advantage of facilities that aren't well supported in Node, such as cheap concurrent coroutines and greater control over memory layout (Babel ASTs are notoriously megamorphic and can silently fall off perf cliffs depending on how you manipulate them). These caveats are not reflected in Sucrase's benchmark.
There's healthy competition between local bakeries. If one refuses you, you can just go to another. Try doing that with the App Store. P.S. I don't believe companies should be able to discriminate based on sexual preference, I just dislike this comparison.
Nearly half of our genome is thought to have had a viral origin. It's a bit of a simplification to say that we "don't need to experience" any illness. We would not be what we are today without it.
Natural selection relies on large swathes of prior human populations dying without having offspring. That doesn't mean that going forward this continuing to happen is desirable.
Healthcare is consistently ranked as a top 2 priority amongst Americans polled and has over 70% support. It even have majority support amongst republican voters. This is a false equivalency.
I think that is generally true- though there is great disagreement over the implementation.
Healthcare has 70% just in general? So is that public option, Medicare for All, or single payer? What does the support for these items look like when broken down?
I think it is a bit unfair to ask for a specific implementation detail on policy which the general population overwhelmingly supports. You can always arbitrarily make a policy look less popular by taking only the subset of the general population that supports a specific implementation.
An example: Say 90% of the people of Madeupistan supports some sort of increased autonomy from the Roman empire (which just became a democracy after 2000 years of imperial rule). But a disingenuous pollster wants to make it look like the support isn’t that great. So instead they will point to the fact that only about 40% of the population supports independence. This is ignoring the fact that 30% of the population want something similar to home rule, and 20% want to be in a federation with neighboring states.
Are they?...Take the girls from BoutineLA (an Instagram account), give them some training and send them to sell B2B, I would bet easily on their potential returns
