List out all the monosaccharides contained in a serving's disaccharides & polysaccharide content.
It's so frustrating to see something like this:
Total Carbohydrates: 75g
Dietary fibre: 2g
Sugar: 23g
... ok so what is the remaining 50g of carbs?! It makes a big difference if it's 50g of fructose or 50g of glucose (starch or lactose). Plus, what is meant by "sugar"? Is that sucrose (50%/50% fructose/glucose), HFCS (55%/45% fructose/glucose), or some other disaccharide?
N16. How is total carbohydrate calculated?
Answer: Total carbohydrate is calculated by subtracting the weight of crude protein, total fat, moisture, and ash from the total weight (“wet weight”) of the sample of food. 21 CFR 101.9(c)(6)
N17. Does total carbohydrate include dietary fiber?
Answer: Yes. Dietary fiber must be listed as a subcomponent under total carbohydrate. 21 CFR 101.9(c)(6)
N18. What is meant by sugars on the Nutrition Facts label?
Answer: To calculate sugars for the Nutrition Facts label, determine the weight in grams of all free monosaccharides and disaccharides in the sample of food. The other nutrients declared on the nutrition label are defined in 21 CFR 101.9(c). 21 CFR 101.9(c)(6)(ii)
>Alcohol gives you a buzz by destroying your brain cells.
That's totally incorrect.
Alcohol INCREASES levels of norepinephrine, the neurotransmitter responsible for arousal. Elevated norepinephrine also increase impulsivity.
Alcohol REDUCES activity in the prefrontal cortex and temporal cortex. This is where decision making, rational thought, memory formation, and aggression suppression is managed.
In large amounts it's much harder on your liver than your brain, but in moderation it's fine.
Yep, partially due to technology but I also think in 30 years almost everyone will be a freelancer and "jobs" as we know them today will be very very rare.
Firms exist to reduce transaction costs. In order to freelance everything, you'll need to bring the costs way, way down -- and that includes learning what you're working on and figuring out how to cooperate with other people much faster than we've ever seen that happen.
I suspect this is not ever going to match the efficiency of a good team with history.
Unless something happens to cause the cost of having full-time employees to rise higher than can be sustained. Examples can be government intervention in terms of taxes, wage controls, or mandates such as benefits.
In the US, that could mean a number of 1099 employees instead of the normal W2. Possibly long-term contracts would become the norm. Much of this would be the employer pushing the cost of employment onto the employee.
Also, I'd imagine that there are several examples where having a good team with a history is not much of a consideration. If you have access to enough people in the field in your area that have experience, it most likely would not be difficult to ramp up a good team that can suit your needs quickly. Professionals tend to be professionals.
I can't imagine the pain of having to assemble a team of freelancers every three-nine months for the next iteration on some product/project. Unless the freelancers are utterly interchangeable, which is a pretty awful vision (people think they are cogs now?). When you want to organize a team you'd spend 25% of your time just assembling a team. The freelancers themselves would also spend tons of time waiting for a team to be ready to go. Probably the norm would be for freelancers to have multiple projects going at a time, so any project would only get some percentage of each individual's time & attention, requiring larger teams or slower cycles, each of which requiring more overhead on communications and coordination.
The obvious alternative is to maintain a group of people that have developed a good working relationship together for a longer period of time. Of course people would come and go occasionally due to other opportunities & changing needs for skills. But wait - that sounds an awful lot like what we already have.
Movies take years to produce. At least from what I've seen, people switch jobs every 3-6 years. So not much different really. I agree that the 25+ year tenure at a company is by and large gone for good.
All good critiques of freelancing today. "Freelancing" in 2043 will be very different.
Of course no one knows the future (maybe lifetime union jobs will be back in 30 years?) but I just feel this is the way the wind is blowing. But then again maybe it's just where I'm standing.
Not without some serious legislative and financial changes - the deck is stacked very much in favor of 'companies' (and generally larger ones at that) than smaller ones, and certainly not in favor of freelancers.
Big in number of employees or capital? I wonder if you could have a fully outsourced company, where a mesh of algorithms would allocate capital to hire freelances, adquire resources, etc. I suppose it'd be hard to create new products and services, but you could always automate the acquisition of startups ;)
Not sure what you mean by "wealth per person", but pretty much everything is significantly better than it was in 1970.
The average North American is significantly wealthier today than they were in 1970. Compare an average car from 1970 and an average car today. Today's econo-boxes are Space Shuttles compared the caveman-cars of 1970 (Ford Pinto?). Both cost approx the same in inflation-adjusted work-hours.
Think about the TV that your average family was watching in 1970, and the average TV today. 60" 3D flat panel TVs for <$1000 in 2013 compared to ~$2200 (inflation adjusted) in 1970 for a 16" Motorola color TV.
Imagine, instead, that compared to the 1970s, everyone today was twice as healthy as they were back then.
But, some people are 10,000x healthier than they were in the 70s.
I get the impression that the "inequity" people think we should prefer the 1970s, because at least then, even though we were all sicker, no one was 10,000x healthier.
It's such a strange position to me to desire everyone to be worse off, just so that a few people aren't much, much, MUCH better off. Does it really matter that a few super rich, or super healthy, people exist? Heck, even the super rich we're talking about end up giving it to charity anyway (what else is there to do with it, really?).
"I get the impression that the "inequity" people think we should prefer the 1970s, because at least then, even though we were all sicker, no one was 10,000x healthier."
Except that in order to become healthier, you don't have to take someone else's health away.
I think a better analogy would be something like that (stupid) movie In Time, where people are given a certain amount of time to live when they turn 25. They can freely trade that time with others. Some wind up with millions of years of time, while the majority are cheated, exploited, and misled by the wealthy ("time is money") and face the risk of death at any moment as they scramble over what little time they have left.
As weak and flawed as the movie is, they're right about one thing: it doesn't have to be that way.
