All concluded that vegan diets were healthy for children as long as the parents knew the common deficiencies (B12) and fed their children enough calories. The study you cited is on my list because it seems you didn't read the results where it stated that most children were not eating fortified or supplemented food like Vitamin D, which could easily explain why they have a lower bone density.
I provided a study in my very first comment. Did you read it? I'll provide it again for you here: (https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/113/6/1565/6178918?log...) The study found vegan children to be at risk of lower stature and bone density.
Thank you for the studies, I have reviewed them. In turn:
1. Please review Figure 2. Children on vegan and vegetarian diets presented with higher rates of "stunted or severely stunted," as per the WHO criteria used. This is discussed and confirmed later in the study. The study did not measure bone density at all.
2. This is the same study cited as above.
3. This study explored neither height nor bone density. The blood levels of studied macro-nutrients were in the healthy range, and that's good.
4. In a fascinating twist of fate, you cited the study I cited above, which finds that vegan children are at risk of lower stature and bone density. I'm not sure you read these studies if you think this study confirms your beliefs.
5. This study found that vegetarian children were both shorter, and weighed less. They did not measure bone density.
6. This study found, like the rest, that vegan children were shorter and weighed less. They did not measure bone density.
7. This study, once again, found children to be lighter and shorter. They did not measure bone density.
8. This study, once again, found children to be lighter and lower in "growth percentile." The study did not measure bone density.
9. It's hard to parse this study. The omnivorous children were taller than the vegetarians, but shorter than the vegans. However the vegan cohort was only six in total. Further, the vegetarian children were heavier than the omnivores. These results are the opposite of all of the studies you cited. It is an interesting data point, but it doesn't appear to lend credence to either of our arguments. It's clear that some delta occurs as a result of vegan, vegetarian, and omnivorous diets, and given the wealth of evidence you've submitted, it's clear that vegetarian and especially vegan diets usually result in poorer growth. The study did not measure bone density.
I'm not sure you read these studies very thoroughly. I suppose I should thank you for providing so much corroborative evidence that vegan diets are dangerous for children.
The summaries of all these studies can effectively be summarised as: if you are raising children on a vegan diet, ensure you supplement and have adequate calory intake. Taking datapoints from figures and graphs without understanding the underlying causes and effects is how we spread misinformation. It's great that studies are measuring this so that we understand better how humans can develop successfully.
An example of this is in study 6 where you stated that vegan children were shorter and weighed less. Whilst true the study also stated "The energy intake of the vegan children was consistently lower than the recommended daily amounts". It then concluded that with a sensibly planned diet vegan children should have no intellectual or physical problems in their development.
So whilst I agree that all the studies did find differences, I disagree that they are somehow proving against my points that a vegan diet in children can be healthy if correctly planned. Due to how the animal agriculture industry creates meat (such as supplementing and fortifying the meat) it is extremely easy to get away with not planning meals with an omnivorous diet.
I agree with your summary. Vegan diets don't have to result in poorer nutrition. They're just much harder to configure and administer, and most people don't optimise them well, especially for children. This is the difference between what ought to be, and what is. The human or compliance factor in diets is often much more important than the diet itself. If compliance is low, it doesn't matter how healthy the diet is.
I was going to write the exact same thing but framed in the opposite sense - we should apparently lower the bar for humans and class certain ones as non-sentient.
Why don't you submit a PR with a more up to date list? Or fork it? Lists don't get solved magically and a single person cannot keep up with all projects although your Privacy Guide seems to do a good job.
I find it quite amusing that the package author refuses to act reasonably and states he wishes to spend no time on the project, whilst being pulled further into the project. If he simply willingly engaged with the project owners to resolve the situation he could avoided:
1. Spending so much time trying to get the project to stop what they were doing.
2. Peacefully come to a mutually beneficial arrangement.
3. Front page HN where I will most certainly be avoiding using any project the author is part of.
Because it's a global currency not reliant on the US dollar? Not everything is about perfect decentralisation too, third parties can run decentralised infrastructure so it's verifiable by users of the network.
That's fine, you don't have to use it. A lot of people do prefer to use it for payments and receive payments in it though. They don't want a middle-man bank and would rather their transactions were trustlessly sent and received.
At it's core cryptocurrency is a way to bypass banks if one was so inclined. Specifically currencies like Monero allow a person to send and receive payments completely anonymously, hence its increased usage on darknet markets.
Yeah, but so does cash in the physical world. We shouldn't abolish cash tho.
Just because something can be used for "bad" doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. The internet also could be considered an enabler for sites like Silk Road, but its not gona get shut down for that reason.
So... the follow up question is, "Are there any good use cases?"
Yes, the biggest that comes to mind is it allows people who may be doing nothing wrong a payment system that cant be stoped. For example, someone of X religion could still make purchases in a society where religious freedom isn't allowed by its governing body.
May not be a concern for you today, but having the option for it is 100% I will support.
The never ending cycle of monopoly vs convenience. Let us forget the fact that exclusives make the game devs more money than they would've got otherwise and the games are eventually released on steam anyway.
Propose a "memo culture". That was how we managed larger meetings at Netflix (and I'm pretty sure we stole it from Amazon).
Before the meeting, everyone who has a stake in what's being discussed contributes to a memo outlining their thoughts on it. Then everyone reads it ahead of the meeting.
The meeting is then just to hash out what's in the doc and agree on which already proposed solution will be adopted.
I'd caution against memo culture, actually. I only have a sample size of 2, but in two organizations I've been in that tried to adopt something similar, this is what happened:
In the first org, there was a lot of pressure that any such memos had to be highly researched and data driven (also borrowed from Amazon, I imagine). In reality what this meant is that drafting a memo even for the smallest decisions or ideas became a large laborious effort, which nobody wanted to do and/or didn't have time to do it. The result was that everyone procrastinated on decision making, if they even participated in it in the first place, and I knew a fair share of colleagues who didn't even bother to pitch their ideas because of hating the memo system.
In the second org, it was the opposite problem: in an attempt to make memos "painless", there was much less pressure on making the memos "high quality". The result: every "memo" was a hastily scrawled together draft of random notes that didn't make much sense, and we had to spend most time in meetings going over the "memo" to decipher it and have the author explain it anyway.
No one is in charge forever, lead by example and if you’re doing things right eventually people will follow. You are as much a part of the culture as the current “boss”
If you hold a meeting, suggest using a memo? Or just ask your manager if they'd consider it? There are many ways to affect change within an organization.
My thoughts exactly. A site dedicated to a craft that is then filled with hundreds of poorly rushed articles rather than a few good quality ones without being invasive is contributing to the shitshow. I wish that there was an alternative index that valued quality rather than gamification of the crawlers.
* https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/11/4/832/htm
* https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00394-021-02753-3
* https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/13/5/1707/htm
* https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/113/6/1565/6178918
* https://anthropogoniquescom.files.wordpress.com/2019/08/grow...
* https://anthropogoniquescom.files.wordpress.com/2019/08/grow...
* https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-277X....
* https://www.minervamedica.it/en/journals/minerva-pediatrics/...
* https://www.embopress.org/doi/full/10.15252/emmm.202013492
All concluded that vegan diets were healthy for children as long as the parents knew the common deficiencies (B12) and fed their children enough calories. The study you cited is on my list because it seems you didn't read the results where it stated that most children were not eating fortified or supplemented food like Vitamin D, which could easily explain why they have a lower bone density.