Show HN: Hyperapp – 1 KB JavaScript library for building front end apps - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/hyperappjs/hyperapp <comment><USER2> One thing I'm never sure about with these functional frameworks is memory allocation. They seem to create new objects willy-nilly, rather than reusing. Measuring performance of the counter application showed 11Mb garbage collection after about 30 clicks, and that's with one of the smallest state objects possible.

I can see this being of use for apps where this kind of performance is not critical, but when you're animating things this will cause jank. Would love to see an example with a much larger state, and fast updates during animations.

<comment><USER3> Hi, How did you see that GC? I'd like to know how you do this, to see what happens with my own small tryout with Hyperapp.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> What? How come this is so small? How does the rendering happen without a virtual DOM diff and patch? Where are the functional structures defined?

<comment><AUTHOR> Diff and patch does happen via a virtual DOM, which is included in the source code. State management is also built-in.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I like little frameworks like this for tiny apps or sites. Speaking of which does anyone know any other libraries like this?

<comment><AUTHOR> Check out: [https://github.com/picodom/picodom](https://github.com/picodom/picodom)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Great post - thanks for the reply. Definitely will be looking into this more.</comment>


Twitter Launches Twitter Places and API - <AUTHOR> http://blog.twitter.com/2010/06/twitter-places-more-context-for-your.html <comment><USER2> I'd love to check it out. Sadly, Twitter seems to be "overcapacity" at the moment. #failwhale

<comment><USER3> Related? Haven't seen it this bad in a while.

<comment><USER4> It's the World Cup.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This enhancement brought down Twitter [http://status.twitter.com/post/699623494/site- availability-i...](http://status.twitter.com/post/699623494/site-availability- issues-due-to-failed-enhancement-of)

</comment><comment><USER6> There's also some more information about this on Twitter's developer mailing list: [http://groups.google.com/group/twitter-development- talk/brow...](http://groups.google.com/group/twitter-development- talk/browse_thread/thread/59a5ca0f00f19067)

<comment><AUTHOR> imho, the API info should have been released to developers before Twitter launched the feature. Isn't that kinda what the company promised to do at Chirp?

<comment><USER7> TweetDeck has been showing geolocation information for a while so perhaps it was already released? Not sure...

<comment><USER6> The general geolocation feature has been out for a while, but it's been limited to neighbourhoods like "SoMA, San Francisco", rather than a specific place, like "Twitter HQ, San Francisco."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Seems like this could be a huge leap towards the unified locations database many have called for. Sure it'd be nice if it was an open sourced database, but just like with Facebook and identity, corporate control is currently far more practical.

</comment><comment><USER9> No mention of the ad platform they're rolling out, a key component of which will be more detailed geo-locating ability to target users, but I would imagine the two are related.</comment>


Colleges are full of it: Behind the three-decade scheme to raise tuition - <AUTHOR> http://www.salon.com/2014/06/08/colleges_are_full_of_it_behind_the_three_decade_scheme_to_raise_tuition_bankrupt_generations_and_hypnotize_the_media/ <comment><USER2> I'm very opinionated about colleges / tuition. Many people find value in it, or they justify it somehow like they couldn't get the education / experience some other, more affordable, way.

My thoughts on the solution is the same for housing increases. Get rid of the government loans. In this situation also make student loans able to discharge by bankruptcy, that way banks will think twice about it as well.

The easier it is to finance something the more people will likely buy it. Look at cars, houses, colleges, even the use of credit cards. Peope will be angry when the loans go away, because it has become a part of the American Dream along with owning a house. But this will cause a huge decrease in demand and hopefully lower the price. And maybe students will work a few years before attending college and know what they want to do in life (can't say I had much of a clue when I attended).

Another side of effect with less graduates is that maybe we can get rid of the college degree requirements (you know, the ones that require a BA in any field).

<comment><USER3> What positions require "BA in any field"?

<comment><USER4> Last I heard, in some cities you had to have a BA to be a barista.

<comment><USER5> When did you last hear? Which cities?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm a professor at an ivy league university who has gotten some insight into the budgets. There's a few things that are often not reported in the media:

1) The tuition sticker price is going up, but the actual price paid remains about the same due to increasing financial aid given to students.

2) The largest cost driven in the past decade is partially due to a successful increase in recruiting+admitting underrepresented minorities and low-income students. Because of a program called "need blind" among many universities, students are admitted regardless of ability to pay. So when more of these students come, not only are they unable to pay tuition, but the university pays them a stipend which results in a double financial cost.

3) There are administrative programs that cost money and are not flat screen TVs and new buildings, and actually benefit students at the same time! This includes funding for student organizations, undergraduate research or teaching assistantship programs, writing centers and tutors, etc.

<comment><USER7> 1) Source? I can't believe that the sticker price has gone up this much and that financial aid went up in essentially the same amount. Let's see data on this.

2) Again, source? What I get from this is that minorities are financial leeches, then. Is that a correct reading? (No of course not, but that seems to be a correct interpretation of this insane premise the OP stated; one I do not agree with at all)

3)Again, source? So, get rid of the student's needs and you get rid of the costs? Really, this says that needy students are the reason costs have gone up. Did you even read the original article at ALL? Over 30 years of needy students have pushed the costs up this much? That is blatantly false.

Sources for ANY of these points are needed.

<comment><USER6> The source is me attending university budget meetings, discussions with the provost, etc. University administrators are obviously not going to be saying this in public (exactly because of how it looks, as you note). If you think you're going to see the accounting books of a private university on such a sensitive topic, you may be waiting a while. But feel free to continue believing online columnists in the meantime; it seems like you've already made up your mind.

For 3), I think you misread my statement. I just said that there are useful programs to students that cost money, and not just the usual useless examples provided by journals. The other stuff is your creative interpretation :-)

<comment><USER7> I don't want to disparage a new user on HN, but your account was created 2 hours ago as of this writing. Please, do continue to use this site, but to make such broad claims about insider access and then claim that you cannot provide sources does stretch the veracity of your statements. Thomas Frank at Salon has his 'spit-bio' stating:

"Thomas Frank is a Salon politics and culture columnist. His many books include "What's The Matter With Kansas," "Pity the Billionaire" and "One Market Under God." He is the founding editor of The Baffler magazine."

You, however, disparage him as an 'online columnist' and say that I have already made up my mind. Well, with no proof provided to your examples, even after asking for it, I must make up my mind in Thomas Frank's favor. You cloak your data with the caveat that you can never provide sources for it. This forces me to not use you as a reliable source for information. At least tell us your university or job title.

Still, thank you for providing a different alternative to the OP. Please do not let my diatribe for sources distance you from commenting on other stories here in HN. I myself am guilty of doing just what you have done on here as well, ie. not posting sources outside of my own experience. Still, if you ever do find sources for your claims outside of your own experience, I would love to see them and be able to let others see them as well.

<comment><USER6> No worries, feel free to form your own opinion. I've been around the block quite a bit on HN to not mind criticism.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> "Administrators...blamed students, who were supposedly demanding all manner of luxuries and would not be denied. "Students today want carpeting, they want furniture, they want voice mail," an administrator at a Nevada university told USA Today for a 1997 story about the tuition spiral. "

I believe this is one of the biggest generally unaddressed aspects of this problems. The large public university near me has near-luxury dorms, a bunch of massive flat screen TVs in libraries and the student centers (which don't serve much of a purpose apart from broadcasting random news or campus stuff -- a couple devices would suffice) and keeps on revamping equipment / OSes in the general access computer labs (despite the fact that most students have their own laptops, and use the computer center ones for relatively mundane tasks like quickly checking facebook or typing out a Word document). The official reason given for this is, "Well, we won't be able to attract the best students if we don't offer them the best amenities."; and from all accounts, _it works_ \-- student enrollment, specially the wealthy ones, keeps going up.

As long as parents keep rewarding these lavish universities by saying, "Wow! Look how great that is. If Bobby hangs out in an expensive looking place, maybe he'll get a high-paying job by some sort of osmosis! Let's totally send him to the University of Money-Down-the-Flatscreen-Hole." instead of taking a hard-nosed look at the return on investment they are getting, this vicious cycle is going to continue.

<comment><USER9> Any analysis that assumes that whole generation of students and their parents are stupid is suspect. So, two remarks:

* Wealthy students are probably choosing more comfort over price. Less wealthy but good student might have different preferences. Wealthy and good student are not synonyms.

* All things being equal, I would find it rational to choose school with better tv. All things being equal is important there.

You school, or schools in general, seem to be trying to attract the most wealthy students. Whether they are proxy for good student or not does not matter. Even if they would be the best students ever, it would still be just a coincidence. If it would be about quality of attracted people and quality of graduating people, schools would not be so eager to save on professors, adjuncts and so on.

I think the whole thing has less to do with students and more to do with administrators incentives. They seem to choose short term grow over long term whatever all too often. Preferring quality of tv over quality of staff is preferring visible effect now over hard-to-see effects in long term.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> This has very little to do with some conspiracy between bankers and universities to indebt students and raise massive capital by massively expanding the university far beyond it's means.

Deep into this article the author hits on what is really at the core of steep tuition inclines. A rapidly reducing share of university funding coming from state governments turning once public institutions into defacto privatized universities.[1]

In this chart [2] UWashington lays out in 2013 dollars that total tuition per student has been around 17,000 for 25 years, however during that period the state contribution was reduced from $14,000 to $5000, while student tuition rose from $3,000 to $12,000

> "This is an important shift in who pays for higher education. In 1990, the > state provided nearly 80% of the funding per student and UW students paid > 20% of the funds. In 2011, the state will pay around 30% and UW students > will pay 70%." [3]

[1]: [http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/08/10/private#sthash...](http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/08/10/private#sthash.P6L2EJpu.dpbs)

[2]: [http://imgur.com/HqVVc0P](http://imgur.com/HqVVc0P)

[3]: [http://www.washington.edu/externalaffairs/files/2012/10/tuit...](http://www.washington.edu/externalaffairs/files/2012/10/tuition.pdf)

<comment><USER11> > In this chart [2] UWashington lays out in 2013 dollars that total tuition > per student has been around 17,000 for 25 years

If true, that would make UWashington a shining beacon of frugality and equality (or a really low-end university). That tuition has been massively outpacing inflation is something I have heard from too many different sources to dobut, so the question is: Is UWashington lying in that paper, or is exploding tuition something that affects only a small number of universities (and thus students), and in the latter case why don't students switch to cheaper universities?

<comment><USER12> "Total tuition" and "tuition charged to student" are two different numbers in this formulation.

"tuition charged to student" has jumped ~9k on top of inflation to compensate for a ~9k decrease in per student state funding.

As to why students don't switch to cheaper universities? Because when it comes time to find that first job academic reputation and professional network matter at least as much and often way way more than having a particular degree.

<comment><USER11> > "tuition charged to student" has jumped ~9k on top of inflation to > compensate for a ~9k decrease in per student state funding.

I got that, but that's a factor 4 increase, whereas the OP article's claim is that it has increased by a factor of 12.

> As to why students don't switch to cheaper universities? Because when it > comes time to find that first job academic reputation and professional > network matter at least as much and often way way more than having a > particular degree.

But if it's a mainstream problem, wouldn't that imply that the majority of students are now visiting "reputable" universities with great professional networks, which would make it less valuable as a distinguishing characteristic?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> When it ends it be non-linear: the debt system that we've built our economy and currency on is going to eventually throw up all over itself as we reach Keynes' "long run" and, at that point, experience consumers simply won't have the choice to screw themselves with unproductive debt.

EDIT: And, of course, the elephant in the room is the fascist government/corporate cooperation on student debt, which is now larger and more important than credit card debt in the overall economic credit environment. You kill student debt growth, you kill debt growth and, in todays insane economy, that means you kill growth period.

<comment><USER14> I'm not sure what you mean by "throw up" but my prediction is that a large portion of these education loans will end up being forgiven. It's housing bubble 2.0 and there's just no other way around it -- millennials leveraged up after being told for years that college was the path to prosperity and simply haven't seen the prosperity. The default rate on student loans is way up because, by and large, we're not making as much money, are less likely to have a job, aren't forming households and have massive debt/income ratios in comparison to our parents generation. If the government doesn't bail us out, the pyramid scheme implodes.

Of course, it's a terrible message to send and creates a moral hazard, but that's the way the game has been played for the last 30+ years. Your best bet to make it in America is to leverage yourself to the hilt. If you succeed, the benefits are privatized and you can sail off into the sunset. If you fail, the losses are eaten by the public.

In 2007 it was the bankers, mortgage lenders, GSEs and insurance companies working together to line each others pockets. This time around its the same deal, with (in order), the bankers, student loan originators (i.e. the government), Sallie Mae and the universities. Why would things play out any differently this time around?

<comment><USER13> It's easy to say that "they will be forgiven" but that's a huge evaporation of debt in the system: these are assets being marked at par in pension funds, etc.

Students are poor and don't vote. That's why it will be different this time.

EDIT: (I really should take more time in my replies) Also, let me say that I am in 100% agreement with you about the morality of the situation and how GenY (and GenX) were sold a bill of goods on the debt issue. But I think we are at the end of the line (in the next decade or so) and now it's a matter of who takes the most pain. I wouldn't bet on that being the banks, insurers or pension funds, and evidence so far confirms my non-bet.

<comment><USER14> I wouldn't either. It will be the government, just as it was last time. Here ya go:

[http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/student-loan- repayment...](http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/student-loan-repayment- white-house-107608.html)

Capped payments and all debt forgiven after 20 years.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> My favorite explanation of why tuition continues to rise is simple: people are still willing to pay ever higher prices. One step removed from that, the explanation hinges on student loans being too cheap and easy to get.

I've always found it baffling that anybody expected to solve the college affordability issue by making student loans cheaper and easier to get. When we do the same thing with mortgage rates, we expect the prices of homes to rise. Why do we expect any different of college tuition prices?

</comment><comment><USER16> Stanford tuition from 1920 through 1993 [1]:

        Year    Tuition    Annual Growth
        1920    120
        1930    300        9.60%
        1940    345        1.41%
        1950    660        6.70%
        1960    1005       4.29%
        1970    2400       9.09%
        1980    6285       10.11%
        1990    14280      8.55%
        1991    15102      5.76%
        1992    16536      9.50%
        1993    17775      7.49%
        1994    18669      5.03%
        1995    19695      5.50%
        1996    20490      4.04%
        1997    21300      3.95%
        1998    22110      3.80%
        1999    23058      4.29%
        2000    24441      6.00%
        2001    25917      6.04%
        2002    27204      4.97%
        2003    28563      5.00%
        2004    29847      4.50%
        2005    31200      4.53%
        2006    32994      5.75%
        2007    34800      5.47%
        2008    36030      3.53%
        2009    37380      3.75%
        2010    38700      3.53%
        2011    40050      3.49%
        2012    41250      3.00%
        2013    42690      3.49%

Note: the growth column I added is annual growth. It is the annual rate tuition would have had to rise to get from one line of the table to the next.

I don't see much support in this data for the claim many are making in comments here that government backed student loans are responsible (or even a significant factor in...) tuition growth.

It would be interesting if someone with better internet research skills than me could dig up data for other schools (in particular, it would be nice to get data from some public schools) and see what that looks like.

[1] [http://facts.stanford.edu/administration/finances](http://facts.stanford.edu/administration/finances)

</comment><comment><USER17> This is terrible.

You can't argue that universities charge more because they are able to, which is common sense, and also argue that we tried the free market (whatever that means) and it was part of the problem. E-gads, what a mess.

People today have roughly the same amount of money as they did 30 years ago. _The cost of college education in terms of the amount of money people directly and immediately pay has not changed_. It's not like we all became millionaires. What's happened is that we switched from grants to loans, which was supposed to allocate more risk on the student and banks, then we made sure that anybody that wanted a loan could get one, so there was no immediate penalty for making a bad choice.

We took a trade with tremendous uncertain future returns -- which degree I should get -- made sure everybody could get whatever they wanted, then pushed any pain far out into the future. Then we piled on by making the entire scheme immune from bankruptcy, taking out any risk that creditors might face! It's like we just kept the grants, but forced the student to pay for his own grant in terms of future debt. It's a incredibly terrible job of policy, no doubt, but the free market has nothing to do with it. If anything, it's a nice little experiment on how screwed up you can make a market before some kind of feedback mechanism kicks in. We took the purchaser out of the mix, then we took the lenders out. The only thing left is the political system, which seems wedded to the policies that led us here in the first place. Continuing down this road of idiocy, next up we should try to take the political system itself out of the mix. Perhaps we could have a constitutional "right" to an university education?

I will agree with the author that colleges charge more simply because they can. That's the way selling stuff works. You charge more until you start selling less. I will also agree that reporters (and some essayists) have great difficulty actually looking at the problem honestly.

This is the tragedy of our times, this indentured servitude we are placing on the next generation. Somebody is going to have to be a grown-up here and tell people what they don't want to hear: it is not in society's interests to guarantee the funding of little Junior's degree in underwater basket weaving. I don't see that person or party on the horizon, but here's hoping they show up soon.

</comment><comment><USER18> This isn't a grand conspiracy. Its all about too much of other people's money chasing a large and growing inventory of academic seats.

Lots of well-intentioned and self-interested advocates have successfully made the assertion that more college == good. So Uncle Sam dumps billions into it. Kids and parents are pretty dumb at assessing long terms value.

All education is like this. When you hear about things like schools providing iPads to the entire student body, that's a signal that there is too much money floating around.

</comment><comment><USER19> Cheap money means prices can go up and it's all based on an old sales trick... "3 easy payments of $19.95!"

That makes people feel like what they are buying is $20, or closer to $20 than $60.

Imagine you are selling an expensive piece of fitness equipment like a Bowflex or Nordick Track, or Total Gym or whatever. Those things retail for $500-1,500. How many people go to the store and drop $1,000 on a home gym? Not many. However, a lot of people buy equally expensive products via infomercials, QVC, and Home Shopping Network because of the payment plans.

Low interest mortgages and student loans spread out over a 30 year period make these huge ticket purchases more "affordable". They also totally distort the cost of the purchase.

The fact is, people make decisions to solve short term pain, not for long term gain.

The universities, credit card companies, banks, etc. are taking advantage of a system that we all built and participate in. It might not be what is best, but it is certainly our own creation and at some point society should take ownership of our own flaws, not continue to blame other people.

College and homeownership are a choice. There are alternatives. If we don't like the current system, it's up to us to change it or not participate in it.

</comment><comment><USER20> Gee, I thought that the resolution of the issue was:

(1) Before 30 years ago or so, a student paid only about 1/3rd of what a college education really cost. The rest was from 'overhead' taken from research grants, gifts, endowment income (from gifts), government funding (say, state universities).

(2) Good students with little or no money got various forms of financial assistance -- scholarships, work-study, etc.

(3) Wealthy students still paid only the 1/3rd.

So, someone got a bright idea: Why should wealthy students pay only 1/3rd instead of 100%? So, why not let the 'list price' to the students be the full cost? Then wealthy students will pay the full cost and others will get 'scholarships' based on need and academic qualifications.

So, the 'list price' went from 1/3rd of the real cost to 100% of the real cost, that is, up by a factor of 3, that is, 300%. The rest of the increases were due to better prof salaries, higher AdFunk salaries and more AdFunks, better facilities, etc.

But if have a really good media 'story', why give an explanation that would end the suspense, interest, drama, sense of scandal, etc. and, thus, end the story? And lose the eyeballs and ad revenue? Gotta be kidding!

</comment><comment><USER21> "Democrats today worship education" Well, they worship credentials, any way.

</comment><comment><USER22> It's my understanding is that in many (if not most) colleges, the cost for a single students tuition is exceedingly greater than what the school actually charges the student.

That is, schools make up the difference by getting grants, and getting alumni to donate.

With that model, there is no way school can continue to operate at that deficit.

</comment><comment><USER23> It comes down to at least two things:

1\. Easy (to acquire) debt drives demand

2\. Education is still "Made in America" thus it cannot hide from the real devaluation of the dollar

<comment><USER24> > _thus it cannot hide from the real devaluation of the dollar_

The trade-weighted U.S. dollar index [1], published by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, shows a 1.2% annualised decline in the U.S. dollar over the past 10 years. This is sufficiently low and hedge-able as to not be a key determinant in this pricing process.

Your broader point stands, however. Education is a non-tradable good. This amplifies the effect of local idiosyncrasies, e.g. non-dischargeable federally-backed education loans, in a way which would be arbitraged away for a tradable good.

[1] [http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/TWEXBp](http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/TWEXBp)

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> In my opinion, college is worthwhile ONLY if you attend a university that is worth the cost. In most situations, students attend a particular university wishing that it will guarantee them success at some point in their lives without researching the ranking, quality of education, etc. In terms of ROI, it is a safer option to attend a Top 50 university than a for-profit university nobody has ever heard of. The discussion shouldn't exactly revolve around whether college is worth it, but about how we can improve the quality of education across the board so that graduates are adequately prepared for the real-world.

<comment><USER26> You think university is about education. To an extent, of course, this is true. However, the reason "top" universities pay off better is not the quality of education. The difference in aptitude of students easily trumps the advantage an Ivy league university has over a state college.

The real value in the university is the sunk cost of education for everyone already in the workforce. Ivy leaguers control management of most companies, and choosing against Ivy leaguers means saying they are themselves ill- educated ... they don't. So higher up jobs are more available to people who've paid the same sunk costs as the hiring managers.

It's that simple.

This will fall flat on it's face if they really open up admissions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I wish I could read this, but as with every single Salon.com page, every time I scroll halfway down the body, the entire second half of the article blinks and disappears completely (on Safari on iPad). That, or the page stutters helplessly for several seconds until it crashes the browser.

There better be a special circle of hell for whoever came up with such an abomination. Memo to all of you Web 3.0 trendsetters: _Please stop ruining the web_ [1].

[1] [http://motherfuckingwebsite.com/](http://motherfuckingwebsite.com/)

</comment><comment><USER28> Since the majority of non-menial jobs now REQUIRE a degree (often any degree), if you want to be in the middle class, you need a college degree.

One explanation I can think of to require a degree for everything is that it proves that you can commit to a long term goal and achieve it.

The cynic in my thinks it's just a ploy to have a debt-riddle workforce who will be scared to make waves because they're always one check away form insolvency.

</comment><comment><USER29> The increase in tuition costs has actually been relatively small. The price for tuition, fees, room and board at public 4-year colleges for in-state residents increased from $7,400 in 1990-91 (2012 dollars) to $12,110 in 2012-13. At private non-profit institution the net price increased from $18,330 in 1990-91 to $23,840 in 2012-13.

<comment><USER7> Source?

UC Irvine is 2x that while not on campus ($24,693.97) and much more on campus ($31,667.97) for CA residents. Add $22,878.00 for out of state to get ~46k off campus and ~53k for on campus[0].

Granted, it is a UC in Orange County, but your numbers are 1/2 to 1/3rd of the true numbers. Is the rest of the country really that much cheaper than California?

[0][http://www.ofas.uci.edu/content/costs.aspx?nav=1](http://www.ofas.uci.edu/content/costs.aspx?nav=1)

<comment><USER30> What percentage of students pay full sticker price?

<comment><USER7> Unknown to me. Hopefully a source from the post I replied to may provide the data.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> At my alma mater, 2 semesters of tuition, room, & board match what I paid for 3 _years_ of attendance 25 years ago.

</comment><comment><USER32> Can I get a tldr? Where is all this money ending up?

<comment><USER33> Read the article - it's worth your time. Or if your time's more valuable, don't.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> _Democrats today worship education, while Republicans today worship the market, neither of which faith has brought us close to a solution._

Extreme leftists cheerlead higher education under the belief that if you give the proles a leadership education, they'll eventually revolt and overthrow the capitalists. After all, the undergraduate experience was designed for aristocrats, and if people go from young aristocrat to prole in one post- graduate summer, they might be pissed off enough to take up arms and overthrow governments, like what almost happened in the 1960s student riots. It doesn't happen that way, however, so they (the extreme leftists) don't get what they want.

Lazy centrists and liberals push for widespread higher education because they believe education to be a magical fairy dust that can be sprinkled on inequality to make it go away. (In fact, tuition and credentialism and admissions-- nonacademic admissions elements being the worst offenders-- do the opposite.) They don't get what they want.

Right-wing, religious nutcases throw their weight behind _religious_ education because they think it will help them in their losing cultural war against modernity. They don't get what they want.

The center-right, increasingly fascist, corporate elite cheerleads widespread education because it gives HR departments a sorting mechanism where the people being sorted do all the work, and pay exorbitant prices for the "privilege" of taking part in the indignity. As for this set of people (center-right), they are the ones who _do_ get what they want.

<comment><USER35> What do Democrats have to do with "extreme leftists"? There is no remotely viable Communist party in the US, not even a Socialist party. Extreme leftists do not have any power in the US.

People who don't want to go to college have always had the option of not going. The difficulty is when people want to go but it is not feasible for financial reasons. Some people think it is nice to help others do whatever it is they want to do. There is no 'extreme leftist' conspiracy here.

<comment><USER36> Democrats would mostly be the "lazy centrists" in the next paragraph.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> It's a free market -- tuition keeps going up because you, your neighbors, and every other American, is willing to pay for it. Prices will keep going up until people are so strained that they're not willing or able to pay anymore.

<comment><USER38> But it's not a free market. It's a market artificially inflated by the government via Federal loans, guaranteed pay back to the banks, and debt that's non-dismissable via bankruptcy. Those may or may not better than the alternative, but they sure as hell mean it's not a free market.

<comment><USER39> " _guaranteed pay back to the banks_ "

Not as of June 30, 2010: part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act AKA Obamacare was using the profits from those student loans to fund it, the government is originating all "guaranteed" loans after that date.

<comment><USER30> The taxpayer savings don't fund Obamacare but rather go back into higher education:

"The Congressional Budget Office said the direct-lending approach would save taxpayers about $61 billion over 10 years. Roughly $40 billion of the savings will be redirected to higher education. Education programs will get an additional $10 billion from the health care package."

[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/us/politics/26loans.html](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/us/politics/26loans.html)

<comment><USER39> OK, 1/3 of the profits, per CBO scoring.

Assuming the arrangement isn't changed in the future.

There _was_ a reason to attach it to Obamacare after all, it helped make the CBO's numbers, artificial as they are, add up.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Introducing UberTAXI - <AUTHOR> http://blog.uber.com/UberTAXI <comment><USER2> Good timing, because in about 1 hour from now, at 14:00 BST / 13:00 UTC (as if there were such a thing as British Summer), the London Black Cabs will stage a protest that will gridlock London. Not that anyone stuck in London traffic will be able to tell the difference.

Article from the Beeb: [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-27783218](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-27783218)

edit: DST is hard

<comment><USER3> Off-topic, but...

> _as if there were such a thing as British Summer_

Have you not looked outside lately? We're having it right now!

<comment><USER4> It's 23 C outside. Maybe warm for London, but not "summer".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> > "We recognise the unique heritage and value of traditional black cabs when > it comes to getting around. UberTAXI is another way of using technology to > offer more choice, making life simpler and keeping London moving"

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

<comment><USER5> In Chicago some licensed cab drivers use Uber to process their payments with the Uber Taxi service. You can call a cab with the app, pay the normal fare plus 20% gratuity and a small service fee. I don't use cabs often, but it's working out way better for me than when I used to call dispatch and maybe the cab would show up and maybe it wouldn't. It's also really nice to be able to just get in and get out without wasting time dealing with payments. The drivers that I've spoken to seem to like it as well as it gets them more fares.

<comment><USER6> It's also nice that they can't charge "surge" pricing on cabs, so if they're doing a 2x or 4x you can call a taxi through it for a normal-ish fare. That said, the cab option always seems to be very sparsely populated whenever there's an ongoing pricing "surge".

I haven't seen taxis done on uber anywhere other than Chicago though.

<comment><USER7> Well, surge pricing indicates increased demand and is a way to compensate on the market level. So the cars that don't have surge pricing will logically be hard to get then.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Uber started with boat services in Stockholm today. I thought that was bigger news :)

You might want to translate this somehow but here: [http://blog.uber.com/UberBAT](http://blog.uber.com/UberBAT)

<comment><USER9> I wonder if this is part of some larger campaign -- maybe there are more Uber* stuff going on in other cities? UberRICKSHAW!

<comment><USER10> They've got a long history of quirky short-term things like having a food truck come and give you a burrito. [http://blog.uber.com/uBURRITO](http://blog.uber.com/uBURRITO)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Taxis in a lot of big euro cities are on strike at the moment because of what they deem unlicensed taxi services. Uber is being mentioned specifically. So while it's good for uber that they are announcing new services id much rather they sort my problem of spending a few extra hours getting to airport and a few more extra hours getting out of the airport today

<comment><USER11> And in the end, driven by uber's surge pricing, their drivers broke the picket line while stranded travelers (I included) welcomed them with open arms

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> As a non Uber customer, why would I use this over Hailo? And why would Uber customers opt for a more expensive taxi when the same application has a cheaper option?

When I use black cabs here in London, I'd much rather use an established and local product from a company with less questionable ethics. That's Hailo.

<comment><USER13> > ...from a company with less questionable ethics

Ok, I'll bite. What is questionable about Uber's ethics?

<comment><USER14> They are shifting all of the liability to the people who can least afford it. So far they have done everything in their power to not protect drivers like in the case last month. [http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Uber-denies-fault- in-S...](http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Uber-denies-fault-in-S-F-crash- that-killed-girl-5458290.php) An uber driver killed a girl, but Uber is claiming they are not liable because he did not have an active fare at the time. It is unlikely this driver can ever make the family whole.

Additionally many car sharing services are operating without regard to the law. In some states the cars are getting seized. So far Uber has been covering the legal case, but they have no obligation to continue to do so.

<comment><USER15> Not to say that Uber does not have questionable ethics, but I think your two examples are wrong. Uber is now insuring their drivers as long as they are logged into the app. [http://www.theverge.com/2014/3/14/5508568/uber-expands- drive...](http://www.theverge.com/2014/3/14/5508568/uber-expands-driver- insurance-coverage-after-girls-death)

The car seizure you reference was in Belgium for a service that technically complies with local laws according to Uber and they are providing legal assistance to the two owners of the seized cars. [http://tech.eu/news/screw- innovation-uber-already-deemed-ill...](http://tech.eu/news/screw-innovation- uber-already-deemed-illegal-brussels-two-private-vehicles-seized-far/)

You mention that so far Uber is covering the legal costs without an obligation to do so. So that makes them bad?

<comment><USER14> So Uber is saying their insurance will cover 125k? This is not an adequate amount of coverage, and they are still shifting any liability away from the company, onto people who cannot afford the consequences. Who pays in a tragedy like this?

There have been many car seizures in the US and abroad. Many of these independent contractors do not have the resources to fight a legal battle without the help of Uber.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> They've been doing this in DC for several years. It seems to work, more or less. I think there are more cabs on Hailo if that's what you want. Some cab drivers are extremely anti-Uber.

<comment><USER17> I haven't tried Hailo, but in Boston the uber cabs have never felt scarce to me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I find the rise of Uber fanboys very interesting. Is it real or are they bots?

<comment><USER19> I'm real. Uber is 100x better than normal taxi services. The cars don't suck or smell bad, the drivers aren't assholes, and the fares are reasonable. That is completely orthogonal to my experiences in any taxi.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I don't really know what to make of:

> There will be no booking fees or additional charges to clients

versus

> We'll charge a flat commission of just 5%

Looks fishy.

</comment><comment><USER21> If this service matches the quality of other Uber services, I could see it helping them get into holdout cities.

TBH, my least favorite part about scheduling cabs is dealing with the dispatchers. I've had them frequently hang up on me just because I am scheduling a pick-up for somewhere on Sixth Street in Austin, despite my not being intoxicated in the least. Not to mention, the times when my reservation seems to just get lost or left with a massive window for wait times. If it can give better service and feedback than the current Hail a Cab app thats pretty big in Austin, the extra commission would be completely worth it. Hopefully, it expands beyond London.

</comment><comment><USER22> Pay twice as much to be in a black cab? Defeating whole reason of using Uber.. luckily we have choices, thanks UberX.

<comment><AUTHOR> Actually it follows the same fare rate as the taxis themselves, plus 5% extra to Uber for the convenience of the service.

Fare info: [http://www.tfl.gov.uk/modes/taxis-and-minicabs/taxi- fares?ci...](http://www.tfl.gov.uk/modes/taxis-and-minicabs/taxi- fares?cid=fs159)

<comment><USER23> which is much more expensive than UberX. Black cabs in London are just ripoff. I love Uber and I hope it will continue to disrupt it with UberX and low prices, not support Black Cabs.

<comment><USER24> The training given to London cab drivers makes this especially ironic - UberTAXI should appear above UberX in their service list. It's a more premium service.

<comment><USER25> It takes an average London cabbie 34 months of preparation and 12 attempts to pass the test to get their license:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_the_United_Kingdom#...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_the_United_Kingdom#The_Knowledge)

There was a shortcut on a route that I used to regularly take in London, so i'd tell them "Don't go to the lights, just turn down here". I think I had fare meters stopped out of appreciation on 3 occasions after sharing that tip. Showing a London cabbie a new shortcut totally blows their minds.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> not clear if existing taxi drives can subscribe to uber and take clients from it

<comment><USER27> If you try and sign up: UberTAXI You Are...Currently a taxi driver certified and licensed by the city. Your Vehicle Is...A commercial taxi vehicle.

So, yes. Existing taxi drivers can.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> European techies should favor Hailo over Uber if they ever have hopes of a real startup ecosystem ever blooming in this side of the world. The startup scene can't afford to see it fail.

</comment><comment><USER29> This must be a response to the protests today. I guess adding this is a way of saying Uber is not exactly like a Black Taxi and distinguish the two as different

</comment><comment><USER30> So is uber a taxi company or not? This can't help their stance in other countries where they are fighting off regulation?

</comment><comment><USER31> I was just in Hawaii a couple of weeks ago, and Uber uses the local Yellow Cab there instead of black car or local drivers.

</comment><comment><USER32> seems crazy that they are announcing this today with the protest happening but whatever.... I am happy to see the taxi hailing feature coming as it is my most used feature in Toronto ( I mean, you only needthe fancy cars for fancy events/group things)

</comment><comment><USER33> So... it's like a taxi?

</comment><comment><USER34> Getting a taxi in London is not a broken concept. It is easy to flag down a taxi and there are a lot of them all over the place. They have a great charging structure, charging for distance, not time. They are safe and the taxi drivers are reliable and certified to be knowledgeable on the geography of London.</comment>


Meta-study says too much carbohydrate, not fat, leads to obesity - <AUTHOR> http://thatpaleoguy.com/2013/11/20/bmj-swedish-health-advisory-body-says-too-much-carbohydrate-not-fat-leads-to-obesity/

<comment><USER2> As someone who has closely followed the literature (I scraped and reviewed pretty much all of ACJN) - I find it fascinating that nobody has gone to the effort of doing a large-scale controlled study on this topic.

Seriously - how difficult would it be to just get a large population in a controlled environment for period of time (12-18 months), separate them into groups, and feed them pre-determined diets, and observe the results.

I'm sure there are lots of institutional opportunities where we have large populations of people who would be happy to volunteer for this type of study.

<comment><USER3> Doing some personal research a while back revealed to me that diet studies in general have ridiculously low standards. The vast, vast majority of them are volunteer, self-journaled data based that would be laughed out of any other scientific context.

Controlled group studies are almost entirely non-existent and are typically limited to very specific conditions and goals, such as diets for epileptics.

I hope at some point we'll sit down and do a proper broad study on different diets where all meals are controlled for x amount of time and get a range of data that you could further divide and conquer and figure such a crucial part of our existence out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> When people ask me about this, I like to start off by telling them that of the three macronutrients, carbs, protein and fat, only carbs are non-essential. We literally can't live without fat and protein, but we would do just fine with out carbs.

Most people don't know that carbs are not required to live. We've been sold a bill of goods on carbs and it's been hurting us for 2 decades.

And further, there are certain people who should be no where near carbs.

* Diabetics and pre-diabetics

* cancer patients

* the obese

* people who don't workout

Carbs aren't evil, they should just be used strategically. Namely, to gain weight. Bodybuilders and powerlifters have known this forever. To gain weight, eat everything but mostly carbs. To lose weight, keep protein high, fill the rest of your calories with fat and limit the carbs.

<comment><USER5> "we would do just fine with out carbs" \- Intuition leads me to want to disagree with this. How would the body handle not having ANY fiber? I'm curious. Fiber helps digestion, feeds the happy parts of your internal biome, makes your colon happy, etc. I can't imagine that eliminating all carbs is good for your body.

<comment><USER6> Normally if you follow a low-carb diet, you get your fiber from greens. I believe the statement was targeted more towards carbs like bread, pasta, rice, etc.

<comment><USER4> Indeed.

<comment><USER7> Ok, but that's not what you said? You say something bold and provocative and then start carving out exceptions buried downthread.

As I said elsewhere in this discussion: "I feel like all the simple answers in nutrition are BS and the only short answer is 'it's complex.'"

<comment><USER4> Ok, here it is. Technically, we don't need carbs. Whatever that means, it is what it is. Carbs are a non-essiential macronutrient.

We need some vitamins, minerals and what not as well as protein and fat. We don't need carbs. Some of those vitamins and minerals come from plants, which have, as we say in the biz, trace carbs and fiber.

When I'm cutting down for a photoshoot I go keto. I might not have a veggie for weeks. My bloods and panels all look fine. I mostly eat veggies b/c I feel bad for not eating them.

I do take a multivit every day and I'm eating plenty of fat which helps the colon move things along.

When I'm gaining muscle, I do eat carbs. Lots of carbs. But we don't _need_ carbs.

<comment><USER8> > But we don't need carbs.

Do you have any science to back up this bold claim?

And what are you claiming carbohydrates are? Simplex and complex carbohydrates - sugars and starches?

It seems like you're saying that we don't need carbs, but that eating a diet with no carbs means we lose out on all those foods that have other useful nutrients (ie green vegetables). So, we tend to eat diets that have carbs to get the other benefits. Is that right?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The Carbohydrate Hypothesis of Obesity: a Critical Examination:

[http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/08/carbohydrate-h...](http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/08/carbohydrate- hypothesis-of-obesity.html)

Basically debunks the carbohydrate hypothesis:

"I hope you can see by now that the carbohydrate hypothesis of obesity is not only incorrect on a number of levels, but it may even be backward. The reason why obesity and metabolism researchers don't typically subscribe to this idea is that it is contradicted by a large body of evidence from multiple fields. I understand that people like ideas that "challenge conventional wisdom", but the fact is that obesity is a complex state and it will not be shoehorned into simplistic hypotheses."

<comment><USER10> It's worth quoting the introduction to give context to that conclusion:

"I'd like to begin by emphasizing that carbohydrate restriction has helped many people lose body fat and improve their metabolic health. Although it doesn't work for everyone, there is no doubt that carbohydrate restriction causes fat loss in many, perhaps even most obese people. For a subset of people, the results can be very impressive. I consider that to be a fact at this point, but that's not what I'll be discussing here.

What I want to discuss is a hypothesis. It's the idea, championed by Gary Taubes, that carbohydrate (particularly refined carbohydrate) is the primary cause of common obesity due to its ability to elevate insulin, thereby causing increased fat storage in fat cells."

Aside: if I only had time to follow one blog on nutrition, it would be Whole Health Source.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> This stuff gets a little conspiracy theorist. I think the most basic problem is that carbs are cheap and it's easy to eat a lot of them because they're not filling. Losing weight is about calories in versus calories out, but calories in is about hunger management.

Where I get breakfast, they sell these pretzels. 300 calories for something that'll leave you feeling hungry immediately. Meanwhile a small container of 2% Greek yogurt will fill you up till lunch for half the calories.

My favorite lunch is a salad at chipotle: lettuce, chicken guacamole, cheese. At 450 calories, it's ridiculously filling and has about as many calories as a small sandwich that'll leave you hungry by the afternoon. Or a twelve piece nuggets at chick fil a. 400 calories for a tasty lunch that is so filling it's even a bit hard to eat in a sitting.

But have a cup of coffee and a scone at Starbucks? Same number of calories as the twelve piece nuggets, except people don't feel like fat asses having that before going home for dinner.

If you have trouble losing weight because you can't stay on the wagon, at least try a low carb diet. Realize that a bagel at 200 calories = 5-7 strips of bacon and the latter will fill you up and the former won't. Also eat lots of vegetables to add volume with low calories. If you have a sweet tooth, put a teaspoon of sugar in some FAGE. It's only 15 extra calories.

<comment><USER12> I would not advise anyone trying to lose weight to go on a 'low carb' diet. While its true that most people need to consume less carbs, a good balance of fats, proteins, and carbs are a part of most healthy diets.

Satiation has less to do with the absence of carbs as it does the glycemic index of the carbs. Foods like oatmeal have a low glycemic index and thus raise your blood sugar much slower than a candy bar which might cause a sudden spike. So its advisable to eat slow burning low glycemic index carbs in the morning to feel fuller during the day.

Also there are a lot of mixed views about dairy as well as the high sodium content of chipotle in the weightlifting and weight loss world.

<comment><USER11> Note I qualified my advice as being aimed at people who are having trouble losing weight because they can't easily control their eating (which encompasses many or even most people). For those people, I think trying to have a "good balance of fats, proteins, and carbs" (whatever that means--most nutrition advice is handwaving) is an additional constraint that makes it too hard to stick to a diet that limits calorie intake. I think its actually ultimately unhealthy to advise people to try and maintain a "balanced" diet (again, whatever that means), because clearly people don't have the willpower to to begin with (or else they wouldn't all be fat).

This is particularly true if you're a typical busy, stressed person who doesn't have the time to prepare and plan his or her own meals. Restaurants make it very difficult to eat limited calories while balancing fats, protein, and carbs, because their dishes come with an overabundance of cheap carbs. To use Applebee's as a reference for a typical American suburban restaurant, the 12 oz new york strip has 480 calories, while the seasonable vegetables adds another 40-60. Almost all of the pasta dishes have 1100+ calories. If you're trying to stay under 600 calories for dinner, you're going to have much more success ordering the steak than you will ordering the pasta and willing yourself to eat only half the portion.

Fun fact: the glycemic index of oatmeal isn't that low. See: [http://www.amsa.org/healingthehealer/GlycemicIndex.pdf](http://www.amsa.org/healingthehealer/GlycemicIndex.pdf). Oatmeal has a glycemic index of 61. Table sugar is 65. Whole milk is 27. Peanuts are 14. Low fat yogurt is 33. Oatmeal is better than say white bread or a bagel, but what isn't?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> So I could eat 10,000 calories of fat per day and lose weight if I cut out the carbs? I doubt it.

There seems to be a zero-sum mentality that will (maybe) never die off that if one food group is good others must be bad. As for me, I'll listen to Michael Pollan's advice:

Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.

<comment><USER14> "So I could eat 10,000 calories of fat per day..."

Try it. No carbs, just fat & protein, 10,000 calories.

Seriously, try it. Just one day. Won't hurt you.

It is possible to consume 10,000 calories of carbs in a day. Short of physically stuffing it in, you will find it effectively impossible to eat 10,000 calories of fat and protein. You'll probably find it a challenge to go beyond 3,000. (Though if you switch to a high-fat, high-protein diet you might manage in the first couple of days before your body adjusts fully. And I'm assuming you're average; a large man might get 4K, but again, that'll be a challenge.)

Calories are not fungible. And once you accept _that_ , it's frankly hard to look at the evidence, the biochemistry and how the hormones work, and not end up fingering carbs as the source of the obesity epidemic, not fat.

You may find it interesting to note that carbs all come from plants. (But not all plants, of course.)

<comment><USER15> The issue people take is that when people talk about this they frequently make it sound like carbs are what make cause obesity (eg the title of this post). However it's not that carbs cause obesity it's that carbs allow you to easily consume lots of calories and excess calories cause obesity.

It's funny because most of the "carbs are bad" and "carbs are fine" people agree that in reality it's calories that make you fat. For some reason when they talk to each other that point gets lost and it turns into two people talking past each other who agree in actuality.

<comment><USER4> IMO, it would be better for the general public to think of them as "bad" rather than "good" as we do now. Most people shouldn't be consuming carbs, nearly at all. In general, the average person should be high fat, mod protein, low carb (very low) and they would be in much better overall health.

I think the problem is that carbs, much more than either of the other 2 macros, have more complex mechanisms at play.

For instance, carbs in the morning or at night? Most people know that you are burning fat when you wakeup from your overnight fast. But what most people don't know is that the first time you eat carbs, the fat burning stops.

6 meals or 2? Smaller insulin spikes over time lead (it appears) to insulin resistance moreso than one or two big spikes. The jury is a bit out on this, but the data is leaning this way (last I looked).

The meal frequency doesn't really matter with protein and fat, just carbs it seems.

Those are just some examples, but I think you get the idea. My mother (65) recently asked me what she should do for her diet in old age. Simple, I told her, eat lots of fish, meat, veggies, cream and some nuts. Avoid grains, bread, over doing it on fruit etc. She's worried about living a long time, heart health and cancer. No reason she should be anywhere near carbs.

<comment><USER16> > average person should be high fat

You probably want to be getting a substantial fraction of your calories from sugars and starches, mixed with fat and protein. Ya know, like portions in cuisine all around the world has favored for ages.

I used to buy this high fat idea before reading more broadly. Firstly, non- saturated fats should be avoided to the extent possible, and that's hard to do on a high fat diet. Secondly, high fat meals are clearly inflammatory. More inflammatory than carbs. They cause endotoxin absorption and promote dysbiosis. The hormone profile of being a "fat burner" is not so great either. Cortisol goes up, because that drives fat metabolism. This is why people who go atkins or go on a fast say they feel great. It's elevated cortisol, just like a runner's high. That's fine in short doses, but sustained it leads to breakdown and damage.

Relax and have some sugary chocolate milk. It's perfectly healthy. Almost a balanced meal, in fact.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Turns out it's food that leads to obesity: [http://examine.com/faq/what- should-i-eat-for-weight-loss.htm...](http://examine.com/faq/what-should-i-eat- for-weight-loss.html)

<comment><USER18> That is why this topic keeps attracting the terrible pseudo-science and cults, the overbearing media reporting.. we already know the simple principle by which you can lose weight. Turns out people are terrible at making changes in their routine.

Instead of discussing some paleo nonsense or how carbs are evil, we should tell people to find a sport they enjoy and join a local club..

<comment><USER19> But that is also nonsense. The amount of time you have to spend exercising to spend significant calories is enormous. Far beyond what most people can allocate to the activity.

<comment><USER18> I think you are being overly dramatic on "enormous", but either way: it is not a zero sum game. If someone adds some activity into their weekly plan while simply maintaining their current eating habits, that is still an overall win.

It is certainly a win for their _health_ , because obviously eating "healthy stuff" does not actually make you perfectly healthy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> It's no coincidence that the modern Western diet is based on carbohydrates and hydrogenated oils. While an individual can choose to eat a high fat, low carbohydrate diet, our entire society cannot. This is a problem of scale.

Our politicians made a deal with the agri-business devil to ensure (most) everyone is fed relatively cheaply. The toll for this deal is that some people end up fat and sick. I'm convinced this is known and understood; nothing will be done about it.

It's left to the individual to adjust their lifestyle to suit their biology.

</comment><comment><USER21> There seems to be a misconception about LCHF, it means LOW CARB not NO CARB. I've been on the diet since March and lost 10KG and is now stable on 67KG weight and i'm 174cm long. I eat about 5% carbs each day, most from nutritious sallads, vegetables and berries. And i have NEVER been healthier in my life, even my doctor confirms this.

</comment><comment><USER22> I have long suspected this to be the case. I have observed the association of obesity with "impoverished" Americans. Think about the kinds of food poor people buy. Macaroni, Ramen noodles, bread, soda, McDonald's (fries, bread), candy, cereal, etc.

I also suspect that lower proportions of protein and nutrients play a role in carbs not being handled well by the body.

</comment><comment><USER23> As someone who struggled to lose weight for about 1 year, but after that was able to defeat the extra 35+ pounds gained after marriage, I concur that the key thing I've almost completely removed from my diet was carbs & sugar. The weight disappeared. I purposely seek out whole milk, cream on top, and eat a bowl of Erewhon organic raisin bran[1] pretty much nightly. Simply avoid rice, bread, pastas & sugar(especially corn syrup). Now I don't wanna get into a big ol' argument about corn syrup vs. regular sugar, but I don't gain weight anywhere near as fast if I have an occasional japanese snack[2], versus a western candies such as the typical items at a 7-eleven[3]. Authentic Japanese snacks never seem to contain corn syrup, afaik.

1\. [http://www.wholeandnatural.com/catalog/Erewhon%20Organic%20R...](http://www.wholeandnatural.com/catalog/Erewhon%20Organic%20Raisin%20Bran.jpg)

2\. [https://www.localresearch.com/site_media/media/uploads/img/2...](https://www.localresearch.com/site_media/media/uploads/img/2010/Aug/17/DSC_0812.JPG)

3\. [http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/images/stories/large/2011/02...](http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/images/stories/large/2011/02/08/1133928.jpg)

</comment><comment><USER24> no shit. where the fuck have you been?

SUGAR - THE BITTER TRUTH

RTFM</comment>