Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Reelya]

Something that might interest people is that researchers have tested the "sugar makes my kids so hyper" thing, and it cannot be replicated in studies.

https://www.science.org.au/curious/people-medicine/does-sugar-really-make-kids-hyper

In fact, a meta-analysis of 16 different studies on sugar and hyperactivity all came back with the same result: ‘sugar does not affect the behaviour or cognitive performance of children’.

If sugar does change something, it’s parental expectations of their children. Parents who were told their 5-7-year-old sons had ingested large amounts of sugar (when in fact they were given a placebo) were more inclined to rate their children as significantly more hyperactive than mothers who were told their children received the placebo. Often if a parent believes there is a link between sugar and hyperactivity, they will see one.

If you think about where and when children are more likely to eat large amounts of sugar—such as birthday parties, fetes, holidays or a visit to Grandma’s house—they are also places that are exciting, fun and usually have different, more relaxed rules when it comes to behaviour. People may be confusing correlation for causation—yes kids might get hyperactive when sugar is around, but it’s not the sugar causing the hyperactivity. More likely it’s the surrounding environment that’s to blame.

So, it's because we only let kids have a lot of sugar on special occasions, so we see them being excited and think the sugar did it.

Think about it, it's just carbs. They'd get hyperactive from eating bread if that was the case, since bread also spikes up blood sugar. There's really no scientific basis for the idea that eating sucrose rather than bread would cause kids to go psycho. Either way, the mechanism is that both increase blood glucose levels.

[Egan_BW]

Well, I'd presume there'd be the potential difference because that energy is metabolized more quickly in the form of sugar. Same total energy but a higher spike and faster leveling off. Saying it's just carbs is a bit of an oversimplification of a complex subject.

I feel like I saw that one on the wikipedia "list of common misconceptions" years ago, though.

[Reelya]

Well, I'd presume there'd be the potential difference because that energy is metabolized more quickly in the form of sugar. Same total energy but a higher spike and faster leveling off. Saying it's just carbs is a bit of an oversimplification of a complex subject.

It's down to the glycemic index. A bit of research
https://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and-conditions/glycemic-index-and-glycemic-load-for-100-foods

White bread is listed as having a GI of 75, and cornflakes have a GI of 81. This is really close to pure glucose, which is defined as 100. But, you know, nobody says sandwiches or a bowl of cereal set their kids off, despite this basically being the most likely scenario if it was actually sugar's high GI that was supposed to be responsible.

Actual table sugar, sucrose, only has a GI of 61 (since half of it must be routed via the liver). Also, fructose only has a GI of 19 - it actually takes a lot to break down the stuff found in soft drinks. Note that fructose makes up half of sucrose, explaining why sucrose only has a GI of 61, despite being "pure sugar" - it's roughly the average of the GI for those two things (100 and 19).

The problem with saying oh it's sugary so it must spike the blood sugar up quickly, is that's not true for the types of sugars that are normally in things. Glucose is more common in jelly candies, but stuff like gelatin, pectin heavily reduce the GI.

So yes it is more complex, but not in the way you might think. Note that putting table sugar on your cornflakes would actually reduce the GI of the meal :/

[dragdeler]

-

[TheSteppeWolf]

I will fight, you all milk tea haters.

Milk tea is the only tea I ever drink. And, I drink lots of tea.

[wierd]

It has enough room for an HDD, sounds like somebody was cramming that compartment  . The eyedrops lead me to believe that all the stuff inside was at least a decade old anyway, did you check the expiry date on the drops?

I've seen people dry stuff on consoles, laptops or power supplies, it's less coarse than the room heater. Specifically asking for a PS2 seems like a lack of creativity.


I've been trying that new DVD exploit for the PS2, patch a "booter" directly onto games. Sadly I don't have the correct revision it seems... Man do I hope they will make more progress.


And the vapes are all conduction or convection last I checked, just a little chamber to fill with electrical heater and preferably a temperature reader... as opposed to the dabs etc that commonly use induction and specific preparates that vaporize faster. I've never seen any of these. But they are basically the same thing than the ecigs where you can put in a flavor.

Seriously, just use WinHIIP to install FreeHDBoot as an image.  Easy peasy, no need for a mod chip, no need for a hacktastical booter disk, NOTHING.

THEN you can install OpenPS2Loader, and bob is your damn uncle.

Due to forum rules I will not give you links or further hand holding.  But its really simple to do.

[methylatedspirit]

Jeez, I looked at what happens if you were to add an SSD into a PS2, and never have I been so disappointed. At best it was a second faster than a HDD. You know why? The PS2 uses ATA-66. Just 66 megs a second. It's that old.

I probably sound like an 8-year-old who thinks that gaming started with Fortnite, but good lord that's slow. Can't even do 600 megs a second for an internal connector. What is this shit?

And now, of course, you see SSD manufacturers bragging that they can get, like, 7 gigs a second on their stuff, and at some point, some future youngin's gonna laugh at that in 20 years and scoff at that: "Hah, 7 gigs a second? How did they live? Chrome's now at least 10 TB, and don't get me started on any of my games." Technological progress, everybody.

[JoshuaFH]

Just to be absolutely clear, we're talking about the PlayStation 2, right?

[King Zultan]

I was and I think wierd was, not 100% about everyone else.

[methylatedspirit]

I mean, I swear I was talking about the Playstation 2, then I went on a tangent. Either that, or I was talking about IBM's Personal System/2. I'm not too sure myself.

[wierd]

playstation 2. Yes.

And yes, the ATA version in that adapter is old as shit.  BUT STILL WAY FASTER THAN THE DVD DRIVE.

[Reelya]

Just to note however, this wasn't a case of them skimping out because it's a console: PS2 came out in 2000, that's the same year Mobos started rolling out with ATA-66. They did put the fastest port available into the thing, i.e. it was already future-proofed as much as possible. It's just with exponential increases in capacity/throughput per year any stats are going to sound terrible very quickly. This is a 20 year old machine. It's like trying to run an original 1979 IBM PC in year 2000 then complaining you can't put a decent sized hard-drive in that.

[LordBaal]

Technological progress, everybody.

Well, yes and no. There is also economics at one side and also there is much wastefulness on the other.

A teacher in college teached us that the best system was the one that efectibly complied with all the requirements with the least ammout of resources (of any kind), instead of the "common" mindset of being the system composed of the latest, more cutting edge tech. This is called eficience and it applies to any kind of system, physical, digital or otherwise.

If by chance the sony executives, developers, or marketers, or a combination of all those or more people, decided/discovered/cocluded that 66 megas per second was enough velocity based on any number of factors at the time, despite faster interfaces being avaiable, then there is the end result. Or as the above post put it, this time they did put the best interface that was on the market at the moment and both edge tech and economics happily collided there.

On the other hand, software development has seen some bad sliding towards careslesness as more powerful systems become readily. With seemingly more sloppy code and a tendency to not measure things like memory ussage, to the point, several browsers in example are memes now.

On a bit of contradiction this too is the result of eficiency. While Im sure, lets say, google is more than capable of say, going to a clear table and redo chrome from the ground up to be super efficient system resources wise and all that, the potential loss of compatibility with thousands of addons, time and money "wasted" on this is not worth it, thus is more efficient, from a bussisness standpoint to keep chuging along and try to optimize the code as it is.

That was just an example, currently I only use chrome on this phone, and mobile apps do tend to have some more efficiency in mind during their design.

[Reelya]

On the other hand, software development has seen some bad sliding towards careslesness as more powerful systems become readily. With seemingly more sloppy code and a tendency to not measure things like memory ussage, to the point, several browsers in example are memes now.

However one core point is that these aren't actually inefficiencies, they're externalities. This is not targeted at anyone but it's just some general observations.

When Google makes Chrome, they are optimizing things, but they're optimizing the total resources of Google that's allocated to making Chrome, while balancing that with things like usability, flexibility and market penetration. Optimizing the exact amount of memory the program takes on your PC isn't a heavy design constraint, and certainly not a key one for the success or failure of the product. After all, if the product fails it doesn't matter how "optimal" you claim it was so everyone "should" have used it. The thing is, those over-engineered products which "work really well" tend to fail for this same reason. They're not sustainable.

Sure, it's possible to say that Google should make the browser that uses the least amount of possible resources on anyone's machine. However making a browser that way would vastly increase costs in every other aspect. Optimizations are costly and time-consuming. Optimizations are specific to specific people's hardware. Optimizations are buggy and error prone. Optimization are highly tied to specific workloads and tasks.

So, Chrome development is optimized in these ways: make a flexible product that has good error-checking, that runs well on anyone's machine no matter what hardware they have and multiple different OS's, and deliver frequent updates that lack bugs. These constraints are not consistent with the idea of making the fastest possible to-the-bare-metal browser you possibly can. You can get a to-the-bare-metal browser, just don't expect to get frequent updates or a flexible plug-in system at the same time. So it's not actually that suitable for most people, so they don't get a big market share.

Users, too, are looking at trade-offs when they select a browser. The few bucks needed for more RAM is worth it to most people to have a browser that's seamlessly updated with security patches and works well for any website they need. It's why Windows is generally preferred over Linux: not because people are dumb, but because if you use Linux most people will take a productivity hit, that's basically a waste of time that they could be spending on doing their actual job.The constrain here is time. Say you save 10 hours worth of labor by buying Linux rather than Windows, but you have to spend 1 hour extra per week on IT maintenance as a result. Well, your initial saving was blown away after only 10 weeks, and now the primary resource you really care about, free time (and possibly productivity if this is a work machine) is impacted. That's time you could have used to learn a new skill or something but instead you spend it on your cheaper PC to keep things ticking along like they would on Windows by default.

If Chrome uses "excessive" memory or hard-drive space, that's because it has to, to do what you're asking of it. Any low-hanging fruit that can be cut off has already been cut off. The thing "oh this uses up all my RAM, they didn't design it well" is the externality I mentioned. No, they designed it how they needed to design it to get it to the point where you're actually using it and it's maintained and updated, bug free with a consistent update cycle. Maybe they can squeeze down some RAM for your specific use-case but only at the expense of having a much harder to maintain product with longer cycles between updates, and vastly more testing to ensure their optimizations don't fuck up on different machines. This is the limitation of trying to design a product that works the same for everybody.

[LordBaal]

Sure, basically that is what I meant with my second to last pharagrah.

Sometimes, or most of the times, technical efficiency is second to economic one.