Print

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

[BloodBeard]

Just listened to the interview Toady posted on the dev page that boing boing did with the article writer. The description the british guy gave of DF at the beginning was hilarious, talking about the game wanting to kill you and no matter what you do it will succeed in doing so. Not entirely true unless bordom or low FPS count but awesome all the same.

I found it suprising that this apparently extremely geeky person who played pen and paper games had never heard of DF. I also found it a little annoying that he kept steering the topic towards minecraft, it didn't seem like he was that interested in talking about it, or just wasn't fond of the game in general but liked the idea of it.

They kinda lost it at the end though when they were talking about how Tarn should charge money to play so he can hire people to help him program. Didn't seem like they understood what Dwarf Fortress or Tarn was all about at all.

[Keevu]

I found this comment on the article hilarious


"Why haven't Tarn and Zach developed an iPad version of Dwarf Fortress? The iPad has a huge game market, a big (enough) screen, and it's portable. I imagine Dwarf Fortress could be a popular game for (a specific niche of) commuters and travelers." -Christopher I recommend reading the comments at nyt's site.

[Karlito]

For people that were very surprised at the meth use:  Meth is synonymous with "speed," and from my understanding it's basically like an incredibly enormous hit of Ritalin.  The aforementioned friend and others used it during undergrad because it gave them the ridiculous focus and drive to complete impossible math problems.  Plus, you don't have to sleep!  It's often lurking in the background of the hardcore engineering/math schools.

The guys that make it are the guys that get in their chairs at any time. Get in at 3am, get up at 4. That's why there ain't a game developer I know that don't take speed.

[DG]

Is anyone in NY planning on seeing the museum exhibit? I'd be interested in a description, review, photos etc.

[Man In Zero G]

@ Graebeard - Yes, I agree, I think we just overreacted to eachother's perceived tone. Text sucks it that regard.

@ G-Flex -Since the topic's already been dropped by Graebeard and myself, it's spoilered:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

The fact is, it has nothing to do with soda, it has to do with fructose - fructose isn't as "healthy" as glucose, but it comes down to the percentage of your total caloric intake that fructose makes up that determines the health risk. Oh, yeah, and fructose is in everything that has sugar in it if you live in the US like Toady....

Are you aware that high-fructose corn syrup generally has exactly as much fructose as table sugar does?

Not that I'm a fan of HFCS, but it does not usually contain more fructose than other sources of sugar. In fact, fruits probably tend to have more.

Ok, I actually read the articles Graebeard linked, and in nearly every one of them the stated reason that soda is bad for you was the HFCS content. Because fructose metabolizes differently than other sugars, messing with insulin levels - so, y'know, science. I'm just pointing out the blame isn't soda per-se, but one ingredient of it. (As an aside - I actually meant sucrose - not glucose - in the bit you quoted there. My bad.)

So if the risk was really so terrible, we'd all be a lot worse off over here.

Worse? In the US, obesity is a freaking epidemic. It doesn't take much to realize how terrible things are "over here". Obesity is a huge problem, diabetes is a huge problem, and I have no idea what makes you think otherwise.

Wait, what? You just said there's no problem with the HFCS, and now when I'm saying that the health risk with fructose is not as bad as indicated - NOW you're arguing that it IS an enormous problem? Huh? Besides that, Obesity and diabetes are only two of the many health issues that were being discussed - and no, we don't have a gout epidemic among soda drinkers, or a soda-induced-cancer epidemic, or any of the others... So yes, if drinking soda was as big a deal as was being indicated, we'd all be a lot worse off.
And honestly, blaming obesity or diabetes on soda consumption alone is silly when, as i pointed out, HFCS is in practically everything, and it is the ingredient in soda that is the CAUSE of the diabetes/obesity risk in the first place.

Research is great, but when it doesn't support the obvious, personal experience and observations of the actual world at work around one, it's hard to take as absolute truth so passionately as you do. (Linking an article stating that orange juice can be worse for you than soda doesn't help with the convincing either....) It's still ongoing research, it's not conclusive. And Toady is, as he stated in the article, entirely aware.

I'm not about to harp on the guy for it, but no, drinking a bunch of caffeinated soda every day and little water is not a good thing. It's clear he's dependent on it, which is bad, ingesting that much of your calories in simple carbs isn't healthy, and he doesn't seem to have the best diet either. This is not to say it's any of our business, really, but I think it's a bit silly to dispute the claim that drinking that much caffeinated soda every day and little else is not a bad thing, especially when the person admits that he's dependent on it and can't function well without it. Yeah, there are plenty of other factors involved in anybody's health, but when something is that extreme and the person specifically says they're physically dependent enough that they can't function without it, then that obviously is a problematic factor in itself.

See, now you're exaggerating what's been said. He said he gets headaches if he goes without caffeine - That's a withdrawal symptom and it will go away after a few days. That's it. That's a far cry from "can't function without it". Caffeine dependency is really not a big deal health-wise, and his soda drinking is no different from all the people who need their coffee to get going in the morning. If he stopped cold turkey tomorrow, he'd be back to normal in a week or less.
The most bizarre thing here is how nowhere is it stated in the article how much he actually drinks in a day - but everybody seems to be assuming he's drinking massive quantities. We have no idea how much he drinks, for all we know, it's a completely reasonable amount.
And everyone assuming he has a poor diet - Where is that coming form? The Single Meal eating pattern is not unhealthy - read the articles I linked to a few pages back - in fact it has specific health benefits, including, for example lowering your risk for diabetes and maintaining a healthy body weight. Just because his fridge is empty doesn't mean he's not eating - or eating poorly, in fact the article implies that he's buying his meals as he eats them. That's a common habit for folks on this dietary path- don't keep excess food around, then there's no temptation to snack.
However - and this is the key thing here, I never once said that his lack of drinking water isn't unhealthy, and everyone who quotes me keeps implying that I have. But it's definitely not the death sentence everyone seems to fear. I know plenty of people who drink very little straight water- getting their hydration from other sources - and not one of them is the unhealthy wreck that people seem to be fearing is Toady's fate.

-snip-
 The problem with soda is that you're drinking caffeinated candy; it's nothing but sugar (HFCS virtually all the time in the US) and caffeine, and some flavoring/coloring.

Wait, WHAT?  This is EXACTLY what I was saying at the top of the post - it's not the soda that's the problem, it the ridiculous sugar content that's IN the soda - and you argued that it wasn't - said that FRUIT had more... and... But now you're saying that yeah, the problem with soda is the high sugar content? What?

Suffice to say, and I'm done with the subject entirely: A "Good Diet" is not something that you can generalize. It is not an exact science. Every person is different. Different metabolism, different tolerances to various foods, different effects from any given nutritional source, different caloric quantities needed to function. So just because something works for you doesn't mean it's going to work for someone else. And Toady seems to be functioning just fine.

[G-Flex]

@ Main In Zero G: okay fine I'll spoiler it too

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Ok, I actually read the articles Graebeard linked, and in nearly every one of them the stated reason that soda is bad for you was the HFCS content. Because fructose metabolizes differently than other sugars, messing with insulin levels - so, y'know, science. I'm just pointing out the blame isn't soda per-se, but one ingredient of it. (As an aside - I actually meant sucrose - not glucose - in the bit you quoted there. My bad.)

From what I've read, I've never been able to tell how different the metabolism of 50/50 HFCS is from sucrose, but I'm not surprised if there is a difference.

Wait, what? You just said there's no problem with the HFCS

No, I didn't. I was correcting what I perceived as a misunderstanding of how much fructose is in HFCS as compared to table sugar.

Besides that, Obesity and diabetes are only two of the many health issues that were being discussed - and no, we don't have a gout epidemic among soda drinkers, or a soda-induced-cancer epidemic, or any of the others... So yes, if drinking soda was as big a deal as was being indicated, we'd all be a lot worse off.

You can't treat something like "obesity" as a singular problem, seeing as how it's correlated with so many other problems.

And honestly, blaming obesity or diabetes on soda consumption alone is silly when, as i pointed out, HFCS is in practically everything, and it is the ingredient in soda that is the CAUSE of the diabetes/obesity risk in the first place.

I didn't blame it on "soda alone", but it's a major contributor. For some reason, people treat soda much differently than they'd treat, say, candy, just because it's a drink, when it's basically the same thing. Also, in regular drinkers, caffeine can pose a problem as well; giving yourself a steady caffeine drip every day is not a great idea.

See, now you're exaggerating what's been said. He said he gets headaches if he goes without caffeine - That's a withdrawal symptom and it will go away after a few days. That's it. That's a far cry from "can't function without it".

Huh? He specifically states that he needs to drink it in order to do his work. Sure, it might go away relatively quickly if he were to wean himself off it, but he does have a dependency. He explicitly states that he can't function in his work unless he gets it.

Caffeine dependency is really not a big deal health-wise, and his soda drinking is no different from all the people who need their coffee to get going in the morning. If he stopped cold turkey tomorrow, he'd be back to normal in a week or less.

When did I say anything about how it compares to drinking coffee in the morning? I never implied that it was any better or worse. Also, the difficulty of withdrawal has nothing to do with the actual health effects of something. Well, unless you're trying to stop using it.

The most bizarre thing here is how nowhere is it stated in the article how much he actually drinks in a day - but everybody seems to be assuming he's drinking massive quantities. We have no idea how much he drinks, for all we know, it's a completely reasonable amount.

It says that he drinks soft drinks instead of water, so he must be drinking a lot. Enough to hydrate you in a day is a lot of soda! Okay, sure, I'll give you that it says "soft drinks" and not "soda", but he mentions soda specifically, the sugar content would be similar anyway, and the headaches lead me to believe it's caffeinated.

And everyone assuming he has a poor diet - Where is that coming form? The Single Meal eating pattern is not unhealthy - read the articles I linked to a few pages back - in fact it has specific health benefits, including, for example lowering your risk for diabetes and maintaining a healthy body weight. Just because his fridge is empty doesn't mean he's not eating - or eating poorly, in fact the article implies that he's buying his meals as he eats them. That's a common habit for folks on this dietary path- don't keep excess food around, then there's no temptation to snack.

His dietary habits might not be unhealthy, but my initial guess would be that they are, for a number of reasons, including the "root-beer popsicles and handfuls of dry Crispix" mentioned. I guess I shouldn't assume much, though. It's not my business; I'm just speaking academically.

Wait, WHAT?  This is EXACTLY what I was saying at the top of the post - it's not the soda that's the problem, it the ridiculous sugar content that's IN the soda - and you argued that it wasn't - said that FRUIT had more... and... But now you're saying that yeah, the problem with soda is the high sugar content? What?

Saying "it's not the soda that's the problem, it's the caffeine and sugar that's the problem" is kind of like saying "it's not cigarettes that are the problem, it's the burning tobacco that's the problem"; a tad silly, no? I also didn't say that fruit had more sugar, I said that it likely had more fructose (as a proportion of monosaccharides).

Also, can you please pay more attention? The reason that quote doesn't make sense to you is because it wasn't directed to you in the first place. It was a response to SirPenguin.

Suffice to say, and I'm done with the subject entirely: A "Good Diet" is not something that you can generalize. It is not an exact science. Every person is different. Different metabolism, different tolerances to various foods, different effects from any given nutritional source, different caloric quantities needed to function. So just because something works for you doesn't mean it's going to work for someone else. And Toady seems to be functioning just fine.

First off, although you're right, there are still some things you can generalize, like "getting all your hydration in the form of acidified fructose-glucose syrup mixed with caffeine isn't a good idea". And I don't think whether or not he "functions fine" is even relevant; you can have completely atrocious and unhealthy habits and still function okay, especially when young. When it comes to poor diet and such, the risks are long-term, not so much short-term. Most smokers "function fine" too, even if they're going to die in 35 years from COPD. It's just not a valid argument to make. At this point, I'm speaking less about him, though, and more about your poor arguments. You cannot assume, in general, that a person's habits are healthy for them simply because they seem to be functioning okay at the moment. That just doesn't work.

I believe soda is a diuretic.  So no, it isn't possible to "truly" rehydrate oneself via most sodas.

Caffeine is definitely a diuretic, but I'm not sure how much that would matter with soda (might depend on the soda). You can probably get enough water, but you'd have to drink more of it than straight water, of course.

This entire thread we had awhile back. It has nothing to do with carbonation, but rather the fact that human beings require water to synthesize the energy molecules necessary to sustain life.

More than that, really. Our bodies have a hell of a lot of water in them, and we need it for plenty of processes, and just to maintain the correct level of fluids in our bodies and clean out our systems. You pee for a reason, after all.

@G-Flex: High amounts of High Fructose Corn Syrup and synthetic sugars are bad for you. Fruits contain natural versions of fructose, which are widely regarded as less bad for you, as it's not steeped with processed sugar chemicals as HFCS

I'm not sure what chemicals you're talking about. Some things used in (or byproducts of) HFCS might be carcinogenic, I guess, but fructose is fructose, none any different from any other. Impurities matter, but a 50/50 fructose/glucose blend is a 50/50 fructose/glucose blend. It would still be pretty unhealthy to drink a gallon of fruit juice every day... perhaps not as much as soda, and one key point is that fruit juice actually has nutritional value aside from sugar, but drinking a ton of that isn't great for you either.

This becomes obvious when you are diabetic or hypoglycemic. Any amount of processed sugars such as high fructose corn syrup and white sugar will simply kill people like me barring medical intervention (insulin), whereas small amounts of natural sugars are okay (cane sugar and honey).

I'm extremely curious how this is true. White sugar is cane sugar, albeit purified and probably bleached, and honey is mostly glucose and fructose, with a little more fructose than glucose; it's only about 1.3% sucrose according to Wikipedia. Maybe it's because there's more fructose, which interacts with insulin differently? That would be my guess, if it's true.

EDIT: Sources - Oh, and the whole reason HFCS is everywhere in the US? It's cheap due to corn subsidies by the government. Because it's so sweet in little quantities, people develop a small form of taste bud "sugar addiction" which is greatly aiding our Obesity epidemic. The poor and less-educated about health tend to drink up the soda and eat such foods and live a lifestyle that makes Heart disease/failure the biggest killer of Americans.

One problem here is that "high fructose corn syrup" doesn't tell you how high-fructose it actually is. It might be 50/50, but it might also be 70/30. I'm not sure what is more commonly used. This could definitely make a difference, since the two are metabolized fairly differently.

At any rate, even if soda used white cane sugar, it would still be problematic. People drink the stuff a whole lot even though it is, as I've said, basically candy. We've reached a point where a lot of people won't even drink water because they're used to drinking something sweet, to the point where companies make a lot of money selling artificially-sweetened water flavoring packets. It's like we're a nation of children who need sweets all the time, and I don't get that. I can get when people need the caffeine from soda because they've been drinking it for years, but why do people feel the need to spend money on making their water taste sweet?

[KaelGotDwarves]

It's because of how the body deals with glucose over time. Small amounts of refined sugars and also in the form of carbohydrates induces a sharp immediate reaction - hormones including insulin and such are released to process sugars from carbs and such and convert them down to simpler forms from sucrose to glucose to glycogen. So if the sugars are already processed and refined, the sharp reaction induces a quick unhealthy swing in the biochemistry of the blood of diabetics (hyperglycemia) and hypoglycemics, leading to shock or a reaction that will soon induce shock. Unprocessed sugars take awhile for the body to process giving time for the body to adjust, and often less overall glucose to manage. Cane sugar and honey has a much lower glucose content than refined sugar as you saw.

This is also why those with metabolic diseases are also told to eat wheat bread and brown rice (complex carbohydrates that take time to digest and be reduced to glucose) vs. white bread and rice, which are processed simple carbohydrates that break down quickly - imagine the effect of alcohol when you drink a beer vs. chugging a bottle of vodka. That's much like the difference between having just a bit of complex carbs/unrefined-sugars versus having refined pure sugar.

The reason that I say HFCS is a chemical that is bad for you - we don't have studies on the longterm effects of HFCS because there's so many other variables involved - however, the sugar content that it contains is the equivalent of effectively sugar-bingeing every time you have it, flooding your metabolism with -as you said- pure candy. It's not healthy by any definition - it's just that our bodies are marvelous bio-chemical machines built to handle the equivalent of say, placing rocket fuel in your car. It somehow works but ultimately deteriorates your system. And you're right about juice, drinking lots of fruit juice is also something the body was never designed to do. We are not hummingbirds.

[Urist_McArathos]

I found this comment on the article hilarious


"Why haven't Tarn and Zach developed an iPad version of Dwarf Fortress? The iPad has a huge game market, a big (enough) screen, and it's portable. I imagine Dwarf Fortress could be a popular game for (a specific niche of) commuters and travelers." -Christopher I recommend reading the comments at nyt's site.

Oh wow...that is ignorance in the extreme.  Although, I suppose an iPad version of DF would be nice, you know, if you felt like running a 1x1 embark for shits and giggles while at work, and didn't mind 1 to 3 FPS on a good day.  It would probably take 3 or so days to get through worldgen though.

Yeah, good for a laugh though.

[Nil Eyeglazed]

Hey!  The fact that nutritional wisdom has changed over time is no reason to disregard current conventional nutritional wisdom.  I mean, lots of things have changed over time.  We don't think bleeding is particularly useful for most things anymore, right?  But that doesn't mean that medicine is totally useless-- it means that medicine is useful, because it's smart enough to change.  Doesn't mean that all we know is right either!  But mostly, we go by "more likely to be right than wrong."

Still, I totally disagree with most of the nutritional advice in here.  It's not that it's totally wrong-- it's that it's overstated.

Why soda might be bad for you:

There are several popularly accepted reasons for why soda might be bad for you.

One is excess caloric intake.  This is the stuff people are talking about when they talk about diabetes, heart disease, etc.  It's really misleading to talk about this stuff as leading from soda when it really has nothing to do with soda (or even sugar, for that matter-- excess caloric intake from protein or fat is really just as bad; a high fat diet is accepted by the ADA, admittedly not an international source but a reputable source, as a risk factor for diabetes when a high carbohydrate diet is not accepted by the ADA as a risk factor for diabetes.)  Now, one of the things is that this has nothing to do with people who are not overweight but drink a lot of soda!  (BTW, read the studies linked earlier, but read them critically, ask yourself what the study did.)  For one thing, it has nothing to do with diet sodas.  For another thing, it has nothing to do with people who get adequate dietary nutrients from their diet but the majority of their calories from soda yet remain within normal weight ranges.

A subset of excess caloric intake is sugar distribution.  This is really contentious, and poorly supported.  But in any case, "natural" sugars don't seem any better than "unnatural" sugars.  The fructose that comes from honey is just as bad as the fructose that comes from HFCS, if fructose actually is worse than glucose.

The other reason soda might be bad for you is because of phosphorous.  Phosphorous is endemic in carbonated sodas (no, neither the carbon nor the carbonic acid are bad at all, unless you've got something else, something serious, going on) and seems to be associated with osteoporosis.  That's because your body makes bones out of phosphorous and calcium, and in some ways, a high phosphorous intake seems to lead to low calcium depositation.  But!  Osteoporosis is a significant problem, but really, only for old people and sick people.  People in their thirties don't generally need to care about osteoporosis (some exceptions), and the dangers of high phosphorous intake are easily reversed.

What about water?  No, it's not an issue.  Some popular nutritionists will tell you things like caffeinated beverages dehydrate you more than they hydrate you, but it's not true, as evidenced by people who don't drink water and do just fine.  Studies involving coffee have found a high tolerance to the diuretic effects of caffeine such that habitual users suffer NO diuretic effect.  (If you get a headache without it, you're a habitual user.)  Actual water needs are grossly inflated by people in the fitness business as compared to those in the medical business, generally because of misunderstanding the statistic that people need about 2L of water a day to make up for losses-- when most of that water comes from food (yes, even with infrequent meals) and some of it actually comes from metabolic CREATION of water (part of glycolysis), which occurs with much more frequency that the metabolic consumption of water.  Most of your water needs are not metabolic, but rather excretory, because you need to get rid of things like excess salt in your pee, and you can only concentrate it so much, although you can concentrate it, healthily, quite a bit more than many people claim.  (Again, going at this from the American medical perspective, as opposed to the nutritionist/personal trainer perspective.)

As for the rest?  People with more orgasms live longer, statistically.  People on night shift get depressed more often, statistically.  It's not enough to be worth telling anybody how to live their life!  You're going to be giving people wrong information almost half the time!  People choose how they want to live, and there are usually really good reasons for their choices, reasons that are inaccessible to strangers on an internet message-board, and those choices are rarely made in ignorance of popular opinion/knowledge.

[Johuotar]

I found this interview on Boing Boing very interesting and this nutritional discussion very tiresome.

I wonder how many are going to give DF due to recent events. 

[Siquo]

A subset of excess caloric intake is sugar distribution.  This is really contentious, and poorly supported.  But in any case, "natural" sugars don't seem any better than "unnatural" sugars.  The fructose that comes from honey is just as bad as the fructose that comes from HFCS, if fructose actually is worse than glucose.

Fructose is better because: 1. It has a higher glycemic index, making it sweeter-per-gram. 2. It leads to less sugar-spiking than glucose, because it has to be broken down first.
It is worse because there are now signs that too much fructose might lead to weird health problems, such as the strange "Metabolic syndrome" or "Syndrome X".
(From my SO, a dietician)

[helf]

Awesome article. Thoroughly enjoyed it

Can the lot of you create a new thread? 19 Pages of mostly dietary talk. C'mon!

[EddyP]

We really should do more to help new players, and spread the DF gospel. After all, every new player who stays is someone who might donate in the future, and Toady needs those donations for good old Doc. P.

[Dr. Hieronymous Alloy]

Well, short term, greater interest cant be bad - media awareness, player numbers and so on. Long term? Just have foreboading that the DF project will become unsustainable in the longer term, and with too much awareness from the gaming industry comes greter pressure to take the money and run.

Why would it become unsustainable?

The only thing that could kill DF is a mainstream gaming company throwing a few hundred thousand dollars at duplicating it with a slick UI, but even then, half the charm of DF is the near-fractal detail of it, and writing that takes a certain kind of genius and love that they probably wouldn't be able to hire for such a project.

[Gatleos]

We really should do more to help new players, and spread the DF gospel. After all, every new player who stays is someone who might donate in the future, and Toady needs those donations for good old Doc. P.

There's not much more we can do. We offer plentiful help to anyone who posts a thread like this, and we've got plenty of documentation set up to answer FAQs. The only problem is that not everybody makes it to the forums or wiki before they give up in complete confusion.