There is type of diabetes that is simply hereditary and that is all there is to it. It is not rare. Then there is also pregnancy diabetes that comes and goes with pregnancy (they make routine test for it). Not all diabetes is from sugar.
Iirc diabetes is technically "sugar in the pee" so all diabetes must be linked to some sugar metabolism at some point.
Yes, but from an education perspective it’s probably hurting more people than it helps to use this terminology. It’s better to label the true source of the problem, rather than reduce the blame to “sugar”
Those also end at their full stops, it's not 'you can act like an interrogator as long as it's not a snarky interrogator'.
> even a slight increase in A1C is highly correlated with later progression. asking for the numbers behind those subjective statements is totally in line with HN guidelines and traditions. It isn't "cross-examination."
You didn’t so much “ask”, though, right? You attempted to impeach an argument by appealing to a lack of citations.
In the US, if you ask 100 people what "America" is, they'll tell you it's the name of the country they live in. And since language is defined by use, yes -- America is the name of a country. The shortened version, of course, just like "Mexico" is the shortened version of the "United Mexican States". Surely you're not going to claim that Mexico isn't the name of a country either? And no, "America" is not a pair of con…
Asking people in the US seems like a sort of skewed sample; surely everyone in the Americas at least should get a vote on whether or not they want to distinguish more clearly between the continents and this one large country some of us happen to live in. I do agree though that it is not so ambiguous really in the case of America, the Americas, North America, and South America—because there isn’t a singular “America”…
This is one of those places where in some languages - Spanish, of course, and I would assume Portuguese - "americano" (or equivalent) basically means "Western Hemisphere". But in others, like English, "America" means the United States of America, just like "Mexico" means the United Mexican States. If you're using English, "North American", "Central American", and "South American" cover most of the situations you're talking about. "American" without further qualification in English means the USA. And it is justifiable: there is exactly one country on the planet with "America" in its name.
In the US, if you ask 100 people what "America" is, they'll tell you it's the name of the country they live in. And since language is defined by use, yes -- America is the name of a country. The shortened version, of course, just like "Mexico" is the shortened version of the "United Mexican States". Surely you're not going to claim that Mexico isn't the name of a country either? And no, "America" is not a pair of con…
Travel to some other american countries and ask them what they think of the appropriation of the word. Not everyone is a fan. I don't really get how you think a company using the name of the country is wrong but somehow a country appropriating the name of the continent is just fine?
I think you’re getting offended on behalf of a cohort of people that do not exist. Let them speak for themselves if they do.
In the US, if you ask 100 people what "America" is, they'll tell you it's the name of the country they live in. And since language is defined by use, yes -- America is the name of a country. The shortened version, of course, just like "Mexico" is the shortened version of the "United Mexican States". Surely you're not going to claim that Mexico isn't the name of a country either? And no, "America" is not a pair of con…
I still never understood how we appropriated two whole continents. If my name were “Bob of Idaho”, nobody would think Idaho meant only me. They would simply know I lived there. Yes the United States are in the Americas, but it isn’t the entirety of them! We have no more right to call ourselves “American” than Chileans do!
From my outsider perspective it's by being by far the most important country on the continent in terms of size, influence, economy and so on. Also, it's (afaik? cannot think of a counter-example) the only country which has America in its name and usually people talk about countries, not continents.
Unions aren't acting in the interest of the people generically, often not even the members of the union. Otherwise they wouldn't go to court to force people who don't even want to be in the union to pay dues, even when the dues go to political campaigns unrelated to the purpose of the union, as in Janus v. AFSCME (where the support for political causes by the union meant it violated public sector workers freedom of s…
I strongly disagree with you about Janus. The point of that decision by a right-wing court was to make it harder for public sector workers to stand together in unions. Unions are democratic institutions, with dues and leadership decided by the membership, and the idea that some people pay and some don't even though the entire unit is represented doesn't make a ton of sense. Just like it wouldn't make sense if 2 peopl…
> public sector workers
A group for whom even FDR, the great co-opter of unions, had to pretend to be opposed to unionization.
Seriously, civil service protections are there for you and don't apply to private-sector employees. But you claim the right to strike against your fellow citizens and deprive them of government services? This isn't Andrew Carnegie; it's your fellow citizens.
>The Founding Fathers would be deeply ashamed of us, I think. Sorry, but the founding fathers who held other humans in bondage for all sorts of free labor? Those founding fathers, or did I wake up in a parallel universe this morning? Let me check wikipedia…
> the founding fathers who held other humans in bondage for all sorts of free labor Actually, slavery was a bitter dividing line among the founders of the USA. It is intellectually lazy to ascribe slavery to all of the founders of the USA. It also insults those who were vocally and politically against slavery, from the very earliest days. You can find many examples with any effort at all.
Yes it was so divisive in the late 18th century in what became the U.S. that the founding father punted the issue so that the 13 states would ratify the new constitution. The issue was swept under the rug until that rabble rouser Abe Lincoln got elected, and all the slave states seceded between the time he got elected and inaugurated, sone 80 years after the signing of the declaration of independence.
Feel free to downvote because I’m not gonna accept your revisionist history.
> In case you’re curious, the ADA and Splenda appear to be still at it. As I write this, the ADA’s Diabetes Food Hub web page still features no fewer than 203 recipes – some marked “sponsored”, some not – that include Splenda, whose parent company’s $1m contribution has brought to light the utter insanity of our diabetes epidemic. If you call yourself the " American Diabetes Association", (why) aren't there regulatio…
I would be surprised if there is a lack of regulation. To give you an example from my country, the government has trademarks that identify government agencies. That includes the Canada workmark (with the flag over the final "a") and the flag to the left of the words "Government of Canada / Government du Canada". As trademarks, their use is protected. Yet words like Canada or Canadian don't convey any association with the government or even the country.
America is a pair of continents, not the name of a country. The US federal government doesn't hold a trademark. The notion that companies shouldn't be allowed to name themselves after geographic features or political regions is absurd.
In the US, if you ask 100 people what "America" is, they'll tell you it's the name of the country they live in. And since language is defined by use, yes -- America is the name of a country. The shortened version, of course, just like "Mexico" is the shortened version of the "United Mexican States". Surely you're not going to claim that Mexico isn't the name of a country either? And no, "America" is not a pair of con…
It helps that a demonym for “person who lives in any part of the Americas” is something we almost never want to use. If “American” only meant that, we’d practically never use it.
So in American English, at least, using it the way we do causes no real trouble.
> the founding fathers who held other humans in bondage for all sorts of free labor Actually, slavery was a bitter dividing line among the founders of the USA. It is intellectually lazy to ascribe slavery to all of the founders of the USA. It also insults those who were vocally and politically against slavery, from the very earliest days. You can find many examples with any effort at all.
Almost all of the founding fathers either owned slaves or weren't willing to stick their necks out to stop it. We absolutely should question their judgement.
Politics is the art of the possible. Given what post-slavery America looked like for the former slaves (not much different), the question becomes: do you care so much about slavery, which is an ancient institution, that you give up the idea of forming a united front?
Was it good? No, it was a bad idea. But that's something we say comfortably from our homes in a large, powerful country. In 1787... this was a remote and weak place. If you wanted the slave-dependent colonies to join, you had to either buy their slaves from them or allow it to continue. And there wasn't enough money to buy them.