How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat • Hacker News Board

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#621

Post by WillPostForFood » Fri, Sep 16, 2016, 7:07 AM UTC

r_smart wrote: post #532

WillPostForFood wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll take facts over context, but would be happy with both. I'm fully capable of figuring out the inflation adjusted number, but now we don't actually know what they were paid. I also guarantee you they we will see secondary reporting of this article, and the 50k number will be in it, and the inflation adjusted/today's dollars piece will get lost.

If you can convert inflation adjusted to today's money, why can't you do it backwards? To your second point, you're probably right. Journalism is in a sad state these days.

It's not that you can't work in reverse and get an estimate, its just that you can't know if it is accurate. What if the journalist made a mistake in their inflation calculation?

They are clearly rounding to the inflation adjusted number, and we don't know what year they received payment.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#622

Post by r_smart » Fri, Sep 16, 2016, 12:06 PM UTC

WillPostForFood wrote: post #621

r_smart wrote: post #532

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can convert inflation adjusted to today's money, why can't you do it backwards? To your second point, you're probably right. Journalism is in a sad state these days.

It's not that you can't work in reverse and get an estimate, its just that you can't know if it is accurate. What if the journalist made a mistake in their inflation calculation? They are clearly rounding to the inflation adjusted number, and we don't know what year they received payment.

That's a good point. Trusting your math of a selection of people that are typically bad at math, and that have a bad track record of accuracy in general, is probably not a good idea.

Re: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

#623

Post by thedaemon » Fri, Sep 16, 2016, 1:14 PM UTC

pharrington wrote: post #610

thedaemon wrote: post #588

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am sorry to inform you that we don't completely understand anything at all. We barely understand the world and universe around us. To say that we completely understand anything is a fallacy. Also with the scientific method, nothing is set in stone as fact. Anything can change our understand at anytime.

What behavior of light have we observed that the standard model doesn't accurately model? Where is the standard model inaccurate regarding light?

Here is one that I know of. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonoluminescence

I'm not saying we are inaccurate. But look at the history of physics, there will always come a time when a new theory trumps the old.