When you say you couldn't read the article, could you expand on that? Were you physically unable to due to nausea or something like that, or moreso that you refuse to read it as a matter of principle because of the unnecessary animations?
It's weird but I found my self unable to focus and comprehend the contents. It's like I'm reading but I can't understand a whole sentence. It would be better if the snow is kept to the background area. Instead, it sometimes flew right past the exact word I was reading.
I feel I am unable to block out a lot of activity going around in the background, in real life I also have the same reaction if there is tons of activity going on around me when I am trying to read. I couldn't concentrate on the contents because of the movement in the background. It gave me this weird sense of anxiety over what was going to happen next and was unable to focus and absorb the contents. I ended up just kinda skimming. I was anxious to try to get it over with.
Mostly issues of laptop battery life and heating. I have a five-year-old laptop that can usually last about 3 hours when browsing the internet. Usually, that browsing consists of spikes of CPU activity when rendering the page, then low CPU activity when scrolling through. However, with that animation, the CPU activity stayed consistently high. This is enough to make the laptop uncomfortably warm and increase the fan speed, providing noise.
It isn't something that makes the site unusable by any means, but it is something that gives an annoyance without a benefit to me.
Sorry. That's actually the original (and still an acceptable) spelling, and I rather prefer it. English doesn't really have enough vowels, so distinguishing between `e' and `œ' makes sense, orthographically. I also tend to use diæreses where appropriate.
Of course, normally I would give at least a passing thought to using more modernized spellings in this context, but I have spent most of the week writing up a series of observation sessions and my brain is beginning to revolt, liquefy, and dribble out of my ears.
Interesting assertion. You're undoubtedly right, of course, but it just reminds me of the ideals promoted by the deodorant companies.
Once upon a time, everybody smelled like everybody smells, which is to say, probably not quite as pleasant as people smell now -- arguably. Then somebody came along and invented deodorant, began marketing it to women to give them a competitive dating advantage -- "Smell better than the next woman and get more men" -- which they (historically obviously) fell for, and now deodorant is considered necessary... but for what purpose?
People are very adaptive to smell, and beyond the same statistical outliers we have now, generally speaking, people would have smelled about the same. Now though, the bar has been arbitrarily raised, and the result is that everybody not wearing deodorant is a grotesquely smelling freak, where the only outcome is that, once again, we all smell the same, but slightly different -- and of course, we're now all spending an extra $10 a month on a product that nobody really needs, but that was marketed well enough initially that it's become a staple.
Not a fan of deodorants but, biologically, they may not be completely useless:
1. Being able to afford a deodorant indicates wealth, and thus better chances of survival of the offspring.
2. Using a deodorant might also indicate an awareness of personal hygiene in the individual (atleast purportedly). This might again increase the survival chances of the offspring.
Neither of those points suggests that deodorants, in themselves, are anything but useless. Instead, they suggest that paying attention to deodorant use makes sense even though deodorants are completely useless.
I'm following the context set by my ancestor comments, which is that deodorant is to americans as, according to Socrates, horsehair crests were to classical soldiers.
While reading this I realized most of the times when I've been complimented for my smell, I was far from being perfumed – getting home after a busy day, arriving somewhere after having to run to catch a bus, things like that.
I can anecdotally attest to my own strategy. I buy rubbing alcohol. Have a shower, clean the problem areas. Shortly after I get out I apply the alcohol to my arm pits, and if I think I'm going to really be sweating I spray some over my upper back, chest etc. Nothing close to the amount one would use if they were spraying deodorant. The result is that I can go several days without any bad odor, even when I sweat so much that my shirts are saturated, they don't even smell, to me or anyone else.
The side effect of doing this is that I am far more sensitive to perfumes and deodorants people use, and they just aren't at all pleasant in the quantities people feel they need to use to smell "nice".
actually, there is a related phenomenon called "Beyond Shampoo" or "nopoo" (the website seems to be down). There is a huge movement around giving up soap and shampoo permanently to avoid and cure stuff like dandruff, acne, etc.
I personally had HUGE successes with it in improving my overall hygiene - but be warned that it takes upto six months for your body to "reboot". during that time, your hygiene grows worse - before getting extremely better. I suspect it is the same case with the brushing thing : it will take quite some time before the flora and fauna of your mouth reboots.
I tried the no shampoo thing for a month. The result was extremely scaly, itchy scalp. So I used Ketoconazole + shampoo once. (Ketoconazole can cause dryness, flakes and hairfall; so I used very little of it). Had some dryness and some hairfall following the wash. The next two weeks were without shampoo. Now I intermittently use a "mild" shampoo like Johnsons baby shampoo every week or so and my seborrheic dermatitis is much better. So the nopoo thing is not so bad.
My sister and I both suffered from dandruff while living near Santa Cruz, California. And we both found that it magically went away when we moved.
When I grow out facial hair, there's a particular spot on my upper lip that starts to flake, which I also think of as "dandruff". Kept shaven, it's asymptomatic.
Basically, there seem to be many mysterious causes and effects involved.
We moved to various places -- Philadelphia, Shanghai, Costa Rica, Brazil. I can only really speak for Shanghai, which is incredibly hot with about 100% humidity in the summer (I have seen water pool on the floor of my building, just because there was so much in the air) and 1-4 degrees centigrade in the winter. I've never thought of it as misty.
I've been without deodorant for years now. Anytime I think I should try it, my body seems to reject it. I wash my body and my hair with the same bar of soap. I've been doing this for about 8 years now. I think I'll stick to toothpaste though.
Overall, the use of essential oils for cleaning is ideal. My ex-wife had horrible acne, and tried the harsh 'cures' like Proactiv. The fix was a simple blend of lavender and tea tree essential oils mixed with distilled water in a spray. Using that once or twice a day cleared her up within a week.
Disclosure: I own a small soap company and only use my own bars! :) [1]
Our natural smell developed in a time when humans were naked and lived outdoors.
Let's just put it this way; I find it noteworthy that deodorant was developed around the same time that humans started to be packed tightly into office buildings while wrapped up in wool suits.
The problem is that there is a huge range of smell (or stench) depending on what bacteria tends to cluster in your underarms. I was one of those unlucky ones who had terrible BO until a friend introduced me to potassium alum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium_alum , commonly sold as "crystal deodorant".
It's now been almost 3 years since I stopped using soap or shampoo, and I no longer have any skin problems or odor problems, although I'll smell up pretty quick if I forget the crystal deodorant. The only weird part was the two month transitionary phase where my body was still producing excess oils to compensate for daily washing with soap, giving a constant, icky "you've been wearing those jeans for a whole week" feel.
Another protip: If you find your feet stink after a full day at work, try switching to wool socks.
I would suggest not using a toothbrush on your tongue, those are designed for teeth. Get a dedicated tongue cleaner. You'll be glad you did; everyone should clean their tongue.
From what I understand these would be complementary: the advantage of a probiotic solution would be that you basically get the treatment from time to time then never have to care about periodontal disease (which affects almost half of the US population [1]) or tooth decay, and then just have to brush your teeth or tongue to freshen your breath (but without long-term consequences if you don't).
I googled. It appears bad breath is (mainly?) due to the presence of hydrogen sulfide and methyl mercaptan [1]. These are mostly not produced by s.mutans but instead by gram-negative bacteria. otoh, S. salivarius K12 appears (and it being studied) to produce substances which inhibit s. mutans and the gram-negative bacteria [same article].
"Your weight is determined"
No. If at all, they are only a part of the problem and you have the chicken - egg problem. Do you have different bacteria because you are fat or are you fat because you have different bacteria?
Causes are:
-genetic
-epigenetic
-life style
-nutrition (cabrs!)
-viruses (no kidding, obesity may be infectious)
etc.
I think the jury is still out on that. Metagenomic studies have only become possible in the past decade, and consequently there haven't been any long tern studies in humans. Studies in mice have show that the normal microbiota is rather static throughout the full life of the host. If this extends to humans, then the microbes are the "egg" in the equation.
Wow! A link on HN of a two year article gave my poor classroom blog a 5000 fold spike in page views. Apologies if the snow annoyed people, but it wasn't me but a checkbox on the free Wordpress backend. It doesn't even show on the mobile version. The science comments above are interesting, but my intended take home message was NOT to promote an alternative to the tried and true methods of proper dental care, but instead draw attention to the incredible complexity of the human oral microbiota.
It's not really obligatory, and it would be nice if you guys just stopped posting that, especially on science articles since asking questions is what science does.
Fair enough. However, it's hoped that this might encourage less linkbait-y titles, especially for overviews of new science research. A headline like "Biofilm-inhibiting bacteria may provide an alternative to brushing your teeth" conveys much more information about the content (and doesn't break that "law", either).
Most of the time the people writing these articles have never even heard of Hacker News; this is just a more socially acceptable way to flaunt trivia in front of people to feel smarter while at the same time being able to call "first!".
Not having heard of Hacker News is irrelevant to writing better headlines. The "law" is hardly trivia; it's a great way to shed light on lazy writing and introduce people to simple manipulative tricks of journalism.
The headlines are not written by the people on Hacker News: they are written by people on websites other than Hacker News, and then posted verbatim here. If 100% of people on Hacker News read these comments and would never write an article with a question as the title, it would not change the fact that articles with questions as the title would occasionally get posted to Hacker News.
Might be worth mentioning Weston Price, an early 20th century dentist "known primarily for his theories on the relationship between nutrition, dental health, and physical health. He founded the research institute of the National Dental Association, which later became the research section of the American Dental Association, and served as its chair from 1914–1928." (Wikipedia)
In particular, he drew a lot of relationships between diet and not only dental but general health. Some of which sounds a bit kooky but a lot of which seems to be getting confirmed, especially regards the role of sugar and processed carbohydrates.
That is in no way relevant to this article, it's enough to have people promoting fad diets on articles where it is actually relevant, without this too.
It isn't exactly controversial that frequent sugar consumption exacerbates oral microbial growth. My mouth health got drastically better after giving up soda, and more so again after giving up grains.
The salient part is Price's assertion that health was strongly dependent on diet. As I said, it's kooky, and frankly, I don't know whether I find his views credible or not, though I've shifted from my initial highly skeptical viewpoint. The work of others in the relationship of sugars to health (particularly Roger Lustig and Gary Taubes) makes me somewhat more receptive of Price's general theory.
My reason for posting was more to show that lines of inquiry similar / related to those of the source article have been pursued for a long time.
So: yes, actually, it is relevant.
Incidentally: if you're familiar with any specific criticisms of Prices work, posting those might be of interest. To myself as well as others.
69 comments
[ 4.8 ms ] story [ 118 ms ] threadSeems very interesting, but very early stage.
It isn't something that makes the site unusable by any means, but it is something that gives an annoyance without a benefit to me.
Ctrl+A Ctrl+C Ctrl+L data:text/html, <html contenteditable> <ENTER> Ctrl+V
phew
Who still does that ?
/me summon printfriendly.com
Of course, normally I would give at least a passing thought to using more modernized spellings in this context, but I have spent most of the week writing up a series of observation sessions and my brain is beginning to revolt, liquefy, and dribble out of my ears.
Once upon a time, everybody smelled like everybody smells, which is to say, probably not quite as pleasant as people smell now -- arguably. Then somebody came along and invented deodorant, began marketing it to women to give them a competitive dating advantage -- "Smell better than the next woman and get more men" -- which they (historically obviously) fell for, and now deodorant is considered necessary... but for what purpose?
People are very adaptive to smell, and beyond the same statistical outliers we have now, generally speaking, people would have smelled about the same. Now though, the bar has been arbitrarily raised, and the result is that everybody not wearing deodorant is a grotesquely smelling freak, where the only outcome is that, once again, we all smell the same, but slightly different -- and of course, we're now all spending an extra $10 a month on a product that nobody really needs, but that was marketed well enough initially that it's become a staple.
1. Being able to afford a deodorant indicates wealth, and thus better chances of survival of the offspring.
2. Using a deodorant might also indicate an awareness of personal hygiene in the individual (atleast purportedly). This might again increase the survival chances of the offspring.
I can anecdotally attest to my own strategy. I buy rubbing alcohol. Have a shower, clean the problem areas. Shortly after I get out I apply the alcohol to my arm pits, and if I think I'm going to really be sweating I spray some over my upper back, chest etc. Nothing close to the amount one would use if they were spraying deodorant. The result is that I can go several days without any bad odor, even when I sweat so much that my shirts are saturated, they don't even smell, to me or anyone else.
The side effect of doing this is that I am far more sensitive to perfumes and deodorants people use, and they just aren't at all pleasant in the quantities people feel they need to use to smell "nice".
I personally had HUGE successes with it in improving my overall hygiene - but be warned that it takes upto six months for your body to "reboot". during that time, your hygiene grows worse - before getting extremely better. I suspect it is the same case with the brushing thing : it will take quite some time before the flora and fauna of your mouth reboots.
[1] http://freetheanimal.com/2010/12/a-most-successful-self-expe... [2] http://paleohacks.com/questions/17060/no-poo-and-dandruff.ht...
When I grow out facial hair, there's a particular spot on my upper lip that starts to flake, which I also think of as "dandruff". Kept shaven, it's asymptomatic.
Basically, there seem to be many mysterious causes and effects involved.
We moved to various places -- Philadelphia, Shanghai, Costa Rica, Brazil. I can only really speak for Shanghai, which is incredibly hot with about 100% humidity in the summer (I have seen water pool on the floor of my building, just because there was so much in the air) and 1-4 degrees centigrade in the winter. I've never thought of it as misty.
Don't move to Shanghai for the weather.
Is there any evidence that this statement has any basis in reality or is it like when people do a 'cleanse' to get rid of the 'toxins' in the body?
Overall, the use of essential oils for cleaning is ideal. My ex-wife had horrible acne, and tried the harsh 'cures' like Proactiv. The fix was a simple blend of lavender and tea tree essential oils mixed with distilled water in a spray. Using that once or twice a day cleared her up within a week.
Disclosure: I own a small soap company and only use my own bars! :) [1]
[1] http://oldkinderhook.co
Let's just put it this way; I find it noteworthy that deodorant was developed around the same time that humans started to be packed tightly into office buildings while wrapped up in wool suits.
It's now been almost 3 years since I stopped using soap or shampoo, and I no longer have any skin problems or odor problems, although I'll smell up pretty quick if I forget the crystal deodorant. The only weird part was the two month transitionary phase where my body was still producing excess oils to compensate for daily washing with soap, giving a constant, icky "you've been wearing those jeans for a whole week" feel.
Another protip: If you find your feet stink after a full day at work, try switching to wool socks.
[1] http://www.perio.org/consumer/cdc-study.htm
[1] http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=beat-bad-br...
Causes are: -genetic -epigenetic -life style -nutrition (cabrs!) -viruses (no kidding, obesity may be infectious) etc.
In particular, he drew a lot of relationships between diet and not only dental but general health. Some of which sounds a bit kooky but a lot of which seems to be getting confirmed, especially regards the role of sugar and processed carbohydrates.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weston_Price
My reason for posting was more to show that lines of inquiry similar / related to those of the source article have been pursued for a long time.
So: yes, actually, it is relevant.
Incidentally: if you're familiar with any specific criticisms of Prices work, posting those might be of interest. To myself as well as others.