So when the milk companies tell you to drink more milk, do you assume you should drink less milk because they’re clearly doing something nefarious? I think people and groups can do good things for bad reasons.

Better avoid all fruit, then, since that’s all fructose, too. I think you’ll find it’s quantity of sugar (and its relation to other nutrient intakes) and not type of sugar, that is most important to focus on; the differences between sugar types, in studies I’ve encountered, have been little or none, whereas the…

Why cut out all added sugar for 30 days, if added sugar and included sugar are biochemically identical? It would make better sense to permanently limit your intake of all sugars, added and included, rather than temporarily cutting out one type of sugar while still taking in the other.

What do you mean by “the benefits?” If included sugars and added sugars are biochemically identical - and they are - why would one have benefits the other does not?

It’s most definitely true that the “added sugar” label should be viewed as “added sugar,” but the problem, I suspect, is that it won’t be. By putting it on the label, we’ve given it artificial importance: we should instead highlight the actual important bit, which is total sugars.

No, see that’s exactly the point: there is no difference, biologically-speaking, between added sugar and inherent sugar. (Oh, no: I’ve typed sugar so many times in the last hour that now it looks like it’s spelled wrong every time I write it!) From the article: “This is true: sugar is sugar, whether it comes from…

Let me address two things separately, if you would: dried fruit, and added sugars.

See, and the problem I have with that is that we’re basically putting our fingers on the scale, and misleading people for their benefit. Total sugar is what matters, but we’ll tell people what the added sugar is, to get them to object to it, and get manufacturers to reduce added sugars. It’s like a clever way of…

My point, though, is that they shouldn’t care about that info, because that info is meaningless: what matters is the entire sugar content, not just the added sugar content. If I eat one pearnapple that naturally has 500 grams of sugar, that’s not magically better than eating one Manu-Food-Stick with 1 gram of natural…

So this labeling isn’t about directly protecting consumers, it’s about encouraging producers to stop putting added sugars in their food? I have some problems with the idea of using government fiat to basically mislead the public into getting the private sector to do something, but I also acknowledge that doing so can…

Again, the selection of 2 products based solely on additional sugars is useless: what matters to the comparison is the total amount of all sugars. This is a case in which the label isn’t just neutral, but positively misleading.

This is monumentally stupid, on its face (and I’d love for someone to explain why my initial assessment is incomplete or incorrect!): if all sugar is the same, the only label we need is “sugar.” The division between “added sugar” and “sugar” is completely and utterly meaningless to health, because it’s still the total…

Other than the coolness factor, I’m not sure why we’d want glowing highways, which would increase ambient light and make it more difficult to see dim things that weren’t highways. Let’s face it: when you’re driving at night, the road is the one thing you don’t want to see, because what you really need to see is lane…

Luke Scott? I thought he was still working on that Rolling Stones biopic with Harriet Hayes.

Better yet, friend Joss, stop doing movies altogether. Your best work was serial, and your objections to that were primarily studio interference and tight deadlines, so why not enjoy the future your work has wrought, and go talk with Netflix or Amazon? They’d be happy to hand you some millions of dollars in exchange…

I will miss it if it’s gone and doesn’t come back; its focus on the practical (actual cars you might buy, team tests, fuel additive features, used car reviews) might have been less sensational than Top Gear, but always provided a weighted counterpoint to the (delightful) “mucking about” of Top Gear.

You, sir, are some great distance further toward being an excellent journalist, then: a person who gathers, parses, and disseminates accurate information for the benefit of the masses. A mistake isn’t an error unless it’s uncorrected: you are making progress in correcting yours. Kudos.

A nice option, I suppose, but why do you need a light at all? You know where everything is, right?

A nice option, I suppose, but why do you need a light at all? You know where everything is, right?

So what’s the best way to protest clickbait, once it’s already worked its magic on you? I’d really like to take some sort of action that might convince Gawker it’d be better off having some journalistic integrity, but the only way I know of is to just stop showing up. Is there a better way I’m not thinking of?

...even then, the problem is with Tesla, not the owner, as it’s the responsibility of the company to both make the process of summoning as accident-proof as possible, and if the car is going to drive unmanned, it’s their responsibility to give it the means not to run itself into anything or anyone.