My sister went to medical school at Stanford. She says 1) people are overly obsessed with nutritionism (the idea that specific nutrients will make you more or less healthy); 2) nutritionism has very poor science behind it, for specific reasons (Vox published a good piece about why); and 3) just eat some actual damn…

an expensive wi-fi-enabled machine which-

a family claim-to-shame is that my grandmother hired this loser’s father for his first magazine gig at Commentary. he was just a standard shitty cold war liberal back then, before he fucking invented fucking neo-conservatism and ruined the world.

I think Soylent is hilarious. A bunch of tech Bros discovered Slimfast and Ensure because they wanted to brag that they’re so BUSY and IMPORTANT and SPECIAL that they don’t have time to order takeout from one of the zillion fast and healthy options in the Bay Area. Or make a sandwich. Or they’re bragging that they’re…

The only way it would ultimately make sense as an “investment” is if it ultimately replaced fiat currency in enough transactions to make it a legitimate form of currency. You’re essentially betting that it will replace other currencies. However, its susceptibility to fraud/manipulation and it’s volatility make it seem…

If you’re a long-term Soylent consumer, you probably fall into one of these groups:

Yea, Maureen Dowd dropped the ball on that. There also wasn’t a clear line drawn by her from the Weinstein assault and the battle she had with the footage. It’s sensationalism without a point and seems a disservice to Uma Thurman’s intentions. It’s pretty clear because of all the dumb places this story has gone…

Yeah this is a huge issue- Uma Thurman’s own testimony is straightforward and clear- both about what Weinstein did and Tarantino did- but Dowd keeps trying to weave this grander tapestry, which is a thing writers kinda have to watch out for not just in nonfiction in general, but specifically when someone’s recounting…

Honestly, the way the piece is written, it’s impossible to tell whether these actions by Tarantino are indicative of trust, indicative of a bullying director, or something she once felt OK about and now considers a bellwether for later behavior. The way Dowd just inserts it into the second-to-last paragraph is…

I’m glad Katie pointed out the style of the article, because I found the juxtaposition of tone and content really pretty confusing and sometimes had difficulty following the narrative of the piece, honestly. Thurman, of course, had the right to choose whomever she wanted to tell her story. But I personally wish she’d…

Maureen Dowd has a longstanding reputation for being a gossipy, condescending writer who is too informal about serious situations and who characterizes women she doesn’t like as too slutty or too masculine, and men she doesn’t like as too feminine.

Because context matters. How information is delivered can change perception dramatically (think Fox News, or reality TV). Especially since Uma Thurman didn’t write the thing, and her words are going through someone else’s filter.

Well people seemed irrationally angry that Tarantino did those things himself in the film despite the fact that it’s likely he did them because she trusted him and they had a friendship and she’d prefer him than a stranger/crew person do it. I could be wrong of course, but that’s what I took from it. Of course people…

You’d have to be totally crazy to assume Tarantino was malicious in having her drive the car or happy that she got hurt. Dangerous, stupid, careless, sure, but the sloppy writing of the original article mixed with the outraged reactions (often from people who already didn’t like the director for one reason or another)…

Well, if you take the case to a Jury trial I think he might get 10-15 years in football jail but he may get off with nothing. On the other hand, if you offer him a plea I bet he’d take 7-9.

Someone got triggered.