The reason WHO frames common risk factors and common chronic diseases is because persons with these risks, conditions and diseases often end up with more than one of these diseases.

e.g., WHO now considers obesity a disease in itself, but obesity is also a biological risk factor for cancer and diabetes.

There are a lot of interrelationships in the risks.

More, with these conditions, they are also more vulnerable to infectious diseases.

It’s important though to keep in mind that, as I note in another reply, these kinds of studies aren’t just about informing individuals’ choices.

They’re not about ‘blaming’ or ‘shaming’ individuals choices.

They are about understanding what are the underlying determinants of health and risk factors that are shaping health outcomes.

Back to the study in question, and the OP’s remark that they were surprised that people were eating that much processed meat daily…

If the protein sources that are most available and affordable are the most unhealthy, preprocessed ones, then consumers will buy and consume more of these than healthier ones.

And their preferences and consumption habits will be shaped by these experiences.

And that will affect overall health and life expectancy of the population.

I would argue that this is missing the point - and so, in fact, is the article reporting on the study.

What is important to keep in mind is that the benefit of this research is not primarily about ‘telling’ or ‘informing’ individuals so that they can make different food consumption decisions.

It’s more about how food environments are shaped to encourage healthy or unhealthy choices.

If eating that much processed meat daily or weekly increases cancer risks, what’s driving or nudging people towards that.

Is it barriers to availability, accessibility or affordability of healthier and palatable choices?

My point is that raising risks of getting hit by a car, or other accidental causes of injury and death beyond the individual’s control, is a deflection.

Cancer is the leading cause of death in Canada.

Full stop.

No one single risk factor is responsible for that. Building the evidence base to be able to both inform individual behaviour but also to inform food safety regulations is important.

Cancer is the leading cause of premature mortality and morbidity (death and disability) in Canada.

So, an accumulation of small risks, and avoidance of risks, have significant benefits at both the individual and population levels.

The general population needs to be aware that unhealthy eating is impacting their lives and quality of life.

Let’s stick to the peer reviewed science and evidence consensus.

WHO established the four behavioural common risk factors for the four major chronic noncommunicable diseases decades ago.

The kind of research synthesis in this article is about continuing to build the evidence on relative and absolute risks, and in some cases look at how these differences impact different populations more or less due to intersecting determinants.

Common risk factors

• unhealthy diet
• physical inactivity
• tobacco use
• harmful use of alcohol
• air pollution added more recently

Major chronic noncommunicable diseases

• cancer
• cardiovascular diseases
• diabetes
• chronic respiratory diseases

And yet, you’ll see many people posting elsewhere on social media that it shouldn’t be relevant.

Can’t imagine trying to share a life with someone who didn’t share my values, but there seems to be a contingent that think that other things should be more important.

I would argue that a lot of the computational based problem solving , from middle school through early undergraduate years, focused on topics historically oriented to boys’ interests, aren’t a good measure of innate math talent either.

But those have historically left a lot of female students behind.

Male or female, most students are really looking to get through math requirements with plug-and-chug replication of algorithms to get to an answer - not genuine problem solving or abstraction. However, being able to reproduce an answer on a very slightly different problem, or just one with different numbers to plug in, does very little towards using mathematical as a means to model problems independently and find solutions.

There’s absolutely no incentive to log in to YouTube now that subscriptions and bells do nothing to control your feed. End stage enshittification.

There’s currently an Redexit of Canadians who are looking to get off US-controlled social media.

Lemmy.ca has had a huge spike in enrolment as it’s the one that was most prominently promoted in r/BuyCanadian. Apparently, it’s had over 9k signups in the past day.

My point is that I haven’t ever had any patience with the generational gatekeeping in the Star Trek.

I’ve been offended by it since the TOS fans campaigned to keep TAS from ever being aired. And I am more than done with TNG fans trying to brigade and kill every new offering.

I really don’t think you are assessing anything new on its merits at all.

What I am trying to say is that we - my spouse and I — am enjoying S31 on its merits, for what it is, in this period of television and movie making.

It IS fun stuff. We will be rewatching again!

My partner loved all the little inside references, including the hairstyle on the singer in the lounge.

S31 is a piece of this time. And we aren’t living in 1990.

It has more richness than Ryan Gosling or Ryan Reynolds action movies that become boring with endless action sequences.

I personally loved TNG in its run. It was the right Star Trek for its time.

If you asked me in the early 1990s, I would have agreed that TNG was the best Trek ever.

At that time, I much preferred it to TOS At that point, TOS was far enough out of time that it grated but not so far that it can be appreciated for itself, as something from another era.

I’m actually finding TNG not so great now. Your appreciation can evolve over time if you let it.

When our kids (now late teens) went through an intense fandom for Voyager in middle school, I understood why they thought it was the better show of the two. It was a better fit for them and I came to really love that show after originally finding it weaker than TNG.

Where I am coming from is that the TNG generation of fans needs to seriously lighten up and stop trying to insist that it’s the only model for good Trek or television.

You don’t own Trek any more than the boomers and older GenX did when TNG came on. At least we were the key demographic then - you are NOT now. TNG fans in their 40s are not the generation that this movie primarily targets.

Just as the TOS fans who were so derisive of TNG were damaging to the franchise, so is from the Berman era younger GenX and older Millennial fans.

You want tension and drama in a Star Trek show or movie.

That could be good. But it’s NOT the ONLY definition of good. It’s just a different kind of storytelling.

Trek on TV and movies has always had a mix of drama, horror, comedy, camp and action adventure. Even TNG covered all of these every single season.

We’re in an era where generally shows keep to one tone.

I have argued that the TNG and Kelvin movies that tried to hard to mix tones within a single movie, felt cringey (Nemesis, Beyond).

S31 went for a single tone for the most part and delivered.

SNW is able to mix tones because it’s episodic but there are fans who refuse to watch any episodes because the campy or lighthearted ones exist.

Well, I just rewatched it and enjoyed it all the more the second time.

My partner saw it for the first time, really enjoyed it, laughing the way through - with an overall rating of 7.5.

Like my partner, I’m an old thing.

I have watched absolutely everything Trek in first run since 1966 so I don’t have a lot of patience with those who became fans in the Berman era and feel entitled to gatekeep or define what isn’t Trek or isn’t ‘good’ for the next generation

I actively kept TOS fans from booing down young TNG fans trying to speak up at the cons in the late 1980s and early 1990s. These YouTubers are cut from the same mould but unfortunately have a much bigger public than the toxic TOS fans did on Usenet or subscription mimeod fanzines.

I actually enjoyed S31 for what it is and am about to rewatch it today with my partner.

It’s campy, and full of action sequences and fights, but that was to be expected with MU Georgiou.

It’s relatively rich in plot and characterization when I compare it to the run of current action movies like ‘The Grey Man’ on Netflix.

And it’s soooo much better than Star Trek V ‘The Final Frontier’.

How anyone can talk about the movies failing now clearly had rose coloured glasses on while watching:

• Kirk’s death in ‘Generations’

• the completely boring, Patrick Stewart indulgent dune buggy sequence in ‘Nemesis’ followed by the offensive rape content with stoic and sarcastic Troi turned into a tearful, dependant mess

• ‘Into Darkness’

• the destruction of the Enterprise, ridiculous motorcycle stored on bridge and motorcycle action sequence in ‘Beyond’

Not sure ‘cutting them’ is totally accurate.

The writing team and original creator/showrunner EPs Kim & Lippoldt were joined by a guy who had some showrunner experience. At the time, it sounded more like the Paramount suits weighed in on that as the show stayed in development hell even after an original greenlight.

But the fact is that when S31 got put on the back burner during the pandemic lockdown, Kim & Lippoldt took an offer from Netflix to take over as showrunners of ‘Sweet Tooth’.

They have been very successful with that. Paramount would be very fortunate to get them back to run anything.

The sale is supposed to last until the end of today September 15th. Usually, that would be until midnight Pacific time.

Suggest trying through the link on the officials Star Trek website to follow through to Steam: https://store.steampowered.com/sale/StarTrekDaySale

We picked up 3 copies of Resurgence the evening of the 14th from Canada.

We’ve tried most of them over time.

Star Trek Resurgence has consistently excellent reviews. It’s about a 25 hour role play where the player makes choices for two different crew - a senior bridge officer and an NCO in engineering. It’s well done and one of our teens and I are enjoying it a lot. Great value for the sale price. My patience on this one was reinforced by its initial release being exclusive to Epic - but on Steam and on sale it’s worth it.

Bridge Crew is an older game. I have had it for a couple of years, and took advantage of the sale to pick up copies for each of our kids Steam accounts. One of them got really into it right away.

Timelines is also older. It held their interest for a bit in middle school but doesn’t seem to be one of the better tie-ins.

Star Trek Online is a long running massively multiplayer game that starts out free but then can cost a lot for in-game purchases. One of our teens is into it, and got fairly far without purchasing much, but the Steam sale is a good opportunity for them to buy things they’ve had on their wish list.

As a parent, I find these better than the endless number of Star Wars mods on Roblox that one of ours got into for a while.

deleted by creator

This is also raising questions of foreign interference/influence in democratic process.

In Canada, the federal Elections Commissioner has been called on to investigate the source of bot campaigns for the leading opposition party: Online bot campaign backing Pierre Pollievre prompts call for probe.

The article suggests that the environment plays a significant role in gasturlation, especially the chemistry.

If identical twins develop in the same uterine environment, there would be greater likelihood of the same genes expressing.

I’m still seeing this as an active posting, linked on other UN pages e.g.,

https://dppa.un.org/en/gazas-new-terror-booby-trapped-cans-of-food-unwary

However, a similar claim in January was found to be false by fact checking news orgs.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2024/feb/01/instagram-posts/no-viral-footage-doesnt-show-explosives-disguised/

So the childhood favourite ‘Mrs Frisby and the Rats of Nimh’ was onto something.

Clearly, the ability to be outside in appropriate clothing for activities isn’t being mandated. This is where a temperate climate enables ridiculous practices to persist.

All I can think about when I see this image is how in Ontario, the responsible provincial ministry requires all schools and ‘day nurseries’ (read day and after school care) to put the kids out in the yards twice a day unless the weather conditions are severe (Less than -20 or more than +30 Celsius.).

Parents are responsible to send their kids with suitable clothing for the cold. One rarely sees little girls in skirts in schools unless they are wearing tunic dresses over leggings.

In an earlier era, pre 1970s, when skirts were mandatory for girls, that meant switching to pants or snow pants from the skirts 3 times a day to go outside in winter (two breaks and leaving end of day).