The Gaming Den

phlapjackage wrote:Plant proteins are complete, this was a myth from long ago about plant proteins needing to be combined.

Um... I'm not going to watch your stupid video, but it's simply factually true that a diet from plant matter from just grains or just legumes will not get you a sufficient spread of essential amino acids to continue living. Almost all grains are deficient in Lysine, while legumes are not. Legumes tend to be low in Methionine and grains are not. You don't need to combine them in the same meal, but you do need to combine them or you're going to have malnutrition.

-Username17

FrankTrollman wrote:Um... I'm not going to watch your stupid video, but it's simply factually true that a diet from plant matter from just grains or just legumes will not get you a sufficient spread of essential amino acids to continue living. Almost all grains are deficient in Lysine, while legumes are not. Legumes tend to be low in Methionine and grains are not. You don't need to combine them in the same meal, but you do need to combine them or you're going to have malnutrition.

I'm not sure where the venom comes from, this is a video by a real MD doctor citing several real studies. But I guess you didn't watch it so...way to go?

"a diet from plant matter from just grains or just legumes" yeah...noone says to eat a plant-based diet of "just grains" or "just legumes". That's not a healthy diet. Diet implies more than one meal, btw.

What you just said boils down to: Eat a balanced diet. Yes, you have to eat a variety of things. Yes, no one food has every single thing your body needs. But a balanced, varied, plant-based diet does give you everything you need (B12 notwithstanding)

So, here's the deal phlapjackage; you don't really know enough about this topic to have any idea what the words coming out of your own or anyone else's mouth mean, and it's making you say dumb, annoying stuff.

When people talk about the hypothetical deficiency of plant proteins in a nutritional context, they are referring to the specific absence of specific amino acids in specific plants. That is the discussion. That has always been the discussion. There was never another discussion. Any moron who sets out to "correct the myth" by pointing out that if you eat enough different plants you'll hit all the bases is not correcting the myth. They are either a swindler who has stolen the claim they are supposably 'correcting' and reappropriated it as though they were using it to knock down some nasty, anti-vegetarian myth that we all need meat or we'll die or something, or they're an idiot who has fallen for such a swindler. Regardless, some particularly clever conman pulled a strawman out of their ass and reframed the debate in a way where saying what everyone else was already saying became revolutionary advice against this horrible strawman because conmen gonna do what conmen gonna do.

That's why your last post is an awkwardly aggressive "YOU'RE COMPLETELY RIGHT BUT I'M ANGRY ABOUT IT." If Frank had prefaced his comment with "MYTH BUSTED: you can get all of the essential amino acids by eating a variety of plants", it would fit in with the kind of shit you've read and you would have nodded sagely, but since he didn't do that, even though the factual content of his post is the same, PHLAPJACKAGE ANGRY.

Hurrah for bullshit lifestyle guru conmen with books to sell and the ways they swindle people! Hurrah!

Now, as it turns out, it's actually pretty hard to completely fail to get all your amino acids. It is much easier to develop some other non-protein-related nutritional deficiency. Vegetarian diets really do call for a bit of thought and planning.

DSMatticus wrote:So, here's the deal phlapjackage; you don't really know enough about this topic to have any idea what the words coming out of your own or anyone else's mouth mean, and it's making you say dumb, annoying stuff.

When people talk about the hypothetical deficiency of plant proteins in a nutritional context, they are referring to the specific absence of specific amino acids in specific plants. That is the discussion. That has always been the discussion. There was never another discussion. Any moron who sets out to "correct the myth" by pointing out that if you eat enough different plants you'll hit all the bases is not correcting the myth. They are either a swindler who has stolen the claim they are supposably 'correcting' and reappropriated it as though they were using it to knock down some nasty, anti-vegetarian myth that we all need meat or we'll die or something, or they're an idiot who has fallen for such a swindler. Regardless, some particularly clever conman pulled a strawman out of their ass and reframed the debate in a way where saying what everyone else was already saying became revolutionary advice against this horrible strawman because conmen gonna do what conmen gonna do.

That's why your last post is an awkwardly aggressive "YOU'RE COMPLETELY RIGHT BUT I'M ANGRY ABOUT IT." If Frank had prefaced his comment with "MYTH BUSTED: you can get all of the essential amino acids by eating a variety of plants", it would fit in with the kind of shit you've read and you would have nodded sagely, but since he didn't do that, even though the factual content of his post is the same, PHLAPJACKAGE ANGRY.

Hurrah for bullshit lifestyle guru conmen with books to sell and the ways they swindle people! Hurrah!

Now, as it turns out, it's actually pretty hard to completely fail to get all your amino acids. It is much easier to develop some other non-protein-related nutritional deficiency. Vegetarian diets really do call for a bit of thought and planning.

Dude who's angry? I saw someone post about combining proteins and incomplete plant proteins and that has a specific meaning, at least to me. Let me quote the bit I'm talking about:

I know that plant proteins are (generally) incomplete. But I also know that if you combine types of plant proteins, like any two of beans, nuts, grain, you get a complete protein.

This is the part I was referring to. This has been debunked, unless you want to reduce it to the very obvious "no one food has every single nutrient". I thought the original quote was more inquisitive than this.

I made a pretty relaxed post about it, and then Frank aggressively says he didn't watch the "stupid video".

Thinking about trying the chicken salad thing. Might also look into setting up my rice cooker to make rice and steam some already cooked chicken, since it has a little steam basket that sits over the rice.

---

Ok, new question- I'm working on some.... kind of prose fiction thing involving super powered individuals breaking out of a prison made to incarcerate such.

Figuring out how The Not!Raft incarcerates super powered peoples is one thing, and hard enough, but what kind of laws regulate incarceration in the US that I need to be aware of when figuring this out? Like, I imagine that some kind of yard time is required by law except for very specific cases, and so I would need to figure out whether, say, a person who can discorporate into spiders, counts as one of those specific cases, and so can basically be kept in a sealed box for the term of their incarceration, or if the countermeasures for their powers need to be formulated such that they can reasonably be allowed to have yard time.

phlapjackage wrote:This is the part I was referring to. This has been debunked, unless you want to reduce it to the very obvious "no one food has every single nutrient". I thought the original quote was more inquisitive than this.

Prak's awkward wording aside, no, no it absolutely has not been debunked. For it to have been debunked, it would have had to be anything other than a strawman. That is what I am trying to tell you.

The entire debate around plant proteins began with the observation that some plants do not have all the essential amino acids in the required dietary amounts. That's it. That is the original, decades old observation.

Prak's awkwardly worded statement-question is trying to get at that some plants do not have all the essential amino acids in the required dietary amounts. He doesn't really have his terminology/description quite right, but that's fine, it's not ambiguous or confusing.

Frank's answer was that some plants do not have all the essential amino acids in the required dietary amounts.

And your ever-so-helpful myth-busting correction is that... some plants do not have all the essential amino acids in the required dietary amounts.

It's all the same fucking thing. All of it. Everyone is saying the same damn tihng, and everyone's been saying the same damn thing for decades. But for some goddamn reason when you are reading vegetarian/vegan bullshit, people take that claim - the exact claim everyone is making and have always been making - and they preface it with "MYTH BUSTED" like it's somehow new, like they're adding information to an otherwise confused and mistaken consensus. And I 100% guarantee you that the first person to do this followed it up with a sales pitch for his book. 100%. It's a scam. I don't even know what you would call that scam. Like, what the fuck do you call it when everyone is saying X, and then come along and just steal X right out of their mouths and pretend they were saying Y instead so you look like an authority on the subject?

But the point is that the needle on this debate really hasn't moved at all in decades. No one has busted any myths or made any corrections. We've got a better idea of how practical the risks are (protein deficiency is probably one of the least likely problems you'll encounter on a vegetarian diet), but the principal is not different. For some reason, there's just a bunch of vegetarian literature that takes the thing everyone already knew and presents is as new information so they... look smarter? It's baffling. I really don't understand it.

And yes, animal protein does contain all of the essential amino acids. If that's the part of this that's confusing you for some reason, there you go.

DSMatticus wrote:Prak's awkward wording aside, no, no it absolutely has not been debunked. For it to have been debunked, it would have had to be anything other than a strawman. That is what I am trying to tell you.

The entire debate around plant proteins began with the observation that some plants do not have all the essential amino acids in the required dietary amounts. That's it. That is the original, decades old observation.

Prak's awkwardly worded statement-question is trying to get at that some plants do not have all the essential amino acids in the required dietary amounts. He doesn't really have his terminology/description quite right, but that's fine, it's not ambiguous or confusing.

Frank's answer was that some plants do not have all the essential amino acids in the required dietary amounts.

And your ever-so-helpful myth-busting correction is that... some plants do not have all the essential amino acids in the required dietary amounts.

It's all the same fucking thing. All of it. Everyone is saying the same damn tihng, and everyone's been saying the same damn thing for decades. But for some goddamn reason when you are reading vegetarian/vegan bullshit, people take that claim - the exact claim everyone is making and have always been making - and they preface it with "MYTH BUSTED" like it's somehow new, like they're adding information to an otherwise confused and mistaken consensus. And I 100% guarantee you that the first person to do this followed it up with a sales pitch for his book. 100%. It's a scam. I don't even know what you would call that scam. Like, what the fuck do you call it when everyone is saying X, and then come along and just steal X right out of their mouths and pretend they were saying Y instead so you look like an authority on the subject?

But the point is that the needle on this debate really hasn't moved at all in decades. No one has busted any myths or made any corrections. We've got a better idea of how practical the risks are (protein deficiency is probably one of the least likely problems you'll encounter on a vegetarian diet), but the principal is not different. For some reason, there's just a bunch of vegetarian literature that takes the thing everyone already knew and presents is as new information so they... look smarter? It's baffling. I really don't understand it.

And yes, animal protein does contain all of the essential amino acids. If that's the part of this that's confusing you for some reason, there you go.

OK. Well, thanks for clearing up what Prak meant and what Prak tried to say and what Prak really wanted to ask about. I might be a tad jumpy on this because of the multiple conversations I've had/heard which do try to paint plant-based protein in a negative light because of a misconception that was not even considered true ages ago. You seem to take it as a given about this stuff, but it's not always the reality out there from my experience. But I'm glad that according to you it's pretty much world-wide accepted.

For just a small counter-example, you seem to believe that everyone agrees that there are no real risks of protein deficiency on a veg. diet. Just from multiple different conversations I've had in the past few months, this isn't the case. Number 1 question,without fail, is "but what about protein" ?

I'm a culinary arts grad. That's where I learned that you can get a "complete protein" from plants by basically combining two of beans, grains, nuts.

It's cool, phlap.

Calling proteins incomplete and complete is a weird way to say what you're trying to say. It gets the point across, it shouldn't particularly confuse anyone, but it's not what's actually happening.

All the proteins you eat are digested into amino acids. Your body uses those amino acids to build its own proteins. If you're not getting enough of certain amino acids, your body can't build the proteins it needs, and you get sick. Animal proteins contain all of the essential amino acids. Plant proteins often don't (at least not in dietarily adequate amounts), but different plants are lacking in different amino acids. It's 'incomplete coverage of the range of amino acids' and not 'incomplete proteins,' and you can round out your diet to achieve 'complete coverage of the range of amino acids' and not 'complete proteins.'

Well, like I said, culinary arts, not nutritional medicine. My teacher was pretty good, but no scientist.

i been told
http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=508069#508069

One, that sorta thing belongs in annoying game questions; two, Old One Eye is a confusing moniker in this context since it's also the name of a Nid special character from back in the day.

It's confusing because of Grumpy Old Men:

Grandpa in Grumpy Old Men wrote: Looks like Chuck's taking ol' One-Eye to the optometrist!

How does Ad Blocker and similar stuff affect revenue from advertising on private sites?

Like, lets say I go to a webcomic, and I have an ad blocker. The way I understand it, the ad blocker just prevents ads from loading on my end, and advertisers pay a site to host their ads, and so my blocking the ads shouldn't affect the website's revenue.

How you would think ads work: The webcomic's server sends a request to the advertising server for an ad, then includes that ad when sending the page to you. The advertiser pays the webcomic author to send you the ads whenever you load their page. Your adblocker figures out which parts of the page are content and which are ads, then filters out the ads. (Noscript/uBlock DO work like this, but they're not technically an ad blocker).

How ads actually work: The webcomic server instructs your browser to request an ad from the advertising server and then to run the ad in the correct space. If the ad runs successfully, it will send a report back to the ad server saying to pay the webcomic author. If you have adblocker, your browser refuses to contact the advertising server, refuses to run the ad and refuses to send back word that you successfully ran the ad.

Yes, that means that a webcomic complains about adblock is basically saying "I'm getting paid to tell your computer to run whatever arbitrary scripts my business associates want your computer to run with no oversight or control on your part. If you refuse to run these scripts, you are a filthy content thief who is stealing from me personally. Trust me and trust the people paying me for access to your computer, or else you are scum."

Noscript and the like also let you choose who you trust not to send you to phishing/virus download sites or sell your information, or just not to act like dicks with the money they make off you. Whatever you're into.

Ghostery used to be better about telling you who each site you were going to was owned by (usually one of 2 ad giants), but something seems to have changed.

There are also some people who will serve the ads themselves, which would get by noscript, but makes less money because they can't collect information about you or install shit on your computer. So, as Grek said, that's not really how ads work anymore.

Where does ghost as a replacement for god in epithets come from?

Can't say I've heard "ghost damnit" before erik said it in the other thread. If I had to guess, it might be drift from "gosh darnit," or it might be a reference to Magic Sky Ghost, or maybe a bit of both.

Ancient History was doing it before me. But I started mostly because my youngest son started playing a web game called "Oh my ghost" whose name he occasionally would exclaim. I decided that was an awesome epiphet, so I started training him to say "Oh my ghost" instead of oh my god, or oh my gosh, and now I'm stuck.

*snickers*
he got you to use shadowrun slang it seems ^^

If one were to paint and customize a figure made of PVC and ABS plastic, what sort of paint would one require? Will any old kind do, or do I need something more specialized?

Shrapnel wrote:If one were to paint and customize a figure made of PVC and ABS plastic, what sort of paint would one require? Will any old kind do, or do I need something more specialized?

In the past, when painting other things next to PVC, I've seen the paint just run off of the plastic.

This seems to be expected according to this. You're probably going to want to rough up the plastic with some sand paper and use specific paint formulated for working with plastic. The article lists a couple of brands.

If you're looking for detailed painting, I imagine you can use other acrylics once you've established a solid base coat on the PVC.

So, I've recently come into some money, and I'm going to buy a new computer with it. I'm looking specifically for a PC that can play games like Fallout 4 competently, and I have a budget of about $900 - $1000. Any advice?

www.logicalincrements.com

Also get ready to bend over and spread em for a new video card. They're riding the cyrptocurrency inflation bubble still. In a similar boat why my card is making sounds like a demonic woodpecker and I'm hesitant to shell out 300 bucks on a card that would be 150 otherwise.

But my 5 year old PC can run The Elder Scrolls: Boston competently so shouldn't be too hard to build something that can.

I should also point out that I have neither the skills nor inclination to build a PC.

If it's made of LEGO's and comes with instructions, I can build it. Anything more complicated than that, and I freeze up.