Jtotheb

That’s a neat site, and I was hoping your answer was in there, but they don’t have data on cooked mushrooms. We’ll have to do a bit of math.

So you’re taking the nutritional data provided and then shunting the fiber and water out of the way. Why? You can’t just eat the nutritional parts of food; you have to eat the whole thing, and that limits the amount of food, and thus nutrition, you can ingest in a day.

Were you thinking about food prep? Some water weight is lost there, certainly, but it’s not everything.

Let’s add a raw steak into the mix, and then we can instead look at how much water weight is actually lost when you prep these things to eat, by estimating it from data elsewhere.

The beans are ready to eat. They’re drained and rinsed. You don’t remove that water weight. So that’s 7 grams of protein per 100 gram serving.

The steak will lose about 25% of its weight when cooked, per multiple sources I found during a search. That means we need about 133 grams of raw beef to achieve 100 grams of cooked beef. So we can multiply its 21 grams of protein by 1.33, and we get about 29 grams of protein in a 100 gram serving. Their grilled steak averages around the same amount, so we’re on track so far.

Why is that discrepancy so great? I thought beans were supposed to be a great replacement for meat?

That comparison was done between beef and dry beans (note the 24 grams of protein, about the same as the beef). 100 grams of dry beans becomes about 370 grams of prepared beans. So in a 100 gram serving of beans you can actually eat, you get just over a quarter of that 24 grams protein: our ~7 grams from earlier. You also lose some water soluble protein when you rinse and drain them. They’re not the magic protein replacement people think they are.

Mushrooms are even worse. Per America’s Test Kitchen (and we’re gonna have to take these numbers at face value because I can’t find anything else), shiitake mushrooms lose about 14% of their weight in water when cooked, and cremini (think portobello, they’re just different stages of development) mushrooms lose about 60%. Thankfully the USDA’s site also has nutritional data listed for these two types of mushrooms: “minimally processed” shiitake and cremini mushrooms contain 2.4 and 3.1 grams of protein, respectively, per 100 gram serving. But those aren’t meal ready. To do that, we’ll cook the mushrooms, and they’ll shrink to 86 gram and 40 gram servings. So let’s start with enough raw mushrooms—119 grams of shiitake (or 119% of the original serving) and 250 grams (250%) of cremini. Multiply our proteins by 1.19 and 2.5 and we get a plausible range of between 3 and 8 grams of protein per 100g serving. So some are comparable to beans in their protein content! And some contain half, or less, of an already low amount when compared to the protein found in meat.

This quick comparison on Wolfram Alpha shows a similar story, with a less optimistic look at mushrooms’ possible protein content. Screenshot:

Now, the fact that you’re taking in so much more water when you eat 100 grams of beans or mushrooms than you are when you eat meat means you can eat more of them, and drink less fluids, but only to a point. And you’re certainly not getting 8 times more mushrooms than beef from a restaurant when they do a protein substitution. Getting enough protein in a vegetarian or vegan diet can be hard work. And restaurants are not making it easier by misleading people who may not know any better—I’m certain it’s careless, not malicious, but it is happening either way.

They’re (mushrooms) also constantly listed on American menus as a “protein” option despite a dire lack of the stuff

Don’t teach lol

Obviously not, the poor spec choices led to the price. Perhaps the company claiming to focus on ethics could focus on ethics instead of bezel-less design and 120 Hz screens, thus bringing it in at a lower price point. Feel free to critique me now

I’ve only ever seen the legal “right to be forgotten” concept applied to search engines and news publications. I think the closest to this was in Delhi high court where they ruled to have some social media “news” posts deleted. But that’s far different from having platforms erase things you’ve said and may regret. And then add yet another degree of separation for using a semi-private form of communication in email.

I am not speaking authoritatively so anyone who knows more than me jump right in.

Realizing the power imbalance inherent in contract law was a major radicalizing force in my life. I believe Hobbesian and Lockean theories of social contracts are still so widely taught in U.S. civics classes (uncertain of their global reach in schools) because it’s important to convince kids early on that people choose to enter into these agreements with larger power structures for their own good. If that view isn’t ingrained deep within your self then you’ll realize how absurd it is to enter into a legally binding contract with a party that has all the power in the relationship. Why would you?! They write the language, they limit your rights, they reserve the right to change the agreement, they reserve the right to terminate the arrangement. Companies, countries, it’s all from the same playbook. If you break it, fines or jail. If they break it, good luck. If it’s not enumerated in the document it doesn’t matter because they fall back on their power to do what they please anyway. It’s wielded as a weapon that forces you to accept the status quo under threat of retaliation. How do you assert your right to anything in this system? Playing along by paying for someone to represent you and asserting your belief in and support of the legal structure that has disenfranchised you, of course. You still don’t even have a seat at the table.

I was replying with something snarky like ‘hey Alexa how many people did we kill in the Middle East while I was big chilling’ so thank you for producing an actual productive response first

Rubber bullets are sold under the legal pretext that they’re acceptable to use in this fashion, while the manufacturer and the police department and probably every lawyer and judge in the country knows they’re just going to shoot at people.

That’s unreal. No, you cannot come up with your own scientific test to determine a language model’s capacity for understanding. You don’t even have access to the “thinking” side of the LLM.

How would allowing Trump to reach the widest possible audience work toward the greater good?

If you would like to link some abstracts you find in a DuckDuckGo search that’s fine.

Well that’s about Trump, not politicians broadly. But if we assume that’s the issue across the board, is the problem that politicians are able to represent us with their words, or that politicians are able to escape consequences for their words?