The CEO of Soylent Is Enraging LA by Throwing Parties in a Shipping Container | MUNCHIES

The CEO of Soylent has run into trouble with the city of LA over his sustainable living experiment.

Source: The CEO of Soylent Is Enraging LA by Throwing Parties in a Shipping Container | MUNCHIES

If you aren’t familiar with Soylent and it’s more than a little irritating CEO, Rhinehart, let me give you the background.

Soylent Green was a 1973 movie starring Charlton Heston about a dystopian future where the world suffers from out of control over population, horrific environmental pollution, dying oceans and a seriously degraded climate due to climate change. Abject poverty is the norm. Housing is so bad a dozen or more people can be crammed into a single room. You know, sort of what like the “small house” movement wants to do to us, only they’re trying to make us think we want to do it.

Oh, dear, I just realized something. Horrific environmental pollution, dying oceans, seriously degraded climate, housing so bad a dozen people are crammed into a single room… Sort of like, well, what’s going on right now, isn’t it?

Never mind…

The movie was named after a food product, Soylent Green, which is the primary food source, often the only food source, for the vast majority of the population. Heston is basically a drone, an unthinking cop, an enforcer for the government/big corporations, mindlessly following orders and committing what are just flat out atrocities, all in the name of keeping the ‘peace’, including one horrific scene where they deal with a riot by bringing in huge armored garbage trucks and simply scooping up the protestors, dumping them into the back of the trucks, and presumably, well, squeezing them like garbage.

A key element in this new culture is death, and the promotion of death. Basically trying to talk people into committing suicide voluntarily in the hopes of attaining some kind of peaceful, more pleasant afterlife (I think — it’s been decades since I saw the thing).

The kicker to the whole story is that Heston’s character discovers that Soylent is made from people. Presumably the people the friendly government has been scooping up in garbage trucks and talking into offing themselves in pleasant, luxurious government operated death palaces.

Anyway, the new Soylent is all about food, as in not having to actually eat any. Seriously.

Rhinehart, well, apparently he doesn’t like to eat. (I say ‘apparently’ because I don’t really know. Never met the guy. While he’s probably a nice person, doesn’t kick stray dogs, doesn’t yell at the hired help too much and all that good stuff.) He seems to think eating, cooking and all that fun stuff that normal people like you and I enjoy, even relish, is evil. Total waste of time. He thinks everyone should just gulp down this green goo he calls Soylent a couple of times a day, and you’re good to go. This way you don’t have to cook, don’t have to go through all the hassle of, well, what he thinks are stupid things like enjoying time with your friends over dinner, and eating really tasty food.

The green goo (i.e. Soylent) is, he claims, supposed to supply everything you need to survive, all crammed into a drink a bit smaller than a Big Gulp.

Now as silly as this may sound, he apparently isn’t the only one who thinks this way. There are people, allegedly real live actual people, who actually pay allegedly real live money for this stuff, and allegedly even (down stomach, down boy…) drink it.

(Easy there, stomach. Hang in there, we don’t have much farther to go.)

And not just a few people. Him and his company are now supposedly worth about $100 million, for heaven’s sake.

Oh, and ignore the fact that there is at least one lawsuit going on at the moment over the alleged safety of this goo.

Rhinehart, not content with attempting to utterly destroy the joy of food, seems to be trying to expand his realm into also destroying our enjoyment of living in general. His solution to the world housing crisis is — shipping containers. As in shoving in a chemical toilet, cutting a few holes in the side to let in light, and living in them. And like all good ideas, he basically stole it from someone else. Using shipping containers as housing has been going on for a long time with mixed results.

And judging from the example he’s set up out in California, well, let’s just say that living in the original Soylent Green’s conditions is pleasant when compared to what he’s got set up.

The thing is, well, it’s just flat out horrific. It’s an old shipping container, a few holes cut crudely into the walls, a chemical toilet, and, well, that’s about it. Looks like there’s no insulation at all, so under the hot California sun interior temperature will… Well, let’s face it, you’re inside an uninsulated metal box. In California. You could roast a turkey in that sucker for heaven’s sake.

The photos, well, dear lord, it looks just bloody horrible, there’s no other way to put it. If this is Rhinehart’s “vision” of how he wants people to live… Well, considering what he wants us to gulp down instead of real food, trying to shovel people into what is little more than an oversized coffin with windows shouldn’t be surprising.

Rhinehart has, of course, never actually lived in the thing. No thank you. He claims that he has, true, but according to at least one source cited in the article, he’s never actually lived it in. He has a perfectly nice, luxurious real home to go to at the end of the day.

He has, however, used it for parties. Although how he got anyone to actually go there is beyond me. Now I admit that some of the frat houses from my college days were pretty much real, live, waking nightmares and you’d want to dip your entire body in sanitizer just looking at them. But this — this thing? Oh, my…

Well it seems the local government feels pretty much the same way, and is going after this pusher of green goo and his rather curious idea of what constitutes “housing”.

To get to the point, though…

Rhinehart reminds me of something my father once said about a particular Christian church with a reputation for being — irritating, shall we say. I was still a child and was curious about this bunch and asked him what in the world was going on with them

“They’re the kind of people,” he told me, “who live in constant fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun, and believe it’s their job to put a stop to it.”

Those weren’t his exact words, I’m sure, but it’s close enough.

But that’s not why I’m posting this. Oh, no.

This is a test. For the next thirty seconds, this station will be conducting…

Oh, all right, I know, really, really bad joke, but I tend to do that. Sometimes a lot, I fear. I blame my father. I think I inherited his snarky sense of humor. Which is curious because I’m not actually related to my father. Or to my mother for that matter. Or to my sister.

But that’s a different story entirely. I also tend to go off track, I fear.

Ah, now I remember!

This was a test. And a kind of shot across your bow, you poor people out there reading this. I just found the “Press This” tool! One click and bang! Up pops my editor, I drop in a few pithy comments, and instant post!

Well, okay, so I had the ‘press this’ thing for a while now, but I didn’t actually use it because the one from Tumblr is so wonky it hardly works at all and I figured this one was probably going to be wonky too.

But it works!

Oh brother, you’re in trouble now…

Brexit

After seeing all of the arguments, anger, outrage and occasional insanity going on over the whole exit situation in the UK right now, I find myself having decidedly mixed feelings over the whole thing. While it’s nice to see that their political system is just as screwed up as ours is over here, I do have considerable sympathy for them and what they’re going through.

The arguments by both sides of the issue have ranged from thoughtful and logical to utterly ridiculous and even borderline insane. The leave faction has blamed the EU for everything from unemployment, to a failing health care system, to increased violence and crime, to, well, everything, really. Basically if it was bad, and it happened in the UK, the leave faction blamed the EU for it.

On the other side of the coin, the stay faction was employing similar tactics. The EU was responsible for everything great and good, according to them. It was fostering economic prosperity, improving human rights, made the sun come up in the morning, was responsible for nice weather…

Well, okay, so I’m getting a bit silly, but no more silly than some of the things I’ve heard and read that were coming from the people on both sides of the issue.

The truth of the matter is that both sides are right. Or both sides are wrong. However you want to look at it.

I don’t think there’s much doubt that the EU was economically beneficial for some (but certainly not for all) people. It almost certainly helped improve human rights for a lot of people. It made trade easier, made business easier, made travel easier.

But at the same time it could be argued that the average citizen of the UK, people in the low to mid income ranges, so little or none of those benefits. In fact, as far as lot of them were concerned, their situations got worse. Housing prices skyrocketed, the job market shrank, wages stagnated. The EU seemed to become increasingly dictatorial, overriding local and national laws and policies.

Still, I think that the vote would have swung the other way if it hadn’t been for Cameron and his cronies panicking as it came down to the wire and they saw the polls were indicating that the stay or leave vote was in a dead heat.

Instead of continuing to focus on the benefits of staying in the EU, they began uttering vague, even overt threats. The pension system would be decimated if they leave. The country will be thrown into depression. The economy would go down the toilet. The UK would become a third world country overnight…

Most of those threats were either outright lies or wildly exaggerated, and the people realized that. Nor do the British respond well to being threatened. It tends to make them dig in their heels and get a bit testy. And I think that in the end, that’s what helped push the leave vote over the top.

Cameron and his advisers are, I think, largely responsible for the leave faction winning. They completely misread the situation. Frankly, I always got the impression that Cameron and his people were in over their heads since they came into power, but that’s another story.

Is Flying a Drone Illegal? A Comprehensive Guide to America’s Drone Laws | Motherboard

An entirely too thorough look at the absurd state of drone regulations in the United States.

Source: Is Flying a Drone Illegal? A Comprehensive Guide to America’s Drone Laws | Motherboard

If you want to see the definition of the word “nightmare”, go read this article over at Vice that tries to make sense out of FAA drone regulations, it’s utterly ridiculous attempts at enforcing those regulations, and all the other nonsense going on over in Washington.

The situation is indeed a nightmare. There is no other way to put it. Essentially not even the FAA knows what the hell the regulations are, what they should be or really anything about the whole situation.

To make matters even more interesting, there are several laws already on the books and court cases dating back to the beginning of aviation that make a pretty good case for the FAA not being legally allowed to regulate drones in the first place. 

The FAA claims that to use a drone commercially, you have to get a 333 exemption. But the FAA doesn’t have any regulations on the books nor case law to point to that makes commercial drone operation illegal or against the rules in the first place. Right now the most prominent lawyers dealing with drone operations are advising operators to not get the 333 exemptions because A) the FAA can’t give a permit to do an activity that isn’t illegal in the first place, and B) if you do get one you’re putting yourself at risk for breaking the 333 rules which are just as bad as the rest of the situation.

The other interesting thing is that unless you’re flying a drone for commercial purposes (i.e. making money off it), you are using the drone for hobby or personal use. And in that case, the FAA is specifically forbidden, by federal law, from having any jurisdiction at all. The FAA Modernization Act of 2012 specifically states that the FAA has absolutely no jurisdiction over model aircraft if it is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use.

Let’s make things even more interesting: In the wake of some well publicized incidents, a lot of state and local jurisdictions have been rushing to pass restrictions on the use of drones. The problem with that is they can’t. State and local jurisdictions have no legal authority over airspace. They might be able to regulate launching and landing, but actual flying? No. That’s a federal matter.

Then there are the yahoos who keep threatening to shoot down drones. Shooting at any aircraft is a felony. Plain and simple, and carries a maximum 20 years in federal prison.

But… But there’s disagreement in the courts as to whether a drone is an “aircraft” or not, believe it or not. Part of that goes back to model aircraft, which are specifically exempt from FAA regulations except under limited circumstances (i.e. can’t fly near air ports, etc.)

If it’s not an “aircraft” then all bets are off because the FAA has no jurisdiction at all except if the drone intrudes on lawful manned aircraft operations. If it is an “aircraft”, well, that opens up a whole different kettle of worms…

Now add in this fact: There are cases dating back to the early days of flight regarding land owners shooting at aircraft or otherwise trying to impede the operation of aircraft flying over their property. it’s been generally interpreted that you cannot ‘own’ the airspace above your property except up to a certain altitude. While the FAA claims it controls all the airspace in the country from ground level up, according to the courts, it almost certainly doesn’t. There have been legal cases dating back to the 1940s and before that state that the landowner controls the airspace up to a varying amount of altitude that bounces all over the place.

According to some rulings, you would be legal to fly over anyone’s property, at any time, as long as you’re higher than any structure on the property. Other rulings put the altitude at varying distances.

The whole situation is an utter and complete mess.

The FAA is finally going to be coming out with actual rules and regulations later this summer. I’ve seen early drafts, and, surprisingly, most of the new rules actually make sense. The requirement that you have a pilot’s license is being eliminated, a requirement that was utterly ridiculous from the beginning because knowing how to fly manned aircraft has absolutely nothing to do with flying a drone. The two skill sets are completely different. Especially since the big commercial drones literally fly themselves with little or no input from the “pilot”, using GPS, on-board gyros and collision avoidance systems. Requiring a pilot’s license to fly a drone is like requiring you to be a heart surgeon to buy aspirin.

But those regulations don’t do much to resolve the fact that it seems the FAA doesn’t seem to have the legal authority to regulate drones in the first place except with regard to them interacting with manned aircraft.

Farming…

I realized this morning that for a blog that’s called ‘grouchyfarmer’, I haven’t talked much about actual farming here. (Well, to be honest, considering how rarely I’ve posted things here over the last year I haven’t talked about much of anything. But that’s a different story.)

I was a farmer, though. I worked on the family farm while growing up, all through high school and even while I was in college. Before we got married, Mrs. Grouchy (egads, I’m sure she would have a few choice words if she heard me call her that…) and I seriously considered doing something like buying into the family farm. But she was starting into a serious career, already had pretty good job prospects, and we moved to follow her career, and it was a choice that we never regretted.

I went back home from time to time to help my father out. Later when jobs were scarce, I worked as a farm hand for a year or so. But I generally haven’t been involved in the industry much since the early 1990s. For a time, briefly, we considered growing vegetables and fruit as a part time occupation when we inherited the farm, but quickly had to abandon that idea when reality set in and we realized that to make it work we would have to devote far more time to it than we could afford to. Basically one of us would have had to quit our day job and work full time at it, something we couldn’t justify economically.

Even when I was a kid farming was already changing. The so-called mega-farms were starting up, milking not just 40 or 50 cows as we were at our peak, but hundreds of cows. One of our neighbors pulled up and moved to Arizona in the early 1960s, to start one of the first mega dairy farms.

Even back in the 1960s farming was a difficult business, and in every way imaginable; economically, physically, emotionally… A lot of people have this romanticized image of farming; the noble famer out tilling the land, his or her own boss, working outside on warm, summer days, planting, cultivating, harvesting, brushing cows, watching sheep, whatever.

Isn’t like that. Never was. Never will be. Those pastoral scenes are largely the creation of Victorian era writers and artists who romanticized farming, created these peaceful, calm, lovely images in words and with oil on canvas.

George Henry Durrie (American Painter, 1820-1863)  Haying at Jones Inn.JPGWhenever I see a scene like this in an art gallery or museum, I would like to take the artist, put a shovel in his hand and let him clean out pens for a day and see if he still thinks farming is romantic. Or being up 29 hours straight because you spent all night nursing a cow who’s having a difficult birth. Or watching one of your tractors burning out in a field because a fuel line ruptured. Or…

Well, you get the idea.

Farming isn’t a ‘lifestyle’. Farming isn’t romantic. Farming isn’t images of cows grazing placidly in meadows. Farming is bloody hard work interspersed with moments of sheer panic as you watch things turning to crap because of circumstances outside of your control.

NeuroLogica Blog » Theranos Exposed

Source: NeuroLogica Blog » Theranos Exposed

As someone who has to surrender several rather large vials of his blood every six months for a variety of tests, I can assure you that it is a royal pain in the ass. Or in the arm, since that’s the part that’s being repeatedly punctured every time I go to the clinic. So it’s understandable that a lot of people wanted to believe that Theranos had invented some kind of magical machine (called Edison) that could do the job with just a couple of drops of blood and do it in just a few minutes.

Alarm bells should have went off all over when this company appeared out of nowhere with it’s claims. And in some circles they did go off. This would require an incredible breakthrough not only in medical science but in technology as well, and which seemed far too good to be true.

But that didn’t prevent the media, even the media that should have known better, from heaping praise upon the company and it’s founder, Holmes. Nor did it prevent some health care corporations, who also should have known better, from buying into the deal and using Theranos as their testing service.

Then little things started to show up. Like the fact that Theranos itself wasn’t even using it’s own machine, Edison, for most of the testing, and was using standard testing technologies that required large blood samples. Or how the fact that the results from the Edison machine seemed to be off just a wee bit. Well, okay more than a wee bit, really. Some estimates I’ve seen claim the results coming from this ‘revolutionary new testing procedure’ were wrong 50% – 80% of the time. So wrong that Theranos itself has had to invalidate all of the test results done by the machine over the last two years.

Other little nasties turned up. Like untrained, unqualified people doing the testing, according to Medicare’s auditors.

The company has gone from being worth over $5 billion dollars to literally nothing almost overnight, now.

There is no shortage of individuals and companies selling ‘health’ products that are utterly worthless, even down right dangerous. Things like supplements, naturopaths, the utterly insane people who are trying to tell parents that giving their autistic kids enemas of what essentially is industrial strength bleach… The list goes on and on. Theranos is just the latest and most high profile.

Breakfast Backtrack: Maybe Skipping The Morning Meal Isn’t So Bad : The Salt : NPR

The Salt is a blog from the NPR Science Desk about what we eat and why we eat it. We serve up food stories with a side of skepticism that may provoke you or just make you smile.

Source: Breakfast Backtrack: Maybe Skipping The Morning Meal Isn’t So Bad : The Salt : NPR

For years I’ve been trying to convince people that the whole “breakfast is the most important meal of the day” nonsense is exactly that, nonsense. It is just one of dozens of things that ‘everyone knows’ that is just plain wrong. And because of that emphasis on breakfast, what’s happened is that breakfast is, instead of ‘the most important meal’, one of the most miserable and unhealthy because of our reliance on prepackaged breakfast foods like cereal that offer up tons of sugar, salt, and very little actual nutrition.

As is often the case, what ‘everyone knows’ is based largely on little more than a marketing campaign to sell you stuff you don’t need. In this case, breakfast cereals and foods. The whole ‘most important meal’ nonsense seems to be based almost entirely on a marketing campaign to improve cereal sales decades ago, and is backed by almost zero actual science. (And, believe it or not, an anti-masturbation campaign by Kellogg back in the early 1900s.)

One of the very few studies to look at this goes back to 1965 and is often referred to as “the Alameda 7”, where seven health habits were shown to be associated with physical health.

But there’s a problem with the Alameda 7 study — it had nothing to do with breakfast itself. It was looking at seven habits; sleeping, smoking, alcohol consumption, body weight, exercise and snacking as well as breakfast. Any one or any combination of those seven different factors can and do influence one’s overall health. The study never looked at breakfast’s influence on health by itself, only in combination with these other factors.

Basically there is little or no actual evidence that regularly eating breakfast does anything special for you, health wise. There is no relationship between eating or not eating breakfast and weight loss/gain. There is no relationship between eating breakfast regularly and overall health. There is nothing magical about eating right after you get up in the morning. It doesn’t alter your metabolism, doesn’t increase your calorie burning, it doesn’t… well, it doesn’t do much of anything special for you at all.

And if your usual breakfast consists of processed carbohydrates like sugared cereals, sweet rolls, high fat breakfast sandwiches loaded with salt, it’s probably worse for you than eating nothing at all.

If you’re hungry when you get up in the morning, by all means eat a healthy breakfast. Have some fruit, some non-sugared cereal. Quick cooking oats (not the ‘instant’ stuff), even some nice whole grain toast.

But if you aren’t hungry? If you’re idea of a good breakfast is an early lunch around ten in the morning, go for it.

Weight gain/loss is totally dependent on your total calorie intake versus your total calorie expenditure. Period. There is no magic about breakfast. It doesn’t reset your metabolism, making you burn calories faster as I keep hearing from people who should know better. When you eat doesn’t really matter. It’s what you eat and how much of it, not what time of day.

How was breakfast turned into what it is today, surrounded by so much misinformation and mythology?

Marketing, really. Before the 1800s there pretty much was no such thing (unless you were rich). People pretty much ate whatever was left over from the day before for breakfast, if they ate at all after getting up.

As the economy improved in the US during the mid-1800s, breakfast had turned into a full blown meal more similar to dinner. More affluent households served up breads, pancakes, lots and lots of butter, cake, pie. And meat. Lots and lots and lots of meat. Beef steak, roasted chicken.

And lots and lots of indigestion and constipation because of the lack of fiber in the diet. (Magazines and newspapers of the era were overwhelmed with advertisements for various laxatives, many of them harmful, because of it.)

Along came Dr. John Kellogg. Yes, that Kellogg, the one the cereal company was named for.

And he was… Well, there’s no pleasant way to put it. He was basically a loony, but he was a well meaning loony in a lot of ways and some of the stuff he came up with was actually not all that bad. Well, except for alleged corn flake enemas. And there was the obsession with masturbation…

But cereal, it wasn’t bad. And it did add fiber to the diet which helped with the whole constipation thing. (Although cereal did not ‘cure’ masturbation as Kellogg claimed it would. Seriously. He believed it would help prevent masturbating. He also advocated tying children up at night to prevent them from fiddling with their bits in the dark.)

Kellogg’s diet wasn’t really all that bad, nor was his cereal. It didn’t taste all that good according to contemporary reports (it was called ‘wheat rocks’ by detractors). But it did help, and people noticed.

And it launched the cereal industry which, in those days of a total lack of regulation, immediately began making wildly ridiculous health claims, which remain to this day, most of them totally unproven. Post claimed their cereal cured everything from appendicitis to malaria and everything in between, and that was one of the more mild of the ridiculous health claims made.

The whole “most important meal of the day” nonsense can be traced directly to advertising campaigns during the mid 1900s and later. And there was never any actual science to back it up. The whole notion was conjured up to sell you stuff.

It’s all marketing.

 

Wanderings…

lighthouse.JPG

This started out as a quick pen sketch in a journal from when I was in Maine in 2008. It’s a lighthouse outside of Portland along the coast. I scanned it into a file ages ago when I went through some of my journals and scanned in the drawings one rainy afternoon with nothing else to do, and just recently found the original scan and got interested in it for some reason. I turned on the cintiq, fired up a drawing program and started redoing it from the sketch and my memory of the place.

I was never very good at drawing or painting. Except for the usual childhood drawings done for school, I never had any interest in it. I started drawing people in the early eighties, my kids, friends. Was never very good at it, to be honest. Still am not. Probably because I never did enough of it to learn the skills necessary.

Buildings though… For some reason I enjoy drawing buildings. Perhaps it’s the lines, the geometric shapes, the detail, the structure. I don’t really know.

Pen and ink, pencil and now on the computer. I think I do it for the same reasons people do things like needle point. It’s relaxing, soothing, calming. For me, at least, it’s a kind of meditation, I think. I find it soothing to concentrate on the shapes, the lines, the detail… The mind, the eye, the hand, all working together, coordinating together, watching a collection of random lines slowly transform into a recognizable thing…

The journal got lost or destroyed somehow. I’m rather sad about that because I’d wrote a great deal during that trip about the things we’d seen, people we’d talked to. Including some memorable and remarkable encounters we had.

Like the Italian restaurant we ate at in some city in New York. The food had been fantastic, and we told our server to tell the chef how delighted we were with the whole experience. Well, it was late, almost closing time, we were the only ones left and were getting ready to leave ourselves, when the owner/chef came out with a bottle of wine for us and we sat and talked with this delightful fellow over a bottle of wonderful wine for almost an hour.

Or me and eldest son stopping at a gas station in New York. We’d been on the bikes for over a week, wearing full riding gear so only our hands were exposed to the elements, so our hands were tanned dark, dark brown while the rest of us was your typical pasty Wisconsin cheesy kind of look. Two young black guys selling car polish in the parking lot took one look at us and had to come over and check this out. They were hilarious, asking us for tanning tips

I’m still hoping those journals turn up somewhere buried in the attic somewhere perhaps…

Back to the drawing… I worked on this obsessively for several hours while, believe it or not, the second season of Witchblade was playing on the other monitor. I got this far and just completely lost interest in finishing it.

Maybe it’s because I can’t draw water?

 

 

NeuroLogica Blog » The Age of Click-Bait

Source: NeuroLogica Blog » The Age of Click-Bait

I’ve talked about the Neurologica blog by Steven Novella a few times over on my tumblr blog, but I haven’t mentioned it here yet, and I should have. In an internet filled with misinformation, incomplete information, outright lies and pure garbage, Novella is a voice of sanity, logical thought, research and thoughtful comments. He’s fond of going after the snake oil salesmen, the liars, the cheats, etc. Because he is a doctor specializing in neurology he often concentrates on medical quackery, but he also delves into deceptiveness in general, tackling a range of topics from space travel to physics to advertising or other topics he finds interesting. And his comments and research are always well thought out, logical, and backed by significant research.

In this item he goes after something that has long been a pet peeve of mine, and that is how in this age of click bait, the media can no longer be relied on to provide us with any truthful information any longer. The ‘filters’ that were once in place – the editors, fact checkers, etc. that used to help to winnow the wheat from the chaff are long gone.

So every day we are bombarded with unadulterated garbage, stories that wildly exaggerate things, stories that are misleading, stories that our outright lies.

Some people claim that because we can not access multiple news outlets with the click of a button, that we are better informed, more knowledgable. But we aren’t, because so much of the information we’re being fed is simply wrong.

Where The Hell Are The Editors????

That’s the question I’d like to ask a lot of on-line publications. And a lot of print publications as well.

Where the hell are the editors? What are they doing to earn their money? All it takes is a quick glance at most modern publications, both online and in print, and you’ll see that the answer to that question is, well, not a hell of a lot. Certainly they aren’t actually doing anything that could be considered actual ‘editing’.

Take a look at this article over at Mother Jones and you’ll see what I mean…

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/04/heart-disease-coffee-inquiring-minds

The headline reads “Science Has Some Awesome News for Coffee Drinkers”, with the tag line “It (probably) won’t kill you.” beneath it. But that’s not what the article is about.

Okay, sure, the first four paragraphs do talk about caffeine consumption and the fact that studies have failed to show any link between moderate coffee consumption and heart problems. But that’s old news. Very old news. We’ve known that for years now. While the Marcus study is new, it certainly doesn’t warrant more than a paragraph or two because it’s conclusions were already pretty well known.

But that’s not what the article is really about. The stuff about caffeine is really little more than an introduction to the real story, which is an attempt to put together a massive study of heart rhythms and other data using more than a million people wearing smart watches or other electronic health monitoring devices that can send data to the scientists. 

The goal of the study is to not only gather massive amounts of data which might eventually lead to the discovery of what triggers heart rhythm events, but to also gather all kinds of other data ‘in the wild’ so to speak.

One of the major problems with gathering data from people in studies like this, is that the data almost always has to be gathered when the people are in unnatural environments which can have a dramatic effect on the data. When you put a person in a hospital or clinic environment, they experience levels of stress that can significantly alter their physiology, resulting in higher blood pressure readings, faster pulse rates, etc. Scientists would really, really like to be able gather data ‘live’, so to speak, while the person is going about their normal day, doing it as unobtrusively as possible.

So using things like smart watches to gather this data ‘in the wild’, so to speak, could be an extremely important advance in the use of these devices to gather genuinely useful health information that could lead to the ability to predict when heart events might occur, what triggers them, etc

One of the main points of the study is to try to see just how useful devices like smart watches can be in doing serious studies about health.

So, what’s wrong with the story? Well, just about everything, really. The editor who came up with the headline obviously never actually read it the whole article. He or she saw the first couple of paragraphs about coffee, and never bothered to read the rest of it, hence the misleading headline.

And the article itself is at fault.

One thing they drilled into us in journalism classes in college and later when I was actually working as an editor, was that every story has to have one, and only one, major topic. Your story can’t be about this and that. It’s about this. Period. Everything in that article has to be directly related in some way to the main topic.

This story is about two entirely different things. First is the ‘beats’ study that found caffeine did not effect heart rhythm. That took up about four paragraphs.

But more than half of the article is about the Health eHeart study, involving smart devices and how important it could be for medical research, and it has nothing to do with the first four paragraphs dealing with the caffeine study. 

So we have a wildly misleading headline, we have a story that can’t make up it’s mind what it’s actually talking about. We have writing chock full of cliche phrases like ‘what they learned might surprise you’ that should never, ever make their way into print…

So I’ll repeat the question: Where the hell are the editors???

Yo, MJ editors? I’m extending a personal invitation to all of you. Come on up to Wisconsin for a visit sometime. My neighbor said I can use his woodshed…