and_dont_blink OP t1_jegs46z wrote

> So any person who assess by what the data says, then it's not just choosing the less "iffy", it was choosing a company who has done a good as a job as Bombardier...

The issue here is yo're talking about things like technical proposal scores -- what they say they'll deliver and what they can conceivably deliver.

If we go by iffy, it was that they bid $567M with the other bids being in the $800-$1B range. CNR makes a lot of rolling stock, but not primarily for the western world and when they started there were serious, serious issues. It put MA in the position of having to then defend asbestos being found on trains, and faulty brakes and a failure rate double the rest of the fleet.

...and that's before you get to the human rights issues of a company ostensibly spun out from the government. We face a similar issue with things like solar panels unfortunately.


and_dont_blink OP t1_jefyf8y wrote

It would likely be cheaper to scrap it entirely and just have them build the train cars and ship them. We saw that with the initial bids given -- they were essentially "we don't want to do this, so will give a bid so high you'll have to turn it down because it won't make sense." That's how bad the situation we've created is.


and_dont_blink OP t1_jedhs4b wrote

>I have to note that the line "even the ones that already had factories in the USA" sounds off to me. I believe Manufacturers that have already factories in the US are even more disinclined to build a factory in MA, not less disinclined.

They were, they were completely uninterested because they already had facilities and had no desire to build more in MA, it simply made no real sense. It made no sense for the foreign countries that they couldn't build them there and then ship them.

This was all MA's doing -- first proposed by Gov Deval Patrick -- in mandating that they had to be built in MA in exchange for giving up federal money. Bombardier, Kawasaki, Hyundai, etc. all basically gave "no thank you" bids which left two Chinese companies. MA went with the less "iffy" of the two who was promptly bought by the other.

So here we are, all for less than 200 union jobs.


and_dont_blink t1_je2ivq4 wrote

>Check the rest of my comment history and age if you're so obsessed with who i am.

I did, your account was recently created, has 11 karma and most of it came from commenting all over this one post.

I scanned your reply,and while I'd normally ask forfor the fourth time if you happen to know anyone involved with this study I'll leave that for others.

>You mentioned the "larger" tart cherry study showing no effect and that this study was going against it. If the tart cherry study used actual juice,

The study itself mentioned it, which you showed you hadn't thoroughly read. You're being disingenuous enough here it's time for me to move on, you have a great day.


and_dont_blink t1_je1ooxw wrote

>Why would i be involved in the study?

...most people don't have a newly-created throaway almost entirely devoted to one post. It's fascinating, you are all throughout only these comments on a newly created account

It's interesting, so I'm trying to work out as to why -- and you won't actually say no. For the third time, were you involved with the study in any way, or know the authors?

>Because I'm calling out the fact that you omitted information that would render your initial comment entirely pointless had you included it?

I don't believe you did, there being a washout isn't really relevant for my points and something is lost in translation.


and_dont_blink t1_je1exd2 wrote

>As far as i know, edits are visible on browser.

...that isn't how this works, there's no track changes.

Again, were you involved in this study in any way?

>There's no way 25g of a powder adds 92g of carbs and takes up nearly 30% of someone's carb intake unless they eat only around 70g per day.

You should take that up with the authors. They would have to be wrong at multiple points, and they have the dietary data.


and_dont_blink t1_je1e1o7 wrote

>I agree with the other poster.

That's nice, Scientific_Methods. I'll note the other poster showed in their comment they hadn't actually read the study thoroughly.

>This isn’t an ideal study but you’re being disingenuous or didn’t really understand the study design.

I very much did.

>The washout happened prior to either control diet or wild blueberry supplemented diet.

That isn't really relevant given all the diet changes, and how loose the study is in general. Plenty of fields have similar issues with the expense and hassle required to do things to the point where you have a strong result, but that doesn't mean a weak result really tells us much it more means someone needed to graduate and it's not very likely to be replicated.

>I would take this study to mean that eating colorful fruits is likely to help you burn more fat.

I wouldn't take this as relevance of much of anything honestly, but we can agree to disagree.


and_dont_blink t1_jdzcy5e wrote

>Edit 2: added more stuff because this comment is a horrible analysis of the OP study

needtofigureshitout, you don't seem to be aware that others don't see when you make a bunch of edits to your comments.

>Tart cherry is primarily investigated for recovery, not fat oxidation. Cite your source?

It's literally in the actual published article we're talking about, of which you said my analysis was "horrible" but which I actually read and comprehended. Open the article at the top of the page and search for "cherry." Best of luck.

Edit: Dear lord, this account is brand new, has 13 karma and almost their entire comment history is all over this one story... Interesting.

Are you involved with the study in any way, needtofigureshitout? If so I have some questions about the authorship and how it went from being someone's master's thesis in 2019 to someone else's paper, and how most of their committee ended up as authors?


and_dont_blink t1_jdwls0m wrote

Theyre actually freeze dried blueberry powder donated from the Wild Blueberry Association of North America. I'd not only take this study with a grain of salt, Id buy a stake in a salt mine:

>This was a non-randomized, quasi-experimental, free-living trial.

It was 11 people, aerobically trained, that they saw three times over the course of a month. For two weeks they ate whatever they wanted, but were asked to avoid eating a whole bunch of things like red wine, green tea, and any fruits and veg with dark or bright colors -- but to also eat the freeze-dried blueberry powder. They also changed their fluid intake over the few days leading up to testing...

In some, their diet changed quite a bit over the two weeks -- with the blueberry powder then becoming 30% of their carb intake.

It goes against a larger study that did it for 20 days and found no effect (using tart cherry juice) for these compounds with recreationally-active adults, but their thought is it's because they weren't at the same athletic level (this study removed participants who couldn't hit certain cycling metrics, even if they thought of themselves as active) or because they used a different exercise protocol... This study had people getting up to speed then stopping quite a bit for tests (like every 10 minutes IIRC). I'll leave that as an exercise to the reader as to why that could change things...

Weirder, this study introduced an overnight fast of 12 hours before the exercise. We know from previous studies that not eating for a period of time and then exercising hard will increase fat oxidization. If you can see how that could end up with weird results with only 11 people...

So yeah, a salt mine.

Edit: typos

Edit 2: Pointed out some strangeness with the authorship in another comment here.


and_dont_blink t1_jdwdpxc wrote

>This seems like a troll comment,

In what possible way?

> There is a lot of middle ground between the status quo and a full car ban.

Odd, what I replied to didn't seem to have any middle ground -- they took a car smashing into a building and instead tried to make it about bicycles lol


and_dont_blink t1_jbbcual wrote

I/2 seems really high based on my experience, is there any source for this? I know people who bike in during the warmer months, and only one that really swaps out their tires for studs and goes all-in in case of ice etc. I see it going from clusters in May and June to just a handful to often none -- though some decide to walk or drive instead. That's anecdotal so I'd be interested in where you're seeing it.


and_dont_blink t1_jb4ckqh wrote


But yes, a new age began when Roy Rogers passed in 1998. A darker age, where that same year google was incorporated and new, harder-to-counterfeit $20 bills were introduced into circulation. A severe ice storm in Canada rendered millions without power, Quebec was told they couldn't secede and Iraq prevented UN weapons inspectors from their searches leading to Clinton ordering airstrikes. He protected us as long as he could, and at reasonable prices.

Edit: hold tight friends, legend says the once and future cowboy will return to us one day


and_dont_blink t1_jae53d1 wrote

>You’re wrong and you’re trying to save face, and it’s embarrassing to watch you squirm.

Generally CommonNotCommons, the person calling names and making insinuations isn't in the right but rather trying to bluster. It's not a good look mate.

You are correct that Boston is an outsized economic presence in the state, but you act as though it's responsible for everything and it simply isn't. You've given no reason for why the rest of the state should be kicking in money to pay for Boston's train system running amok, and by your own logic they shouldn't need it.

They could simply issue bonds or add an additional tax. Problem solved. If we can agree that Boston shouldn't take money from the state for it's train system, there's no issue. You don't really have any other arguments, just vitriol.

>Jesus christ I’ve had it with you morons.

Take care, but I'd point out when people resort to name calling and ad hominems they're basically telegraphing they aren't confident in their arguments, are unhappy about it, and lack the maturity to handle it.