Probably not. It’s important not just to have authoritative sources, but also to explain the existence of false sources. Your failure to even notice that I had a source is disturbing. It makes me skeptical of your reading comprehension and unlikely to read sources you suggest.
Probably the cause of the discrepancy is the injection of water. I don’t know how that interacts with the other sources of data.
Moreover, I don’t care. I thought that would be obvious from the structure of my calculation.
It’s unusual to find on LW people who refuse to update on multiple pieces of evidence without contesting them, but hey, it’s your mind and you, as you said, don’t care.
Speaking of reading comprehension, your linked source says that there are 55 calories in 1 oz of boneless chicken breast, cooked, and that 1 oz of raw boneless chicken breast yields 35 calories. Now it seems to me that 35 is not one half of 55, even if you squint really hard.
How about this, will that convince you?
Probably not. It’s important not just to have authoritative sources, but also to explain the existence of false sources. Your failure to even notice that I had a source is disturbing. It makes me skeptical of your reading comprehension and unlikely to read sources you suggest.
Probably the cause of the discrepancy is the injection of water. I don’t know how that interacts with the other sources of data.
Moreover, I don’t care. I thought that would be obvious from the structure of my calculation.
There’s a lot of false information on all subjects on the internet.
It’s unusual to find on LW people who refuse to update on multiple pieces of evidence without contesting them, but hey, it’s your mind and you, as you said, don’t care.
Speaking of reading comprehension, your linked source says that there are 55 calories in 1 oz of boneless chicken breast, cooked, and that 1 oz of raw boneless chicken breast yields 35 calories. Now it seems to me that 35 is not one half of 55, even if you squint really hard.