Always the final resort to “you’re arguing in bad faith”… You have no more idea what motivates me than I have about you, so why bother making this unfalsifiable accusation? Anyway. You have expressed what you don’t understand about my argument, just as I’ve already expressed what I don’t understand about yours, as well as I possibly can. Nobody else is listening. Let’s just leave it there.

Obese means fat, not just overweight. The fact that there are twice as many non-obese among the poor does not make them thin! Unless it’s that people get fatter and fatter as they get poorer, until they get really poor and they suddenly they become skeletal, is that what we’re claiming? This whole talking point makes no sense and you seem rational enough to be able to admit that.

Mieux vaut un siècle en retard que jamais.

How can there be “huge swathes” of Americans who are “poorer than” the Americans who are so poor that they can only afford junk food and thus explain America’s obesity statistics. This whole talking point makes no sense.

Around a third.

Better source: 30%

This is just China being China. The way to solve this problem is for the rest of the world to get its act together and catch up with China on green tech.

Tell me that you haven’t read 1984. “War is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength”, and today “obesity is hunger”, apparently.

Yes, that was my point. The word “hunger” is being conflated with food insecurity. We all know what “hunger” means, and it is not the same thing as malnutrition or food insecurity. I don’t care if it’s been redefined by NGOs to make a (valid) point more punchy, it’s not the same thing. It’s manipulative Orwellian use of language. That’s all I have to say here.

It doesn’t “surprise” me, it’s a common talking point. I’ve been to America, including the poorer bits. I know the statistics about obesity and social class - do you?

if you are dealing with hunger

Personally I can never get past this line. Malnutrition perhaps, but nobody in the world’s richest, fattest country - where the fattest people are the poorest ones - is dealing with “hunger”. I wish we could just abstain from manipulative Orwellian language.

PS: sure, downvote away to dispel your cognitive dissonance, but that won’t magic away the correlation between poverty and literal obesity in the world’s richest country

PPS: to be clear, “hungry” is either a useless or a manipulative word. Anyone can be “hungry”, no matter how well-fed they are, so in that sense it’s a useless term. In the other sense, meaning calorie-starved, it’s obviously wrong, since the poorest US states (Mississippi et al) are also the fattest. Sorry, but nobody here is thinking straight. The issue is one of nutrition and food security, not hunger.

Now as far as China goes, I think we need to stop thinking of China as adversarial (even though it may be) and just think of it as a country out for its own interests that is not aligned with us. That does not make China our enemy, and it especially does not mean we cannot ethically consume Chinese goods.

Indeed. I’d go further and say that it’s downright ethical to consume Chinese goods if those goods are solar panels and EVs and the alternative is the climate-destroying 19th-century technology that the West can’t let go of. None of this excuses totalitarian Chinese politics. But it’s entirely on us that we’ve fallen behind so badly.

Journalists should provide something more than aggregation imo, like context, commentary or even critical research.

How much did you pay for this high-quality journalism you demand so earnestly?

Too many posts in one day, you’re spamming the community.

Fair enough. But as you concede, this is all pretty subjective, which is why I objected to the “razor saddles are actually better for you” talking point which always comes from (coincidentally washboard-habituated) serious cyclists. I too am a serious cyclist, I’ve ridden all kinds of saddles, from razor washboards to recumbents. And as it happens, the most comfortable yet (recumbent aside), on which I’ve ridden 1500 km this year, including a bunch of 80 km stages, was what you dismiss as a “cushion saddle” that “will cause discomfort”. It just doesn’t. So this is all just anecdote.

Yeah, sure, that was my point. The most uncomfortable shoes are usually fine once you’ve worn them in. But the non-washboard saddle on my e-bike was not uncomfortable to start with. It didn’t hurt after the first 3 hours and it doesn’t hurt 1500km later.

Fair. So I will fall back on a better source: my butt. A few years ago I rented an expensive razor-saddled racing bike for a few days. The gluteal agony of those few days I remember better than the actual cycling. Never again.

Hardened (pun intended) cyclists will tell you that this is normal, because sit bones blah blah etc, but I think you’re right. The real reason seasoned cyclists have no issue with washboard saddles is that they use them every day and their butts have become conditioned (read: numb) to them. The simplest explanation is usually the best.

It doesn’t, at least not ergonomically. Recumbents are as comfortable as they look. I once did 80km on one, having not got on a bike for months, and felt not the slightest aches or discomfort at the end. A complete revelation.

The issues with recumbents are elsewhere: low visibility for motor traffic, difficulty of balance at very low speeds. There’s also a small risk of knee inflammation if you inadvertently pedal too hard, since the force you can put into pedalling is not limited to body weight like on an upright bike.

Amazing. As a sufferer of this problem I can’t believe I never thought of this idea myself.

A beautifully clear and well-written appeal. F-Droid is an impressive project that needs supporting.