I've absolutely done this.

This post title is poorly worded. As is, it reads that experts are saying that Fifa is claiming that the Qatar World Cup was carbon neutral. It should say something closer to, "Fifa claims 'experts' deem Qatar World Cup carbon neutral."

The actual heading of the article: "Qatar World Cup: Fifa's carbon neutrality claim 'misleading and incredibly dangerous'". It's also from November 2022.

Congratulations.

Good news, but ultimately moot if their government doesn't do anything about it.

As best as I can tell, "free sugar" is "more sugar than you would encounter naturally." For instance, fruit juices use way more fruits than you would normally eat in one sitting, whereas just plain old fruit isn't considered "free sugar." It's not incredibly clear to me either, though.

> The definition of free sugars includes: all added sugars in any form; all sugars naturally present in fruit and vegetable juices, purées and pastes and similar products in which the structure has been broken down; all sugars in drinks (except for dairy-based drinks); and lactose and galactose added as ingredients. The sugars naturally present in milk and dairy products, fresh and most types of processed fruit and vegetables and in cereal grains, nuts and seeds are excluded from the definition.

Do you mean just in general? I'm in edutech and we're working on the development of a tool that will build personalized lesson plans for teachers using something similar to ChatGPT. So there's one thing for you!

Here you go: https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0164993/

>There's no reason to have two axis on one graph like that, unless you're intentionally trying to be disingenuous.

Not completely true -- it's somewhat common to have two vertical axes in a graph that's trying to show a correlation between two charts. However, when those axes are showing the same unit, then yes, it does seem like it would be intentionally misleading. This graph in particular was justifiably criticized for its misleading nature.

Blonde is also wildly inaccurate, just FYI.

> Around 80% of those surveyed responded.

Holy cow that's an incredible response rate! Were responses incentivized in any way?

Indeed. He's 98. I'm about [Jimmy Carter's age]% certain that he isn't out swinging hammers with Habitat for Humanity anymore but he was before COVID at least.

"Oops! I accidentally wrote in fake earnings on my tax documents! Talk about a real whoopsy doodle!"

I'm not even sure why you would do that. Wouldn't this mean that you end up getting taxed more than what you should?

Sounds like attempted(?) tax fraud to me.

I will still be saying "gross" whenever someone brings up "mouthfeel." Join the passive crusade!

Fair enough! I feel better now about my discomfort knowing that it was Charles who did it.

... I'll be perfectly honest, I don't see how that answers the question, and for whatever reason your use of tongues and thighs in the description makes me a bit uncomfortable. I still don't understand the difference between "texture," aka "the feel, appearance, or consistency of a surface or substance," and "mouthfeel," aka "the physical sensations in the mouth produced by a particular food."

I even googled it and most explanations appear to boil down to "texture is a part of mouthfeel, but mouthfeel is different," and then say nothing else about it. These articles describe "mouthfeel" using words that are just different textures or tastes, like "oily" or "acidic." The Wikipedia entry for "mouthfeel" even described "texture" as being a synonym to "mouthfeel."

As a result of these last 5 or so minutes of research, I will be taking it upon myself to passively crusade against the use of "mouthfeel," as it makes me inexplicably uncomfortable. Some people hate the word "moist," and I now hate the word "mouthfeel." Any time "mouthfeel" comes up from hence forth, I will be interjecting a quick "gross" into the conversation. Thus is my burden and my cross to bear.

Edit: I hope it's clear that my comment is quite sarcastic, especially towards the end. I'm still not super clear what it means, but ultimately it seems to boil down to some combination of taste, weight, and texture.

What's the difference between "texture" and "mouthfeel?" And why aren't "taste" or "presentation" categories?

Gentlemen, this is democracy manifest!

NGL, I kind of hate these stacked bars. It really doesn't feel like it makes sense to use here. (Or am I misinterpreting the display...?) Also, what are the percentages for the baselines? Literally none of those are labeled.

Edit: looks like I'm indeed misinterpreting them. They aren't stacked, they're overlapping. The display could certainly be more clear. My point stands on the "baseline" values needing labels, though.

Delicious.