Okay, I just finished my postgrad in nutrition and holy shit is it difficult to get any kind of straight answer out of the FDA / USDA. I'm not surprised you're confused. Secondly I'm not in the States myself, so I'm not super familiar with those guidelines and this is going to be a more general kind of answer. Third, I'm not a doctor or dietician so I can't prescribe you any kind of supplements or diet plan.
Setting aside the rampant corruption in the US food system for the moment, probably not. For a few reasons. Generally speaking, actual nutrient requirements in a population tend to follow a bell curve, where most people will be closer to the middle. RDI is set intentionally high, to cover 95% of people and reduce chances of anyone having an insufficiency. Calcium has the additional complication of having some pretty serious knock-on effects in pregnancy, so it makes some kind of sense to set the RDI high from that perspective too, because you can be pregnant without knowing. That said, the USA guidelines are pretty high compared with the rest of the world, and I have no doubt the dairy and supplement industries have something to do with that.
Regarding RDI, people tend to think the D stands for Daily. It doesn't. It stands for Dietary. The food industry doesn't do much to correct that mistake in people, however, for obvious reasons. The mg/day measurement is really meant to be used as an average over time. With most nutrients the body is clever enough to store and use them as needed, within reason. There are exceptions in, for example, pregnancy, like I mentioned above, because you're growing a whole other person. But generally speaking, it's okay to have a bit of fluctuation on a daily basis, so long as it averages out over a week or so. Your bones aren't going to instantly crumble if you're a little short for a couple days.
I do have to hedge my bets a little bit though, because there is a pretty good basis for varying guidelines across countries because of environment, lifestyle and genetic differences influencing actual biochemical calcium uptake as opposed to just dietary intake. For example, people who spend more time outside will be getting more vitamin D, and making more efficient use of the dietary calcium they do get, so they can get away with less. Vice versa if you're spending all day inside at an office job; you'll need a bit more. I'm also pretty sure USAmericans are exposed to other dietary and environmental factors that reduce calcium uptake. Sodium, for example, will reduce calcium absorption, and I -know- your food is loaded with that shit. The biochem is pretty complicated.
For practical advice, if you're really worried about it, go get a blood test, although I do realise being in the States that might be harder than it sounds. For non-animal calcium sources, dark green leafy vegetables (kale, spinach, collard greens, etc) are good, as is tofu, as well as some kinds of nuts. For some further reading, the USDA runs FoodData Central, which lets you look up the nutrient content of foods. There's also a reverse lookup of foods by nutrient content (here's calcium).
So, in summary, sort of. Your personal requirements probably aren't as high as the RDI, but there's a chance you're right at the top of that nutrient requirement bell curve. Finding out for sure means blood tests, urinalysis, food diaries and a bunch of biochem, so the RDI is intentionally set high to provide a margin of safety. It's generally not a -bad- target, but it's likely to also be pushed high by corporate interests. You probably don't need to obsess over it daily outside of some specific circumstances (e.g. pregnancy, as above). If you're eating an otherwise healthy, varied and balanced diet, getting sunlight and exercise and all that, it'll probably average out about right. If you're really worried, see a GP or dietitian.
Thanks for doing the research but I'm not in the States. They're out of stock at Anycubic here and significantly more expensive at resellers. Ender 3 V3 SE is AU$259 direct for me, whereas the Kobra is AU$368 (out of stock).
Interesting. Where I am the Kobra 3 seems to be either out of stock or ~160% the price of the Ender. Unless I'm missing a bargain somewhere.
I see auto-leveling as a nice-to-have. It's not a deal breaker for me at this point because pretty much anything is going to be an upgrade from the K7.
Cautiously optimistic. I'll never buy one, even if they do end up shipping to my country, but I'm glad it exists. Mostly for the SteamOS piece getting more Linux into more people's hands. I hope it takes off. It has potential to break MicroSoft's domination in both gaming and desktop markets. Of course Valve are still capitalists and will cave to the dollar every time (see: MasterCard forcing adult games off the store), but idk. I'm also looking forward to the wave of (maybe even marginally innovative) clones from other manufacturers like what we saw with the Steam Deck, as well as other gaming-oriented distros gaining a bit more traction. Critical support, I guess?
Other people have pointed out issues like disappearing arm and straw inconsistencies. The blue Tsingtao logo is jank (anyone using adobe should have masked that out, surely) and the zipper is also busted but I can see that just happening on a jacket like that.
If I could read Mandarin I bet it'd be an easy spot based on the signs in the background. Either way tho, it's fake as fuck.
EDIT: also just noticed the guy in the background off Beer Jacket's right shoulder. Looks like he's wearing a sling bag that just disappears halfway up his back.
This one got me too, took me ages to figure out. You might need to find a higher res version that isn't a screenshot of a screenshot, but look at the Tsingtao logo on the jacket compared to a real one. The English letters are almost perfect, only slightly off, but the Chinese characters underneath, specifically the second and fourth one, are pretty mangled. I bet some of the Chinese in the background is garbage too.
Gonna have to learn Mandarin to start spotting this shit.
Most interesting part of this article is the mention of VegaOS, which I hadn't heard of. Not because I approve of anything Amazon does, ever, but depending on how much of a Linux it actually is, the jailbreaking / homebrew potential is intriguing.
This isn't -bad- news, but I'm still not impressed. They could have just, you know, not done it in the first place. They don't get credit for partially walking back a bad decision. The "advanced flow" is more likely a dark pattern, and will still have a chilling effect on FOSS uptake and distribution, which is still the intended purpose of the change.
With shit like this I can never figure out if they're sitting there laughing at the people who buy it, or if they actually believe in what they're doing. Either way is horrifying, but I'm never sure which particular flavour of disgust I should be feeling.
Cyclonus to Tailgate, IDW Transformers comics, More Than Meets The Eye #3 (March 2012)
The IDW continuity gives Megs and the 'cons a lot more depth and relatability, but definitely resorts to some puppy kicking to avoid making them "too" relatable.
Okay, I just finished my postgrad in nutrition and holy shit is it difficult to get any kind of straight answer out of the FDA / USDA. I'm not surprised you're confused. Secondly I'm not in the States myself, so I'm not super familiar with those guidelines and this is going to be a more general kind of answer. Third, I'm not a doctor or dietician so I can't prescribe you any kind of supplements or diet plan.
Setting aside the rampant corruption in the US food system for the moment, probably not. For a few reasons. Generally speaking, actual nutrient requirements in a population tend to follow a bell curve, where most people will be closer to the middle. RDI is set intentionally high, to cover 95% of people and reduce chances of anyone having an insufficiency. Calcium has the additional complication of having some pretty serious knock-on effects in pregnancy, so it makes some kind of sense to set the RDI high from that perspective too, because you can be pregnant without knowing. That said, the USA guidelines are pretty high compared with the rest of the world, and I have no doubt the dairy and supplement industries have something to do with that.
Regarding RDI, people tend to think the D stands for Daily. It doesn't. It stands for Dietary. The food industry doesn't do much to correct that mistake in people, however, for obvious reasons. The mg/day measurement is really meant to be used as an average over time. With most nutrients the body is clever enough to store and use them as needed, within reason. There are exceptions in, for example, pregnancy, like I mentioned above, because you're growing a whole other person. But generally speaking, it's okay to have a bit of fluctuation on a daily basis, so long as it averages out over a week or so. Your bones aren't going to instantly crumble if you're a little short for a couple days.
I do have to hedge my bets a little bit though, because there is a pretty good basis for varying guidelines across countries because of environment, lifestyle and genetic differences influencing actual biochemical calcium uptake as opposed to just dietary intake. For example, people who spend more time outside will be getting more vitamin D, and making more efficient use of the dietary calcium they do get, so they can get away with less. Vice versa if you're spending all day inside at an office job; you'll need a bit more. I'm also pretty sure USAmericans are exposed to other dietary and environmental factors that reduce calcium uptake. Sodium, for example, will reduce calcium absorption, and I -know- your food is loaded with that shit. The biochem is pretty complicated.
For practical advice, if you're really worried about it, go get a blood test, although I do realise being in the States that might be harder than it sounds. For non-animal calcium sources, dark green leafy vegetables (kale, spinach, collard greens, etc) are good, as is tofu, as well as some kinds of nuts. For some further reading, the USDA runs FoodData Central, which lets you look up the nutrient content of foods. There's also a reverse lookup of foods by nutrient content (here's calcium).
So, in summary, sort of. Your personal requirements probably aren't as high as the RDI, but there's a chance you're right at the top of that nutrient requirement bell curve. Finding out for sure means blood tests, urinalysis, food diaries and a bunch of biochem, so the RDI is intentionally set high to provide a margin of safety. It's generally not a -bad- target, but it's likely to also be pushed high by corporate interests. You probably don't need to obsess over it daily outside of some specific circumstances (e.g. pregnancy, as above). If you're eating an otherwise healthy, varied and balanced diet, getting sunlight and exercise and all that, it'll probably average out about right. If you're really worried, see a GP or dietitian.