Everyone can be discontented if he ignores his blessings and looks only at his burdens. ~Thomas S. Monson
Question #92674 posted on 10/09/2019 8:42 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

Some friends and I were discussing the honor code recently, and we realized that technically it applies to students at all times, even while they are not at BYU, which makes sense until you think about people who go home for a couple months in the summer or over winter break etc. So technically that means we should still obey curfew and dress code while we are at home or visiting anywhere else for that matter. It makes sense when you think about the law of chastity or the word of wisdom but makes no sense at all when talking about curfew or dress code. Normally one would just obey or not obey the rules their parents have, right? That isn’t something that has ever crossed our minds before, and were wondering what some more opinions on this topic are.

-Not confrontational, just deep thoughts

A:

Dear you,

A curfew is part of the honor code?

~Anathema clearly kept this part of it

A:

Dear Confront,

I have thought about this a lot. It's why I never dyed my hair a crazy color when going home for the summer and why I was afraid that my undercut would be classified ad too edgy for the HCO.

Another fun fact is that students are supposed to wear shoes in all public campus areas at all times. Which makes sense when you're talking about classes and the library, but makes considerably less sense in the cases of like, the swimming pool or the sand volleyball courts on campus.

-Quixotic Kid

A:

Dear you,

One of my professors this semester used to be Academic Vice President, and so he’s very clear about his expectations regarding how his students comply with the Honor Code. Still, on the first day of class, he made a joke about how common it is for students to come back from summer break with a beard. He didn’t seem bothered by that at all, and simply reiterated that all students should return to a state of clean-shavenness before the next class period.

My guess is that a lot of people (possibly including some administrators) have a pretty similar view: don’t ditch your standards over summer break, but you probably don’t need to stress too much about the more school-specific parts of the honor code. At least, that's how I approach it.

Best,

Josefina

Question #92683 posted on 10/09/2019 10:37 a.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

I've heard that when people who have long been vegetarians eat meat, it can make them physically ill because their bodies have lost the ability to process meat. But I can eat new kinds of meat/food without becoming physically ill, so I don't really understand how that works. Is it true?

Related, I've also heard that if a child has been brought up never eating meat, and then somebody gives them meat, it will make the child sick. But babies/toddlers who are introduced to meat at age 1 or 2 or whenever don't seem to suffer any ill effects. Is there an age up until which a child can be introduced to meat or animal products without becoming sick?

-Rainbow connection

A:

Dear Rainbow, 

I'm glad that our friend Turbo Teen has explored this for me because Pebble is vegetarian and I'm constantly anemic so that's problematic. I have to eat meat (which I discovered after not doing so for a year and constantly feeling weak) so we're trying to figure out that situation for when we get married. I'm not too worried about it, because I don't have to eat meat every day and Pebble is soooo low maintenance when it comes to food. 

That's more of a comment than an answer to your question, but I can tell you that I do know that your body does take time to adjust to new diets. We'll shoot for anecdotal evidence here. I have a friend that often went on 'juice cleanses' and would be sick for the first few days of said cleanse and would be sick again when they returned to normal food. The same goes for another friend that went from vegetarianism to meat-eating. 

Additionally, I know doctors used to encourage parents to withhold foods like peanut butter, strawberries, wheat, eggs, etc. until the infant was around 2 years old. Now, they have encouraged moderation and slowly introducing foods earlier to reduce intolerance and allergies to those foods. (See here and here

Your body is resilient, but not invincible. You can almost always change your diet, but gradually introducing or reducing foods will prevent unwanted effects of 'diet whiplash'.  

Cheers, 

Guesthouse

A:

Dear rainbow friend,

The human body is a fast learner, but it can certainly take a bit to adjust to foods that you haven't eaten for a while. There are specific enzymes in the gut that are dedicated to the digestion of animal proteins, and if you haven't eaten animal protein for a while, it's likely that your body has adjusted and reduced the amount of animal protein processing enzymes to compensate for the change in diet. Your reactions to food can be really varied and complicated. Someone who eats mostly junk food could decide to eat healthy for a day, but could still feel bloated and nauseous because of the quick change to food that is more substantial or fibrous. Any change in diet can create unrest in the gastrointestinal system, but it is more than likely that you'll adjust fairly quickly.

As far as children are concerned, a balanced vegetarian diet has been shown by research to be healthy and does not contribute to any disordered eating. However, this is is only if the diet is balanced and healthy, which is still a concern even if you're going vegetarian. Children will probably do better with later adjustments if their diet is varied and balanced, but they could easily still have negative repercussions if they eat meat because of a lack of animal protein processing enzymes. Likely they'll adjust fairly quickly.

Keep it real,
Turbo Teen

Question #92439 posted on 10/09/2019 10:24 a.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

What might our daily lives, society, and government look like while (and after) adapting to robots replacing the majority of our jobs?

-Corsica S.

A:

Dear Corsica,

I really love that video, and it poses interesting questions about the future, but according to some recent research by BYU Sociology professor Eric Dahlin, robots are actually increasing the amount of jobs. We can't tell how long this trend will continue into the future, but data from the past few years suggests that this trend of increasing jobs through automation will continue at least for sometime. 

If you think about it, this makes sense. The industrial revolution took jobs from artisans and farmers and gave jobs to factory workers. Automation is removing factory jobs but creating coding, engineering, and repair technician jobs. Eventually these jobs might be replaced entirely by robots, but I seriously doubt it. Robots are a very complicated and expensive, and even with supercomputers and AI, there are a lot of jobs that haven't been replaced by robots. Take kindergarten teachers, for example. There's no way we create a robot that can handle the variety of tasks they do as well as they do anytime soon.

I think that even if we transition to an all-robot economy, the transition will be smooth because it will be gradual. Hopefully this will allow for time to figure things out without ending up in some apocalypse scenario. We've survived massive change before and I feel like we'll be equipped to handle it again.

Peace,

Tipperary

A:

Dear Colossus,

As a preview to my answer, I'm going to list some of my credentials to address it. I do this because while for most questions that come in the inbox, I'm neither particularly worse nor better qualified to answer than any other average person with access to the internet, but for this question, I do happen to have quite a bit of background. I know more about economics, and economic implications than your average person because I studied economics up to a graduate level as an undergrad. And for the automation itself, that is literally what I do for my job, and what I studied in my major at BYU. I am one of the automators. 

The video you linked to has some valid points, and some invalid, or simply skewed points. To say we should be concerned about what will happen to people during a quick transition of technology is valid. Dr. Price at BYU has conducted research into how job loss actually shortens people's lifespans because it is so stressful. And job loss can be one of the side effects of rapid adoptions of new technology. To make matter worse, oftentimes the people who are laid off don't have the requisite skills to enter into other areas of the workforce, making them unemployable. This is a problem. And as technology continues to progress, it is going to happen. However, I don't think that that jobs that could be taken over by technology are changing fast enough to create job loss on the scale described in the video.

First of all, even if there are prototypes out there that work for single demonstrations, that's a far cry from being ready for general production. Something the video doesn't acknowledge is that while automations don't have the same problems as humans, they have their own set of problems. For one, they're all eventually going to break down someday. For something like a microwave, that isn't too distressing. Yeah, it's annoying to have to replace, but it's not dangerous. Now consider a self driving car suddenly breaking down. This has a lot of potential to be dangerous. Yes, machines are more reliable than humans, but what about when they malfunction? What's the backup? For every single kind of machine that gets put into production, there are going to be malfunctions. The worse the consequences of a malfunction are, the more contingencies have to be in place. 

Once the automations are ready and safe to be put into production, it takes a lot of time for new technology to filter into companies. Even if the automations are more cost effective, companies might not have the money to purchase/produce them immediately. 

With all this time for new technology to actually permeate the market is going to come transition of the nature of jobs. Yes, what people do will be different, but around the technology, new jobs will naturally arise. Now, whether enough new jobs will arise is another question that bears a lot of research.

~Anathema

A:

Dear Corsica, 

Man, I am going to be so relaxed and have so much free time! Someone to do all my work for me? That sounds like a dream!

Cheers, 

Guesthouse

A:

Dear Corsica,

I'm not very imaginative when it comes to thinking about robots affecting the government, but I can think about how it would affect my job. Spoiler alert, it wouldn't! But that's because I'm part of the minority.

As much as FamilySearch wants you to believe, family history cannot be completed by robots calculating algorithms. The record hints found on your ancestors are mediocre at best. They focus on the name of the person, but don't focus on the place or relationships of the person. Which is a huge flaw and I've had to click 'not a match' more times than I hoped. 

As you go back to the 18th century, English is not even legible to the average person. According to one of my genealogy professors, they have been making strides to try and have robots try to read and transcribe old English handwriting. But there's been several flaws, as each document has variations for different letters. I had to take a class that taught me how to read documents in secretary hand like this...

Script.png

(Source)

Then they introduce other types of script and periodically get harder if they're water damaged, faded, or have ink splatters on them. Plus spelling wasn't standardized back then! 

So technically robots could replace my job, it would be expensive and inefficient as we'd need someone to verify the accuracy of the robots' work. Plus you need a human brain to analyze multiple sources together and weigh which one is more reliable than others. With those sources, they need to see which of the four John Elliotts was the correct John Elliott who married Elizabeth Smith... and they all happened to live in the same city at the same time.

Yay! I'm not going to lose my job! Even in the Millennium!

But I agree with Guesthouse, I would be all in for the extra time. More time for naps! And 100 Hour Board parties!

-Goldie Rose

Question #92687 posted on 10/09/2019 8:23 a.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

What's your favorite thing about Halloween?

-Hocus Pocus

A:

Dear Hoopy Spoopy,

My best memories from Halloween are going trick-or-treating with my younger brother. In my neighborhood, there weren't a lot of kids that trick-or-treated, so our neighbors didn't mind me going even though I was a little bit older.

Also, trading candy and making little candy forts Halloween night is the jam.

-Spooklings

A:

Dear Hocus Bogus,

November 1st.

But I can tell you my favorite things about fall besides Halloween. Plum Cider, candles, carving and painting pumpkins, sugar cookies, fall desserts, changing colors, sweaters, coats, scarves, cool weather, dark evenings, blankets, and SOUP. 

Cheers,

Guesthouse, Halloween Hater

A:

Dear you,

Spooky stories/movies, dressing up, pumpkins, decorations, seeing little kids in their costumes (they're so stinking cute!), and candy.

~Anathema

A:

Dear Hokes n Pokes,

Just like Guesthouse, November 1st. Discounted Halloween candy! It's also Day of the Dead! Ancestor remembrance day!! I want to watch Coco every November 1st and do some family history.

On a more serious note, my Mom has a thing for holiday dinner traditions, but Halloween is one tradition that my sisters and I have continued as adults. It's called the Halloween Bag Dinner. We all get together as a family and us sisters prepare it for everyone else.

The only thing that you start off on the table is your plate. No utensils, no cups, nadda. You grab slips of paper out of the bag that tells you what you get to partake of for each course. We usually blindly pick 3-4 pieces of paper for each round (depending on the total slips of paper, we don't want to make the dinner last too long). 

Now this is the fun part, the slips of paper don't just say "fork", "punch", or "corn". Each dinner item gets their own Halloween code name. 

For example: corn is witches teeth, olives are cats eyes, the fork is Jack's Pitchfork, and the roll is a tumbled tombstone. (Points for alliteration.) The possibilities are endless! Some of the names stay the same because of tradition, and others rotate (usually the dessert). Before I became lactose intolerant, the traditional dessert was a mini cheesecake that used candy corn to make a pumpkin face. Alas, we don't do that dessert anymore. 

My nieces and nephews range from ages 6 months to 6 years old. Not all of them participate, but the older ones think it's a blast.

It's quite fun since you could possibly get your dessert first and your main course last. You may get your utensils and napkin in the very beginning and starve until the second course, or the utensils are the last thing you get. You got your soup but lack a spoon? Well, I guess your manners go out the window and it's acceptable to slurp your soup! It's fun to see what everyone gets to eat first and in what order. I highly recommend anyone to start this tradition.

-Goldie Rose

A:

Dear hokey pokey,

I'm with Guesthouse on this one. I do not like Halloween, and I don't think it deserves to be a holiday. There is nothing virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy about it. 

That is all.

Sincerely,

Cerulean

A:

Dear Hocus Pocus,

I like that it gives my roommates and I an excuse to get absurdly festive, decorate our apartment, and forget homework for a night to go party. (For clarity—by "party" I mean getting together with five-ish friends, eating food, and maybe playing a game or something if we're getting fancy. I’m an engineer, don’t expect too much of me.) My parents also usually send me some pretty adorable pictures of my little siblings all dressed up in their costumes on Halloween night.

Plus, pumpkin chocolate-chip cookies and pumpkin spice candles.

Best,

Josefina

A:

Dear HP,

Reese's Pumpkins.

Love,

Luciana