Aller au contenu

Séverine B

Utilisateur
 Afficher le profil  Parcourir son contenu

  • Compteur de contenus

    2 859

  • Inscription

  • Dernière visite

  • Jours gagnés

    1

 Type de contenu 

Messages postés par Séverine B

  4. Traductions pour Contrepoints, Wikiberal et autres

    dans Action !

    Posté

    Up

     

    Le 26/11/2017 à 15:33, Lexington a dit :

    Un énorme merci à tous nos traducteurs ! C'est assez impressionnant la belle hausse des derniers temps

     

    J'en profite pour faire un petit retour bienveillant et générique : DeepL est un outil puissant, efficace, et qui permet un rendu très acceptable. Mais les standards de Contrepoints sont d'un niveau particulièrement élevé sur les traductions comme sur le reste et une relecture humaine est indispensable. Donc n'hésitez pas à utiliser cet outil mais une relecture humaine avec correction des incohérences et petites erreurs est indispensable. Faites le bien avant d'envoyer vos textes à la rédaction, c'est là toute votre valeur ajoutée, votre créativité et votre talent !

     

    Pour des raisons évidentes de temps, les journalistes de l'équipe ne peuvent le faire à chaque traduction donc ne nous envoyez pas de textes traduits depuis DeepL que vous n'auriez pas relus et corrigés attentivement :)

     

    Je pense que vous le faites déjà tous mais c'est un rappel de l'extrême importance de le faire :)

     

    Merci encore pour vos contributions remarquables

     

  5. Traductions pour Contrepoints, Wikiberal et autres

    dans Action !

    Posté

    @NoName

    Sorry : il manque un morceau de trad :

     "

    Gillespie: You know, you describe an early battle over many of these questions between academic nutritionists who overwhelming took the energy balance approach to nutrition: you lose weight of you burn more calories than you take in versus what they characterize as quack doctors who writing diet fad books that you can eat all the fat you wan. And yet you say the quacks were actually closer to being right.

    Taubes: So you have an academic research community that dominated post-World War II in the U.S. by nutritionists, who are studying animals for the most part. 1959, '60, Rosalyn Yalow and Solomon Berson invent the technology that allows hormones to be measured accurately and the school of endocrinology explodes. The science of endocrinology finally has the tools they need to understand things like hormonal regulation of fat accumulation. Yalow and Berson say, look, insulin drives fat accumulation, so maybe this link between type two diabetes and obesity, maybe the type two diabetics are obese because of the insulin. And nobody cares, except the doctors.

    The doctors are like all of us. They're getting fat, right? What do you do if you're getting fat? Well, you try what everyone tells you to do, which is eat less and exercise more and if that doesn't work, which it doesn't, then, if you're smart, you look for other methods. Some of them read the diet book literature and try various diets. Some of them actually read the same medical literature I did, so Atkins famously read the same studies I read 40 years later. Maybe if I get rid of the carbohydrates and replace it with fat, because fats are the one macro-nutrient that doesn't stimulate insulin secretion, maybe I'll lose weight.

    If you try it and it works-

    Gillespie: So it is a place where kind of people outside of the official research community were desperate to get skinny or have their patients get skinny so they tried a bunch of different things?

    Taubes: They try a bunch of different things. When you find one that works, after a lifetime of failing ... Obesity is one of these subjects where it helps to have a weight problem. If you don't understand what it's like to get fatter and fatter, year in and year out, regardless of what you do, or to be 50 pounds fatter than your schoolmates in high school regardless of what you do, you just don't understand obesity.

    Gillespie: You're a trim guy. Were you a fat load at some point?

    Taubes: Nah, I was chubby when I was a kid. It was one of the interesting things, cause my brother who is a mathematician was ... you could see every vein on his body, and I was a chubby. He was taller and thin. He couldn't gain weight if he wanted to, and I was just a chubby kid. Puberty helped and then I became an athlete and that helped. But my brother at his peak was 6'5" and weighed about 195 was a rower. Remember Freud said anatomy is destiny. So he rowed crew. I was 6'2" and could get up to 240, and I played football. We both ate as much as we could. That's what we did. We were kids. He was tall and thin. I was short and thick. Not ... shorter and thick. That's just how we were built. I often wonder it's like why would you possibly think that I was thicker than him because I ate more or exercised less. I was just thicker than him. That was my body.

    Gillespie: In the book, you document a long history of public nutrition advice being intertwined with politics in this country. So let's talk about the sugar lobby. How did king sugar get its crown in the American economy and kind of in the American diet?

    Taubes: Well, sugar used to be very expensive and hard to get. It's hard to grow. It only grows in specific and tropical regions. You can't just transport the sugar cane around the world and then refine the sugar out of it afterwards. You've got to get the sugar out quickly on refining. It's a horrible job.

    Gillespie: It was done by slaves.

    Taubes: It was done by slaves. The sugar industry is at the heart of the slave trade. The industrial revolution comes along. Now beginning in the late 18th Century and suddenly sugar gets cheaper and cheaper to refine. 1840s the candy industry, the chocolate industry and the ice cream industry all start up. In the 1870s, 1880s, you get the soft drink industry with Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Cola and Dr. Pepper and suddenly not only are you creating entirely new ways to consume sugar and new vehicles to do it, and you can consume it all day long, you are targeting children and women as the consumers of sugar, children specifically. The soft drink industry in particular just explodes.

    By 1900, we're consuming about 90 pounds per capita, which is almost a 20-fold increase in a century. Every industry, it's like an arms race, every industry, the nutritionist say, no, no, no, no, no, and the marketers say "If we don't do it also, we're out of business." They fall one after another. By the 1960s, you've got cereals that are 40, 50 percent sugar-

    Gillespie: And that are advertising as such. Right? This is like Sugar Smacks. It was originally Sugar Frosted Flakes.

    Taubes: Tastes like a milk shake. You've got all of the smartest minds on Madison Avenue in the PR industry creating not just cartoon characters to sell but entire Saturday morning cartoons, the ones we grew up on, like Rocky and Bullwinkle. I loved Rocky and Bullwinkle. It was a vehicle to sell cereal.

    Gillespie: Gosh, I didn't realize. So in the Hague trial of cartoon characters against humanity, Rocky and Bullwinkle are as bad as Boris and Natasha then?"

  10. Traductions pour Contrepoints, Wikiberal et autres

    dans Action !

    Posté

    à l’instant, Bisounours a dit :

    il n'a pas déjà été publié celui-là ?

    autrement je veux bien essayer, si j'arrive à le transférer sur wp, pour le dernier j'y suis pas arrivé, chais pas où j'ai merdé :(

    Je ne l'ai pas vu...

    Ne t'embête pas à transférer sur WP : tu peux copier-coller ici. Je le mettrai ensuite sur WP.

     

  16. Traductions pour Contrepoints, Wikiberal et autres

    dans Action !

    Posté

    Le 11/03/2018 à 11:05, Johnathan R. Razorback a dit :

    Petite digression: n'y a-t-il pas une erreur de numérotation dans la série d'articles de Laurent Pahpy ? Sur la page d'accueil de Contrepoints on passe direct de l'épisode 3 au 6: https://www.contrepoints.org/2018/03/11/311438-comment-redonner-de-la-liberte-aux-agriculteurs-6

    Merci d'avoir vérifié. Bien me tagger, ainsi que F.mas pour qu'on pense à venir voir ce sujet.

    Le 11/03/2018 à 12:35, Bisounours a dit :

    ah oui, tiens..... bon ben j'ai remis de l'ordre dans ce chaos

    Alors non il n'y avait AUCUN problème : si ce n'est un couac pendant la semaine dans le découpage des articles, qui m'a obligée à réintervenir sur le découpage et donc la numérotation. Du coup, elle est dans le désordre, mais il fallait laisser les numéros tels quels. 

    J'espère que rien n'a été changé car j'ai passé plus d'1/2 heure dessus :( Je n'ai pas le temps d'intervenir, ayant déjà passé plus de temps que prévu là-dessus. Il ne fallait pas tenir compte des dates mais du texte d'origine SVP. Je vous remercie de rétablir l'ordre scrupuleux de l'article d'origine et non en suivant les dates.

  21. De la difficulté de vulgariser la science

    dans Science et technologie

    Posté

    Il y a 13 heures, Lancelot a dit :

    Alors c'est HS mais @Séverine B a aussi posé cette problématique en ces termes l'autre jour et ça me donne des flashbacks du caté :

     

    Comme quoi où ça va se loger...

    Ah ben mince alors ! Si j'avais su ce que ça allait t'inspirer, je me serais abstenue :D

    Cela dit, à propos du HS, c'est la limite de la langue française avec le mot "pourquoi" qui signifie tout autant "pour quelle raison" (=quelle cause) que "dans quel but". L'allemand a 2 mots pour ça : warum/wozu. Même l'anglais a why et what for. Mais on utilise souvent le mot le plus simple et la discussion peut partir en vrille à cause des esprits chafouins... ;) 

×
×
  • Créer...