The section on nutrition essentially is a “mainstream-advice data dump,” because I am not a professional nutritionist, so my judgments would likely be less accurate than mainstream advice. Analyzing each review or meta-analysis on diet individually would take far too long, and I didn’t want to simply link to the Harvard School of Public Health, because they give too much irrelevant (though interesting) information, and their articles seem somewhat poorly organized.
Could you explain what’s wrong with place-holders? When I do happen to find articles explain topics accurately, I see no reason to repeat what they have already said.
As for the eye-rolling parts, I kept them just in case somehow someone missed the obvious, which can happen. For those who didn’t miss the obvious, they can easily skim those parts.
Perhaps it would be beneficial to use a unary numeral system when discussing topics on which biases like scope insensitivity, probability neglect, and placing too much weight on outcomes that are likely to occur. Using a unary numeral system could prevent these biases by presenting a more visual representation of the numbers, which might give readers more intuition on them and thus be less biased about them. Here’s an example: “One study found that people are willing to pay $80 to save || 1000 (2,000) birds, but only $88 to save |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 1000 (200,000 birds).”
Edit: Made it a bit easier to read.