witty_username

I thought queue came from French

Ooh haven't read that. I really like forever war

Person who forgot keys

Sorry, fixed the typo

Lol no :p I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm saying that you haven't convincingly substantiated your claims.
I was mostly hoping to find direct evidence to support the claim that amylase pre-treated oat-water is more destabilizing to blood sugar levels than non pre-treated. I'm getting the impression that you don't know of any.
That is not to say that your claim is wrong, just that it is, at best, merely supported by indirect evidence.
Edit: typo

Thanks for the ref.

higher initial maltose content means a higher spike

Based on your ref, I'm not convinced that this is truly the case though. I think this may be more relevant to your point:
https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fbf01092074

I see where you're coming from and I didn't mean to misrepresent your argument.
I am wondering about the following though:

the controlled enzymatic conversion by adding amylase breaks down a lot more of the oat starch than what would normally happen while eating and digesting

On what basis do you say this? Do you know literature that shows this? Are blood sugar levels clearly impacted differently by oat-water starches with and without amylase treatment?

Yes. In fact, human saliva contains amylase. Also, coke is way less calory-dense than regular milk.
I keep getting surprised that people seem to think that adding amylase to oat water suddenly adds calories. You merely increase the amount of simple sugars. On the whole, the calory total is stil much lower than regular milk.

"When we step back and look at it, we see that it is a de facto open ecosystem. Open ecosystems benefit from having consortiums with stakeholders, all with a voice in driving the ecosystem forward"

Lol if the x86 ISA is an open ecosystem, CocaCola is an open source beverage.
Trying to read between the lines though, is Norrod implying that they are considering moving toward a more open x86?
The impression I'm getting is that they're thinking about sacrificing various legacy features (32bit being the most obvs one) to bring performance per Watt closer to the competition. And then put in its place a more standardized successor? RIS86? They will likely aim to steer clear of formal (published) standards because they want their trade secrets. However, they will need to simultaneously ensure not to violate antitrust rules.
Might be easier for them to just forfeit trade secrets and embrace a different model altogether.