>>the advent of chemical non-sugar sweeteners, which in recent decades are turning out to be just as harmful as sugar, only differently.
requires citations. People lump sugar substitutes together as one class of drugs, but they very much are not. Some are sugar alcohols, some are glycosides, others are different molecules. Different molecules have different mechanisms of action and paths of metabolism.
Much like one might take a "blood pressure" medication, it is a large umbrella consisting of chemically distinct ACE-inhibitors, ARBs, thiazide diuretics, loop diuretics, calcium channel blockers (dihydropyridine and non-dihydropyridine distinctly), and more. These drugs generally do have class effects, but the class effects from an ACE inhibitor (bradykinin cough, angioedema, etc) are quite different from diuretics (hyponatremia, frequent urination, etc). One person's 'blood pressure medicine' is not the same as the next.
I agree that the prevalence of sugar substitutes in the western diet demands scrutiny, and I am concerned about their effects, however any current research lumping them all together without strict attention to pharmacological mechanisms supported by translational research is worse than useless - it is misleading.
In the sense of what we 'know' about modern medicine, we 'know' almost nothing about sugar substitutes. The body of evidence is vanishingly thin. I want more research into this topic, but right now, it's just not there.
I'm not providing citations for my tangent here; it's too far off-thread and I'm investing my academic research free time into WtHR instead (see elsethread).
Sure but that's a one time vector. If the attacker didn't infiltrate the LLM before it generated the code, then the code is not going to suddenly go hostile like an npm package can.
Though you will see the code at least, when you are copy pasting it and if it is really only a few lines, you may be able to review it. Should review it of course.
The difference is, the dependency can change and is usually way harder to audit. Subfolders in subfolder, 2 lines here in a file, 3 line there vs locking at some files and check what they do.
I think, though, that the underlying assumption is that the old virus hangs out, forever waiting for the moment to strike.
Cells senesce and die and get replaced, and the immune system is always active in the background. If the virus particles are released, the immune system is going after it and cleaning up. As essentially no new virus is being created, this is the body's opportunity to clear the virus at a slower, manageable pace where it doesn't have to contend with a rapid, expanding infection.
It feels like one of those ideas that's technically true in all the right ways, but misses one crucial piece that would make the whole thing accurate.
> Cells senesce and die and get replaced, and the immune system is always active in the background. If the virus particles are released, the immune system is going after it and cleaning up. As essentially no new virus is being created, this is the body's opportunity to clear the virus at a slower, manageable pace where it doesn't have to contend with a rapid, expanding infection.
If this really applied to HIV, then people with HIV who take effective antivirals for long enough would be cured. But they generally aren't.
I'm sorry, but you are an order of magnitude out of touch with the average American consumer. Average savings balance under the age of 64 is below $73k.[1] Median savings is below $9k. Most people will, outside of their retirement savings, never have access to an account that has over $100,000 in it.
Never.
Not one day in their life.
Median household income is $80k/yr.[2] Personal savings rate is under 5%.[3] As is noted in the title of the article, there are two Americas.
Yes, generally the only people who would be able to withdraw $50k from a savings account are people who are well-off enough to have $50k in a non-retirement savings account. Doesn't it follow, then, that such a person would be seen by the bank as a "well-off customer" and thus enjoy higher withdrawal thresholds?
I don't think the OP ever purported to be doing something the 'average American consumer' would be doing, just relating their experiences to the linked article.
They don't have access to an account with 100k in it because that would generally be pointless for a normal person. A great deal of people have 100k in clear real estate or stocks. Only a moron leaves 100k sitting doing nothing but wait for it to get inflated to oblivion.
Haha, a bit snide but not inaccurate. Over the year I had that money in there gaining nothing, I lost thousands of dollars of value. Even just putting it into a HYSA would have been better.
Haven't seen anyone mention this yet: there is a difference between "listed employees" vs. "full time employees" (FTEs) vs. "full time employee equivalents" (FTEEs). In this very specific case, physicians/providers often work 0.125-0.875 (i.e. one hour to seven hours of an 8 hour day) for one entity (say, their primary teaching hospital), and the remainder for another entity (the university where they are also an listed as adjunct professor, etc.).
You could have 10,000 employees, however 4,000 of them are physicians/providers, 3,000 of whom work less than full time for that entity. So you are looking at 10,000 employees, but some number between 7,000 and 9,999 FTEEs. These are very different, and very relevant, numbers when looking at healthcare organizations.
"Methodology & Definitions
Staff Headcount
Staff headcounts include all regular, benefits-eligible university employees. With rare exceptions, employees must be appointed at 50% FTE (full-time equivalent) or more for at least six consecutive months in order to be eligible for benefits. The Professoriate and employees of SLAC are not included. Employees with multiple jobs are counted only in the job that is tied to their benefits, typically the one with the largest number of standard hours."
The sibling comments are very relevant, but I wanted to provide a marginally different perspective. You have to take not only what is being said, but _who is saying it_ into perspective.
In this case, this is a government official speaking to the press (i.e. in an official capacity). If they were to say "this was sabotage," that is a definite declaration that the government believes - again, officially and on the record - that an outside party has deliberately done material damage to their country. Given the general situation, it is not a huge leap to come to the interpretation that "this was an attack against our country, and possibly an act of war."
No government official would want to be within miles (or kilometers) of that sort of statement unless they have pretty much already internally decided from the top-down to escalate the situation. Almost no single government agent has the authority to escalate the situation in that manner. So what we end up with is "appears to be." This overtly says 'all available evidence points to this being the case, however something else cannot be ruled out.' (As a sibling comment suggests, it can also act as a type of propaganda). So it is not an official government declaration that another nation has damaged them, but they have reasons (probably both apparent and not) to believe what they are saying publicly.
>>"We don't say negative things about the art or the artist. Our stated goal is to collect, exhibit, and celebrate this art that would be appreciated nowhere else."
Perhaps this is a 'whoosh' moment for me, but it seems that by simply housing the art in the Museum of /Bad/ Art, you are certainly saying something quite negative about the art and the artist.
The "Bad" is just a playful endearment, not an attempt to establish a definitive collection. Discarded as they were, van Gogh's or Kafka's works could have just as easily been part of this... had they been found behind dumpsters or at flea markets in the Boston area.
So I actually shave my beard every time I get a haircut (so, let's say every 8 weeks).
What does 'recent' mean, since you have already acknowledged that temporal recency is irrelevant? When am I traveling? What's accurate to my current appearance? What if I started a cancer treatment that renders me unable to grow a beard?
Your flippant reply ignores reality, and these aren't even edge cases.
If you are applying for a new passport where you are needing these photos, the common sense logic from the person accepting/rejecting them would be do the photos look like the person in front of them. No? Reject. Yes? Accept. The flow chart is pretty simple.
The frequency of your grooming habits AFTER receiving a passport are irrelevant to the actual approval of a passport. This doesn't need to be hard.
> do the photos look like the person in front of them
To what ridiculous extent do you take that, though? You must be wearing the same clothes? You must be made-up in the exact same way? I think it's pretty clear that the test should be "is it obvious that the person in the photo is the same as the person in front of you" and somebody with a beard does look like themself, even when they shave that beard.
Of course, this raises other interesting questions: is it OK for you to use a photo of your identical twin?
I'm not a cuber or a puzzle guy or a math guy, but I am curious: how do you know when it's solved? Or is this a 'whoosh' moment and I'm missing the obvious?
when it's solved you look at all blocks on a face from the same angle, so they all have the same color. the problem is, while you are solving you don't know from which angle you need look at one block. you see a red one on one face, and another red one on another, and when you bring them together you realize that you looked at one of them from the wrong angle and they don't actually match. so effectively you need more moves until you find the right block.
>>I wonder though what things look like with super high dimensions.
You need only look to healthcare in the USA. Many, many professionals (some of which you never interact with) handing off patient cases to each other in a very carefully choreographed dance designed to meet legal and regulatory requirements; quality, safety, and care standards; financial responsibilities; and each individual's own personal standards for the quality of care they believe they provide.
In healthcare, we often view risks using the Swiss Cheese Model [1]. Everyone makes mistakes sometimes, but the system of checks and balances catches most of them before they reach the patient. Prescriber ordered the wrong dose of medicine in the inpatient setting? Pharmacy intercepts and starts making calls or sending messages to verify. Pharmacy approves the order because "that's what they ordered?" Nursing lays hands and eyes to every medicine administered and can 'stop the line' if they deem appropriate. Not to mention the technical safeguards and guardrails (e.g., clinical decision support systems) that are also supporting everyone involved.
But still, failures happen, and they can be catastrophic.
>>the advent of chemical non-sugar sweeteners, which in recent decades are turning out to be just as harmful as sugar, only differently.
requires citations. People lump sugar substitutes together as one class of drugs, but they very much are not. Some are sugar alcohols, some are glycosides, others are different molecules. Different molecules have different mechanisms of action and paths of metabolism.
Much like one might take a "blood pressure" medication, it is a large umbrella consisting of chemically distinct ACE-inhibitors, ARBs, thiazide diuretics, loop diuretics, calcium channel blockers (dihydropyridine and non-dihydropyridine distinctly), and more. These drugs generally do have class effects, but the class effects from an ACE inhibitor (bradykinin cough, angioedema, etc) are quite different from diuretics (hyponatremia, frequent urination, etc). One person's 'blood pressure medicine' is not the same as the next.
I agree that the prevalence of sugar substitutes in the western diet demands scrutiny, and I am concerned about their effects, however any current research lumping them all together without strict attention to pharmacological mechanisms supported by translational research is worse than useless - it is misleading.
In the sense of what we 'know' about modern medicine, we 'know' almost nothing about sugar substitutes. The body of evidence is vanishingly thin. I want more research into this topic, but right now, it's just not there.
reply