Also, there is some evidence that Vitamin D supplementation at higher than natural, higher than usually recommended levels is beneficial to mental health (but not sure if the OP article confirms it)
Like most everything around vitamin D, the causality typically is backward. Vitamin D isn't improving these people's mental health, but it turns out that if you have a healthy life that involves ample outdoor activity, you are mentally healthier.
Consider migrant workers, who spend so much time under the hot sun picking veggies, what do their Vitamin D levels and other health metrics look like?
There's no way to know without testing. The optimal supplement amount for you could be zero, or it could be even more than 4000 IU per day. This depends on genetics, diet, ultraviolet light exposure, body composition, and a variety of other factors. So, the only way to be sure is to get periodic blood tests and titrate the supplements up or down to hit the target level.
If you don't want to hassle with testing then something like 600 IU will be adequate (although not necessarily optimal) for most adults. YMMV.
According to the National Academy of Medicine, formerly known as the Institute of Medicine, 4,000 IU is the safe upper level of daily vitamin D intake. However, doses up to 10,000 IU have not been shown to cause toxicity in healthy individuals (11Trusted Source, 16Trusted Source).
Vitamin D toxicity is generally caused by excessive doses of vitamin D supplements, not by diet or sun exposure (17Trusted Source, 18Trusted Source).
Although vitamin D toxicity is a very rare condition, recent increases in supplement use may lead to an increase in reported cases.
A daily intake ranging from 40,000–100,000 IU (1,000–2,500 mcg), for 1 to several months, has been shown to cause toxicity in humans (15Trusted Source, 19Trusted Source, 20Trusted Source, 21Trusted Source, 22Trusted Source).
If you look at the literature on cases of D "toxicity" (hypercalcemia), it only really occurs when people take absurd doses like 100k IU per day (often far more) for months. This usually occurs by accident, rather than someone choosing to take that much. And since D toxicity isn't reported that often, I have to assume that there are a lot of people out there unwittingly taking mega doses but without developing toxicity. But everyone thinks that high doses of D are scary because of that idiotic 4000 IU number that gets thrown around.
N=1, but I take 50k IU per day and have never had any issues. My calcium is within the normal range.
The range that is considered safe is much smaller than the range that is actually safe. It also doesn't help that there is misinformation about what "vitamin D toxicity" actually is.
Wikipedia states "Vitamin D toxicity, or hypervitaminosis D is the toxic state of an excess of vitamin D. The normal range for blood concentration is 20 to 50 nanograms per milliliter (ng/mL). However, the toxic state is known to be a value of 100 ng/ml or more in a clinical setting."
This is wrong because toxicity is not a pure function of vitamin D concentration. I'm above 100 ng/ml and yet my calcium is normal. The toxicity is purely a result of elevated calcium levels. The threshold level of D which causes this elevated level of calcium seems to vary significantly between individuals, and in any case, is much higher than the numbers that google or wikipedia gives you. At any rate the 4000 IU number is unscientific nonsense.
One of the claims is that what's considered normal range is already too low. I'm not personally equipped to tell you if that's right or wrong. But when people are suggesting to take megadoses they're coming from this angle, whether they realize it or not.
I'm not messaging to you but to HN via E2E https connection.
You can't read that messages as they are transported, you can read them afterwards because HN makes them public not because my message wasn't send encrypted.
You seem to be mistaken about what the "ends" refer to in end to end encryption. If I whisper something in my friend's ear and she whispers it into your ear, that is not a secret message between you and me even if each "hop" was private.
E2E means no intermediaries see the plaintext, only the original sender and ultimate recipient see the plaintext. HN is not the recipient of your message, it's an intermediary.
With HTTPS alone, I can assure you that HN is, indeed, the recipient/end. If you post something like a PGP-encrypted message on HN, now you've got a situation where HN is no longer a recipient/end.
I think the better point to make is that we all collectively agree to refrain from using the term "end" (as in E2EE) in situations like the former, as it's misleading despite being accurate; please only use it for the latter.
Messenger like the telegram are something different than sites like HN.
I am aware that I send my messages to HN, they are not forwarded to you but you open the HN page to read my response.
HN is more like a message board with message hierarchy.
The communication is public, the transmission path is encrypted.
I am aware that I send my messages to HN, they are not forwarded to you but you open the HN page to read my response.
HN is more like a message board with message hierarchy.
The communication is public, the transmission path is encrypted.
It's more like whispering in your friends ear and she/he writes in down and pins it to a public board. My communication was private, but he/she is a chatterbox and I'm well aware of that.
Telegram is just the middleman between sender and receiver.
When you write on HN, the receiver is HN. That message is transported via E2E https encryption so it's secure.
But because HN displays all messages publicly you can read them after they were received.
This doesn't change the fact that the transport as such is E2E.
Ideally it would be the human at each end doing the encrypting and decrypting. But humans can't be bothered, so we let some code that we know very little about do it for us. Obviously having that code run on the client device (the one in your hand) is preferable to having it run elsewhere (like some web server), but either way the human (the true end) is delegating the job to an entity that isn't quite at the end, it's ever so slightly toward the center.
Things like PGP help to maximize the endianness, since the human has a better sense that the crypto software is legitimate, and can read the code before executing it, although there's still plenty of points of compromise between that code and the human (compiler, Intel ME, etc.) so unless you're doing crypto with a pencil and paper, you're always putting your trust somewhere that isn't precisely the "end."
That your message is transferred from your computer to the recipient, HN's servers, encrypted. At no point should anyone in the middle be able to read your message. After arrival, HN then publishes it on a public forum for everyone to see.
Kind of, but as they aren't lying about allowing private conversations not really. More saying https is end to end encrypted, but what one end does with that data isn't necessarily private.
>End-to-end encryption (E2EE) is a system of communication where *only the communicating users can read the messages*. In principle, it prevents potential eavesdroppers – including telecom providers, Internet providers, malicious actors, *and even the provider of the communication service* – from being able to access the cryptographic keys needed to decrypt the conversation.[1]
If the server can read the content, it isn't end-to-end encryption.
The server is the communicating user in this instance, it is the intended recipient of the message. No potential eavesdropping can happen.
Even though I intend for you to read this message, I am sending it to the HN server to post publicly. My communication with HN is E2EE, my communication with you is not. This isn't meant to be useful information, and it certainly isn't advice. It's just an accurate nonstandard way of looking at things.
Humans are quite inefficient - we can convert around 25% of food energy to work. The losses in the power plant generating the electricity for charging the e-bike's battery and the motor's efficiency losses would result in a higher overall efficiency than 25%.
People generally dont need more calories that they already have, they need less. They must do (but dont do enough) physical exercice to loose extra energy they consume (in places where cars are an issue).
Sure, but that doesn't really play into the equation when comparing the pure efficiency of different transportation methods. Of course in practice since it's good to exercise at least 30min daily, you can think of the energy spent during that as free from a efficiency standpoint
>Given that, at peak times, some commuter services run once every ten minutes, and thus are ~always on time per this definition, it's wise to be a bit skeptical of the punctuality reporting.
I think that makes sense. If a commuter train leaves every 10 minutes, but due to some technical problems, the first train of the early morning leaves 20 minutes late which then continues through the day, does that mean every train is late? The users wouldn't know the trains they're using should have actually ran 20 minutes ago, they just know a train is to go every 10 minutes.
The ideal measurement would be to get as good a model of day-to-day passenger flows as possible, then simulate the journey times based on both the nominal timetable, and the "actually-ran" timetable in order to also quantify the effects of missed connections.
I think the Swiss actually do something like this, whereas in Germany they've only comparatively recently started doing it, too, and even then I think they're currently only looking at long distance trains, so connections to/from regional trains don't count (and never mind local public transport).
What? $5k a month is absolutely not something you pay for an above average place in east European capitals, nor in old European cities. Check e.g. https://www.expats.cz/praguerealestate/apartments/for-rent for a pretty expensive central european capital - around 20k CZK for studios, or 800 euros/usd. There are only 16 out of 1042 properties at over 120k CZK (~5k eur/usd), and they're huge (around 200m^2 and central).
My point being that it's quite different if everyone does it on pen & paper. If you're the only one, it's a disadvantage to do an essay exam on paper when your competition does it on laptops, no?
This is maybe overly cynical, but maybe they want people who say (to themselves, if nothing else) they did 10 hours of work in a few hours? Easy to keep people feeling inadequate and working overtime for free.
The massive amount of github/stackoverflow content clones sitting at the top of the results for programming related queries seem to disagree with this sentiment. Ok I guess they are "creating content people want to see", but if just copypasting everyting from another source is enough for that...
Also the large amount of bots creating fake accounts on forums (my experience is with Discourse) with profiles and spam posts to SEO boost some site indicate a whole shady background business going here.
Yeah, reminds me of anecdotes from the Dan Lyons book [0] about Hubspot. There was the shiny fun stuff happening "front of house", but back in the boiler-room it was ugly. And everyone gets shown only what they need to see to make them feel happy/sign/pay, and nothing else.
No-one actually wants to know how the sausage is made.
