An adversarial government having mass access to user data and social behavior information is worse because they can use it to compromise and recruit individuals to do real damage. Although debatable, the NSA is supposed to have the intentions to protect us, not inflict chaos.
So did you ever read about opioids..coming...across the pharmaceuticals...being perscribed by...doctors...at the behest of corporations...who are held unaccountable?
Sounds more like you're stuck on red herrings instead of actual concerns about the people in the united states of america.
We do not have another substance as effective as opioids for treatment of acute and chronic pain. Yes, Americans deal with chronic health issues and chronic pain, partially attributed to CCP chemical lobbying efforts. They were over prescribed, that practice has changed due to regulatory effort, and lawsuits were brought and won against the worst offenders. Some think that the addiction crisis was amplified or exported from China to begin with as an act of covert warfare.
Shipping mass amounts of fentanyl precursors to organized crime agents to flood our streets is a whole different matter, surely you can see the difference? Street pills laced or cut with fentanyl KILL people. Addiction to street availability causes mass mental health issues and homelessness.
What about... doesn't make for debate in good faith.
We've been through this various times with different drugs and different source countries. Step back from the present to look at the big picture. Fentanyl will be replaced by some other drug in due time
The issue is that we don't address the symptoms, just the causes. The current political environment doesn't allow us to have long-term thinking and problem solving. It's all about scoring political points for the ruling class
I think you are misinterpreting my position. I have a problem with the drug epidemic whether they come from inside or outside the house. I've seen lives destroyed.
What I'm trying to point out is that you can spend immense effort on the supply side and nothing will change overall. This has been going on for 50+ years. We need to change our perspectives and approach to the demand side of we want to actually do something about it
The alarmist take is jumping to the conclusion that people will starve from efforts to improve the code behind this system. We can still print paper checks, probably with a simple script in the worst case.
We're talking about payment system code, not AI targeting for drones. Changes can be reverted, transactions can be stopped, payments can be made other ways.
No they cannot, not legally, and certainly not in a timely manner.
There are simply no mechanisms in place to do what you're saying, nor does there appear to be any willingness to correct errors, given the desire to cut spending. Missed payments may be a feature, not a bug.
> nor does there appear to be any willingness to correct errors
> Missed payments may be a feature, not a bug.
> not legally, and certainly not in a timely manner.
Bad faith magic wand waving, these arguments do not have substance. People/bots are on a bandwagon against change many have been calling for years for. Our treasury system NEEDS an overhaul and there are much bigger problems with this admin to make an issue out of.
You say bad faith, but then you equivocate all "change" like any difference is good, or that Congress ought not be involved in the decisions related to how to spend government money, which is wildly unconstitutional.
If it's in COBOL you can probably count on one hand how many people have knowledge of the nuts and bolts of those systems and usually the new people talk to the old people.
Having used a TP-Link ethernet over power device in the past, this is quite concerning. Most devices like this do not have an adequate replacement from domestic or allied manufacturers. Is there no government agency examining and reporting on these frequently purchased electronics?
I agree with you that the modern corporate world seems to be allergic to anything that doesn't promise immediate profits. It takes more than a monopoly to have something like Bell Labs. To be more precise, monopolies tend to have the resources to create Bell Labs-style research labs, but it also takes another type of driving factor to create such a research lab, whether it is pleasing government regulators (I believe this is what motivated the founding of Bell Labs), staying ahead of existential threats (a major theme of 1970's-era Xerox PARC was the idea of a "paperless office," as Xerox saw the paperless office as an existential threat to their photocopier monopoly), or for purely giving back to society.
In short, Bell Labs-style institutions not only require consistent sources of funding that only monopolies can commit to, but they also require stakeholders to believe that funding such institutions is beneficial. We don't have those stakeholders today, though.
Studies more and more are showing that fasting is healthy for us but so many jump straight to eating disorder when they hear about someone not eating for extended periods. By your own research he seems to even be managing his body fat with logic; with the increase to 6%. More studies should be conducted but there's little profit incentive or people with the willpower for not eating so funding lags. Maybe we should embrace this kind of dedication rather than mock it?
Why even write this, by your own admission, cherry picking the negative and making assumptions about dishonesty?
I don’t see this author mocking anyone. This is one of the most balanced analyses of Blueprint I’ve read. Like the author, I respect Bryan and follow his progress, but some of his practices understandably raise questions about longevity:
1. Research shows optimal body fat is closer to 13%. Levels as low as 6% are not supported by studies as beneficial for longevity.
2. Comments about Bryan’s pale appearance aren’t mocking but a valid observation. Pale skin, low body temperature, and a very low heart rate can indicate circulatory issues. While lowering heart rate is beneficial, it follows a U-shaped curve, where excessively low rates—especially during rest—can pose risks, as seen in some ultra-endurance athletes who pass away in their sleep.
3. Bryan’s most concerning stats are some of his heart function measurements where some chronologically age at that of a 70+ year-old. With the average male life expectancy in the U.S. at 73.2 years, his heart may already be near its limit. My hunch is that Bryan focuses heavily on lowering heart rate, body temperature, and blood pressure to counter these poor metrics and reduce risks of heart attack or stroke. However, over-optimization could lead to unintended harm.
I respect Bryan and admire his dedication to health and longevity. His stance against alcohol and on optimizing individual organs may lead to saving millions of lives, as could his focus on extending life in light of AGI. However, there’s a risk of a Greek tragedy, where his pursuit of longevity could become his downfall. I hope this isn’t the case because Bryan is a net positive for humanity, and his efforts have the potential to transform lives.
If you're talking about intermittent fasting, some of the more recent studies are showing that we aren't able to trigger autophagy as we'd hoped, and that the results of most IF users is a reduction in total caloric intake. It's tough to consume the same amount of calories in 2 meals as you'd normally do in 3.
Most of the studies we see in IF and autophagy are mouse studies. It isn't to say fasting doesn't result in autophagy in humans, just that the time window most IF practitioners use is not long enough.
My impression is that (intermittent) fasting is just a convenient way for many people to decrease their overall calorie consumption. I personally prefer eating low-carb for the same purpose.
I've always seen it as a "candle that burns twice as bright lasts half as long" type thing.
Like, if you want a car to still be roadworthy in 20 years, how often do you drive it? Not never, not all the time. You want the little old lady who takes it to the shop once a week.
No, practices like time restricting eating do more than that, into autophagy, insulin exposure, diurnal effects, SIRT1 and AMPK, and on. You can eat an equal amount of calories in a smaller window of time and see benefit.
We can take it one step further: There are microbes everywhere in your body, they matter and they do things. When you take them away or fuck with them too much, weird things start happening.
It is I think not a particularly surprising take. But then often it can be valuable to have things that are kind of obvious codified into a paper of some sort so that we no longer have to rely on "but isn't that obvious?" and can instead point to some primary source that actually explains what is true. That way it can be true for everyone, even the people for whom it wasn't already obvious.
The immune systems does nothing by accident. The immune system is always trying to keep the microbiome in balance and the microbiome helps the immune system as well.
Varying intestinal permeability has usually been related to inert compounds. More recently there has been some study on the significance of certain microbe metabolites, but the evidence for any kind of large scale microbial translocation in people that are not very sick (ie septic) is extremely tenuous.
"Key controversies in blood microbiome research are the susceptibility of low-biomass samples to exogenous contamination and undetermined microbial viability from NGS-based microbial profiling"
Just because you can amplify some sporadic bacteria DNA from the blood does not mean that bacteria are hanging out in the blood in a physiologically meaningful way.
A lot of it is frankly junk science in disreputable journals.
