InSteady

You think the prospect of injuries in among military personell are going to prevent policies and practicalities that increase operational fitness? There are about 1.5 million injuries in the US military per year that require medical treatment and documentation (so more than a first aid kit). A few burns per year vs a 13 billion dollar carrier in a dysfunctional state... even an idiotic beaurocracy (which the miltiary is not) can figure that one out.

$20k per year for a brand new drug that went through 15 years of development is peanuts. Welcome to healthcare in the country that leads the world in pharma research, for good and for ill.

Reading a brief quote given to a journalist and assuming you fully understand the scientific reasoning that went into that snippet intended for lay audiences is also a remarkable assumption. There is an incredible amount of context missing from the article, the quote, and of course discussion in this thread. But my main issue is that you jump from phrasing in the quote, 'supports the model,' to 'must be' which is an underhanded way to make the researcher seem ridiculous.

"We can't come up with anything better, and have ruled out everything we reasonably can at this point in our inquiry, so therefore the findings support the only remaining plausible mechanism" is literally how science works a lot of the time. It's why the researcher specifically said 'supports the model' not 'must be quantum consciousness,' because this researcher knows and is implicitly acknolwedging there is a whole lot more work to be done.

Same. We have simply learned to filter the noise. It helps around here that the noise takes on a similar and easily recognizable form in most cases.

I haven't crunched the math or anything, but you don't feed 8 billion people with small farms unless every 10th person is willing to go farm. Currently it's more like every 150th.

It's weird, vertical farming has gotten so much hype but really only makes sense for luxury products like microgreens, and still only makes sense if you specifically want to grow them in an expensive, dense city. Even things like mature lettuces, tomatoes, and strawberries have been tried extensively and simply don't make economic sense to grow indoors in stacks the vast majority of cases.

I wish there was more tolerance for the Instant Pot situation in big business. Build a great product, sell wildly for many years, inventor becomes a multi-millionaire, many people are employed at good wages for a while, stock holders / investors make a reasonable return, millions upon millions of satisfied customers, and... that's it. The end of that particular story.

Keep a perfunctory tidbit of the once great company chugging along to provide replacement parts, do some servicing, and sell new ones at a much reduced volume. Just enough to keep a handful of people employed at good wages and turn a miniscule profit.

I know it is heresy to suggest this kind of thing when our entire way of life is predicated on infinite growth, but our entire way of life is also grossly inefficient (not to mention inequitable) and we are facing ever more scarce resources on a planet with less and less carrying capacity for our wasteful and destructive tendencies.

Of course this is all just yelling at clouds, because billionaires and the people who service them cannot be made to think in these terms, else they wouldn't be where they are in the first place.

It is so much more difficult than it used to be to get trustworthy information about the quality of products. Seems like you have to already know of a hobbyist turned youtuber/blogger who has ideally done deep dives into a class of products or at least some relevant product reviews (or has a large subscriber base with active discussion threads).

Even trying to find such a content creator on the fly can be dicey since so many of them are doing paid reviews or at the very least are sent free products + incentives. That, or get lucky googling site:reddit.com/r/[subreddit] [product] to find a thread that isn't too recent, isn't overrun by shills and isn't woefully out of date and full of deleted/overwritten content.

The customer will choose the cheap bulbs because they can't be sure the expensive ones are better quality.

This can't be understated. You never know with a bigger price tag if you are actually paying for a better build or just for branding + tidy profit. So you see two light bulbs with similar specs and the pictures on the box look indistinguishable.. unless you have specific experience or knowledge you are often doing yourself a favor to buy the cheaper one. Sometimes things are priced because they are actually better, but too often it is purely branding that justifies the price tag.

Not specific to lightbulbs, but I've also noticed a trend where a more expensive product with a big name and obviously more of an ad/branding budget actually is better for a few years... and then at some random date the bottom drops out and the product becomes almost indistinguishable from cheaper options while the price tag remains the same. Or even increases if they have enough market share and brand recognition.

Also insurance, yuck. Plus all that gear so that when you have to lay your bike down because some dipshit driver did something insane up ahead of you you can keep at least some of your layers of skin intact.

Don't people bike because they want to get fit? If not, get a proper motorbike.

Riding an ebike is still a moderate workout especially if you are putting on the miles, hauling stuff, have hills, etc. And on most bikes you can set your engine assist in real time, so it's easy to adjust to the level of workout you are in the mood for. Which is a massive game changer for me as someone with health problems including fatigue and leg pain that doesn't own a vehicle.

I like the freedom of the ebike vs a motorcycle for city commuting, it's much quieter, I can ride on greenways and bike trails away from traffic fumes and the majority of impatient/distracted drivers. It is far lighter than a motorbike and I already have the tools and skills for basic maintenance. It is cheaper to maintain and operate. But more than anything else I have an ethical problem with the combustion engine. I drew a line in the sand long ago that I will never own nor make regular use of a gas-powered vehicle and in 20 years I still haven't crossed it.

Weight really isn't such an issue with ebikes. I'm riding around a 62lb clunker, carry a 10lb chain lock everywhere, plus I'm hauling big loads of groceries and other crap. Even an extra 5lbs isn't going to make a big difference, nor would an extra $150 to the purchase price if it means years of added longevity.

The engineering challenges make sense. Hopefully it is something that is being actively R&D'd.

To add perspective, I have a battery rated for 70 miles, which so far seems fairly realistic if I stick to slower speeds and lower assist settings that have me putting in a bit of effort. I went ahead and bought an extra battery just for the hell of it so I have the option of riding out to hiking trails or the coast. Plus I don't own a car, so putting in a ton of miles in a day without worrying about charge is worth the expense (also easier to keep them in the 20% - 80% charge window for the sake of longevity).

So far I've done 40 miles in a day several times simply commuting and running errands, and it goes fairly quick with a top speed of ~25mph if I'm in a rush. Point being, people shouldn't be so quick to make assumptions about other people's use cases. I used to commute 30 miles per day to work on a touring bike, plus extra for errands and activities. Yes, it is a lot of time riding, but often it felt like recreation especially since much of my commute was scenic on a dedicated bike trail through natural areas.

Congratulations, your brief comment has managed to trigger me in 3 different ways.

Kids spending too much time on TikTok? Won't do their chores on time? Try the ancient and time honored tradition of beating them until they behave as you would like! /s

It could be non-genetic as well. Various vitamin, mineral, and enzyme deficiencies, brain chemistry (that part of it that isn't genetically determined), and other health stuff could all play a role.

I am sometimes like you describe, where booze basically just makes me feel kind of slow and loopy but not in a way that is pleasant (kind of reminds me of how benzos felt). If I keep pushing to try and force the good feeling with more drinks I only end up tired and irritable, like when you wake up from a nap feeling all out of sorts.

Other times I start getting a nice pleasant "glow" or buzz going within the first half of a drink and can ride that for hours with steady imbibing. Pain is numbed, body feels lighter (paradoxically, because there is also a certain heaviness with drinking), have an easier time focusing and socializing, stress and anxiety are relieved, etc.

Too bad alcohol is so damn addictive and harmful, the latter effects are quite nice.

Alcohol is definitely bad for anxiety in the long run if you are using frequently (even in small amounts). It does a real number on your GABAergic system.

Less is definitely more. There really could be a stronger culture of moderation like there is with alcohol (one glass of wine / beer with dinner crowd). I almost gave up on cannabis until I started aiming to just barely hit the threshold of feeling it and eventually learned how to consistently land on the perfect mild buzz.

It's way easier for me to stick to moderate use and take breaks with cannabis than it is with alcohol. Dialing in dosages with edibles is a bigger learning curve though because the feedback is so delayed. I prefer smoking for this reason as well as the shorter duration of effects.

I'm using such tiny amounts, it can't be any worse for the lungs than exercising outside in a city full of car exhaust and tire particles. Or so I tell myself, ha.

Firstly, I'd argue it's only a tautology when you phrase it in a particular way (and take some knowledge about how the brain works as "given"). The point isn't that the effect happens at all, it's about the degree to which even small instances influence who we are.

But more importantly, we are creatures of habit before we are creatures of intellect. Stating things like "you are the sum of your experiences" isn't necessarily to reveal new and profound information, it is to emphasize a fact of existence that can easily become overlooked or underappreciated. Especially as we get on in the years and more and more of our behavior is on autopilot. There is value in reminding people to look for potential blindspots and providing some motivation a more careful consideration of the aspects of your life that have become unconscious even if the message comes in a trite or tautological package.

It's like people who have been stuck for the past 5 years spending 2+ hours every day scrolling a social media feeds littered with bad news, snapshots of arguments, and fake representations of the world but can't make a connection between this maladaptive behavior and the growing sense of cynicism and existential malaise that's impacting their happiness. Sometimes it is helpful to hear this kind of stuff (assuming it actually gets through) even though it should be obvious.

Camorepticus?

Scremaèlitude?

We're just making up words at this point, right?

My assumption is that the revenue figure is not exclusively the US government spending. Otherwise what percentage of their yearly revenue is security services to all the other countries as well as businesses in the world? The US government is of course a large customer, but a considerable part of the world runs on windows and other Microsoft products.

They have been on the bleeding edge of autonomous robotics R&D for a very long time now. If they were more focused on commercialization for the past 20 years then they wouldn't have pushed the tech forward as far and as fast as they have.

The whole point of the article is speculating that they are specifically retiring their hydraulic robot because it was never going to be commercially viable. Which makes it look like they are finally ready to pivot from pure R&D to commercial production. Thus they want fully electronic robots instead of hydraulics that are messy and require more (almost constant?) maintenance.

I'm not an engineering guy but I assume the hydraulics were more useful for pushing the boundaries of possible motion with such a heavy, robust, and versatile design. Now that the AI systems controlling vision, motion, proprioception/spatial awareness, etc are more fully developed, they can create more specialized and scaled down versions of the robot for specific applications that are lighter and don't require hydraulics to perform their tasks reliably? Just guessing here, am happy to be corrected or given more a nuanced take.

It's easy to forget in modern society, but in tribal society the elders were fountains of wisdom. When computers, reference materials, technical documents, libraries, school systems, etc don't exist, the value of lived experience goes through the roof.

Being able to consult the elders when the group faces perplexing problems (who may have lived through something similar, or at least heard stories from the recently deceased generations who have) might mean the difference between between 20% of the population starving and no one starving.

To be fair, Starbucks purchases machines that are automated to a much higher degree than your standard high end espresso machine you'd find in a local shop. It's a lot more button pushing in the correct sequence, a lot less art. This is standard procedure for a multinational fast food service company: they want things automated and streamlined not only for speed of service and easy training, but consistency of the product.

From what I heard from a former Starbucks barista, the biggest challenge was to not scald the milk during steaming (which is not very difficult, basically just requires holding it at the correct angle to induce a whirlpool effect and keep things moving).

The skilled aspect is dealing with customers efficiently and pleasantly, and all the nuance/craziness that can entail.

The ketogenic diet has been proven to be effective for treatment-resistant epileptic seizures by reducing the excitability of neurons in the brain

There is increasing evidence that psychiatric diseases such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder stem from metabolic deficits in the brain, which affect the excitability of neurons, Sethi said. The researchers hypothesize that just as a ketogenic diet improves the rest of the body’s metabolism, it also improves the brain’s metabolism.

I wouldn't be so quick to look for the most reductive/simple answer. Drastic dietary changes can have a huge impact on the microbiome, which can in turn lead to substantial changes in all kind of signaling between the gut and brain (in terms of hormones, immune molecules, neurotransmitter precursors, and much more). There may also be implications for cellular metabolism.

As the quote above touches upon, many mental health disorders may have a component of disruptions to metabolism and energy balancing on the cellular level. Possibly including ADHD, autism, treatment resistant depression, and OCD, in addition to schizophrenia and treatment resistant epilepsy.

The other 93 percent of the animal’s lifetime diet will consist largely of feed that is inedible to humans, thus not in direct competition with the human food supply.

Just because feed is inedible to humans does not mean it doesn't compete with the human food supply or lead to environmental and resource problems. Take alfalfa, which is one of the most popular feed crops for cattle:

How much of California's water goes to alfalfa? About 1,000,000 acres of alfalfa are irrigated in California. This large acreage coupled with a long growing season make alfalfa the largest agricultural user of water, with annual water applications of 4,000,000 to 5,500,000 acre-feet.

https://ucmanagedrought.ucdavis.edu/Agriculture/Crop_Irrigat...

Interesting tidbit, but penicillin has it beat by about 50 years.

That is interesting about the manganese and glutamate-to-glutamine angle, although it's worth noting that manganese in foods has very poor bioavailability:

Humans absorb only about 1% to 5% of dietary manganese. Infants and children tend to absorb greater amounts of manganese than adults. In addition, manganese absorption efficiency increases with low manganese intakes and decreases with higher intakes

https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Manganese-HealthProfession...

Another interesting tidbit from the links you provide, 90% of glutamine synthesis happens in muscle cells (from glutamate and ammonia). So in theory, building more muscle mass (while getting adequate dietary glutamine and glutamate) be beneficial for regulating glutamine-to-glutamate ratios. Although it doesn't look like this has been studied specifically as of yet.

On the other hand, over-training and extreme endurance training without proper protein intake leads to depletion of circulating glutamine levels. It is suggested that depleted glutamine may be the cause of increased risks of infection and chronic fatigue during periods of over-training (even in elite athletes).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9562160/

Quorn and other meat substitutes most certainly fit the criteria of ultra-processed foods, and as such may be implicated in poor health outcomes if they make up a significant portion of one's diet.

However, if you compare the energy and resource inputs to produce that 2-3g the picture starts looking a LOT more competitive. Not to mention a very attractive nutrient profile and potential medicinal benefits (eg a lot of bioactive tryptophan metabolites).