mdomans

In general optimising Python is: * understanding that pure Python is not a language to write CPU-heavy computational code in it and was never intended as such * understanding that Python lets you write 3-4 solutions to a problem easy and 1 will be slow, two will be OK and one will be optimal - often that involves using generators, collections, sets and is a bit nuaced * I'd say that optimising Python, compared to something like C or C++ is far easier - I can set up a decent testing and profiling environment for most of my problems easy with pip and ipython which is borderline simple compared to valgrind

Oh boy, the IJF is going to have an epic hissy fit

Mostly because both JavaVM and ErlangVM are solid but Java VM is much more popular.

If you're looking for a technology to run a service focused on privacy and security one of the things to consider is the amount of use and thus testing something gets. In case of Java that's testing in enterprise setting.

Best regard to you too :)

I'm not saying that every person must study these metabolic pathways in detail, but rather that the quick and simple rules and choices people make in daily life should take advantage of what is known, hopefully for a better outcome than what is currently observed.

I agree. I'm simply pointing out the fact that with the picture as complex as we know it is I have a knee jerk reaction to people going from "how to have normal BF%" to "ok, let's talk about insulin". It's the same thing with people talking about brain, attention span and productivity. 10 seconds into the discussions it's "dopamine, dopamine ... DOPAMINE"

So in the case of adipose tissue, it does require glucose in order to store fat. The glycerol backbone for intracellular triglyceride synthesis is provided by glucose.

Yes. And? Glucose to some extent is always present in the blood. Drop the glucose low enough and brain will die. One could say that adipose tissue will always figure out how to store fat.

As we go on you reference Fung (and defend him) a fair bit. I'd like to take this opportunity to state the obvious. Jason Fung is a trained and certified nephrologist, book author, popular doctor and so on. He does not hold (to my knowledge) a PhD nor has he published any peer-reviewed studies.

Thus calling him a quack on my part was bad (I was pulling your leg a bit) but he cannot be considered a scientist either. He's an expert in his field but his books can't be considered textbooks on human endocrinolongy. He's allowed to have his own opinion but asking anybody to agree or disagree with his views without in-depth study of them is asking too much and he haven't (to my knowledge) presented them in the form of some kind of scientific paper it's not worth arguing whether he's right or not.

That being said - the link you provided on FFA is about cholesterol. I fail to see how that's relevant to discussion about FFA impact on insulin resistance?

Alas, to make my point. Obesity is certainly a multifaceted problem. Thermodynamics certainly matter, human psyche, inflammation, hormones - essentially all of that has its place. Looking from a systems point of view there's no reason (and probably there isn't one) to look for single causative agent though some certainly play a grater role.

In my experience both time-restricted feeding, caloric restriction and macro restriction work and have their place depending on the individual. Generally as a rule IF and low-carb are certainly good ideas, I'm not a fan of keto for everything.

I didn't understand that the main point was "debunking the idea that insulin is what makes us fat", since I don't know anyone who believes that. Chronic poor nutrition can make you fat, sure, and rising basal insulin levels tend to occur as a result of that, but saying "insulin is what makes us fat" sounds a lot like "yellow fingertips cause lung cancer". Nobody I know believes that is true. I have to keep up on these things for my work, in drug development.

Insane amount of people believes and promotes that. As in INSANE. Just check any sports/diet related magazine :)

Insulin is mostly (in humans, not rats) a hormone signalling energy availability. That's why many humans secret insulin when we smell or taste food, way before it hits GI tract.

Maintaining the insulin/glucagon cycle is important in maintenance of a healthy metabolism.

No point in focusing on hormones so much. I somehow don't see people fretting over their ACTH or progesterone.

Insulin mediates glucose transport and promotes absorption of blood glucose into the liver, fat and muscle cells.

If you look at data from humans - insulin IS NOT needed for glucose absorption. Studies on diabetic people clearly show that glucose gradient into the cell is higher, not lower, despite them being incredibly insulin resistant. 1st role of insulin in humans that's critical is shutting down liver glucogenesis and gluconeogenesis.

The problem with insulin/glucose narration is omitting the role of FFA. Intracellular FFA levels drive down the glucose absorption gradient. If the glucose absorption gradient is low and we still have glucose - that will stimulate more insulin release to drive that glucose level to normal.

Problem is that as more insulin is present cells eventually start being resistant to insulin requiring more insulin for the same job. Which makes for a problem because if insulin is there to shut down liver glucogenesis and cells are now more resistant to insulin - bad news, we need more insulin to get blood glucose to same levels with a meal that used to be no problem.

Adipose tissue is simply the number #1 a-hole here because it's usually the least resistant to insulin and the least resistant to nutrient storage since it's its primary role. It will just pack more in.

P.S. Isn't Fung a quack? E.g. https://www.myoleanfitness.com/evidence-caloric-restriction/

No. I can elaborate but generally it's the glucose that stimulates the insulin release (the pancreas has glucose receptors).

Weight gain IS NOT driven by insulin or glucose. You can put someone on euglycemic clamp literally pumping him with insulin and glucose and he won't get fat from that. He will hover start storing fat IF we give him too much glucose for his needs.

Frankly, if you were a very mad you could theoretically put yourself on insulin/protein infusion to lose fat.

Idea being that insulin will drop your blood glucose (via insulin-dependant glucose transporter translocation) forcing liver to balance that out. When liver runs out of stored glucose it will start breaking down fat.

The downside of that is that eventually muscles won't store more glucose (you'd somehow need to get rid of that) and the risk of dying is pretty high.

You can't force or even ask someone to be a role model because than that's not being a role model. Much like telling someone to volunteer makes them "not a volunteer".

tl;dr somebody who has little idea about economy or history tries to write about economy and politics, fails miserably

longer read:

It's hard to consider Foucault serious basis for in-depth political analysis. I'm not a total fan of Chomsky, but he was 100% right about Foucault - it's gibberish without any scientific basis.

Neoliberalism never was intended a COMPLETE fix to prevent fascism. Much the same way markets were never meant to be a source of justice. Idea that there's some inherent justice that can be achieved through free market is a straw man.

The interpretation author has of the invisible hand suggests he never really read Adam Smith, just heard of it.

Then follows an interesting conclusion - "we are using the market to justify government action" - which is entirely false. We can try to analyse markets to verify effects of certain government action (and it's incredibly hard, often laden with error stemming from too small amount of factors considered) and politicians sometimes use such arguments - but that's false equivalency.

What follows is critique of Donald Trump and Republicans ending in authors conclusion that economics is hard. It is, that's why even someone like Varoufakis initially wanted to leave it to economists.

Finally we have this ad absurdum rhetoric of "what ifs". Well, what if my aunt had mustache - should I call her "uncle"?

"Neoliberalism’s very frugality and subsequent demands for efficiency dovetail all too well with the rational efficiency of fascist genocide. " Wow. I think the author never really read about neoliberalism's notion of the state not interfering in the markets or what happens under nationalism to enterprise and commerce (hint: heavy state intervention). Actually, anybody sane would say that it's the exact opposite. One has to be mentally ill to kill people who would work for you for free. And you had to be an idiot to say there was any rational efficiency in genocide. Genocide is the most irrational and inefficient thing you can do, since you're effectively killing people who would be willing to work as slaves (most people prefer slavery, at least initially, to death). To do that, as Nazis did during WW2 is a proof on how ideology elevated to the level of religion can lead to worst possible outcome.

Apart from that - author would benefit from reading on something like discretionary versus rule-based economic policies and generally, spending more time reading about macroeconomy before writing about that.

Cool, happy you have your stuff together :)

If I may, and this is a delicate topic but I often suggest talking to a psychiatrist who specialises in depression or a clinical psychologist. I know antidepressants (and visiting a psych is still a stigma somewhere, it shouldn't be) have a very bad reputation (in part because prescribing rules were relaxed and tons of people live on SSRIs for years) but profesionall help is priceless.

I've met men with really scary problems they weren't even able to talk about and I mean tough guys who look like Ron Swansons tough uncle. I recently talked to a guy owning a biz in construction AND being a first responder. Testosterone helps because it has antidepresive effect but the issue may be more complicated - it's good to be able to talk to someone.

Yeah, a lot of TRT clinics are scam, especially if they employ chiropractors or naturopaths - DO STAY AWAY. Fact that those professions are allowed to give medical advice in some countries/states is actually an emerging problem because the school giving out certificates to these people have a much lower quality of education which can be fatal. People with "degrees" from schools such as Bastyr are know to advocate against vaccination and other sane science while peddling "natural" solutions.

It happens. There are multiple others possible problems, but I'd say that it's 20% other and 80% diet

Here's the best compilation of data (not mine, but by a man I incredibly respect for his insights in neuropsychopharmacology) https://www.quora.com/Can-clomiphene-citrate-trigger-depress...

Honestly, I have to dig through. The thing is those things are often underreported. I worked with a TRT clinic for a while, people on Clomid for fertility reasons were miserable (as in "kill me now") so that's my bias.

This is pure honesty and wanting to help. People who feel better on cycle usually a) in fact do need TRT and b) should consider professional counsel in regard to their psychological help. Testosterone is very potent antidepressant - if you only feel good on T it means you only feel good on antidepressants. This information with the context you mentioned (trenbolone which has net negative effect on serotonin metabolism in the brain) suggests you should visit a doc and talk about SSRIs. Seriously.

They usually have underlying psychological condition which they fail to address. Note that all the "regain" studies were done in cohorts that had either severe problems or lacked proper professional assistance (which these days you can get online for 100USD).

The fact that you can loose weight is simple physics. The fact that these people often have endocrine issues is near tautology because adipose tissue HAS endocrine activity and thus ones changes hormonal profile if in excess. Usual set of changes include: insulin resistance, lower testosterone, low thyroid hormones, leptin resistance, higher SHBG and usually higher estrogen.

Doesn't mean dieting won't work but if someone is long-term overweight he needs more work than just a difference in bodyweight.

If I may chime in: trenbolone and boldenone will hit your psyche hard.

Here's a short on pro bodybuilders. Most of them know jack shit about endocrine system. I'm sorry, but I work in this business. I've seen pros with IFBB pro card having their "pupils" on 100iu insulin daily. It's pure stupid. And I don't blame your doc because adrenal insufficiency is moot, there's a ton of good evidence on that. I've also seen one idiot with IFBB pro being wheeled into ER because he was doing cocaine while on juice and decided to fix with muscle cramps by giving himself IV with potassium. Put together hyperkalemia and cocaine and you're in for a V-fib.

I've also seen pro bodybuilders suggesting other stupid things. Some work, some not, main difference is that when you get "diagnosed" by a pro bodybuilder he's responsible for nothing :)

To my point: diet and exercise do work. Your adrenal insufficiency was probably effed up cortisol curve (lack of sleep? stress? caffeine hard all day?) but it's not adrenal insufficiency. Adrenal insuffiency is a SERIOUS clinically recognized condition called Addison's diseases and it's symptoms are rather obvious.

Low T as for a bodybuilder usually means anything below 400ng/dl. Not 100% healthy and certainly not the best for gym (600ng/dl-800ng/dl range is best), but your doc ins't responsible what's legal in US.

My advise would be, if you feel bad on low T, remain on testosterone alone. The main problem with boldenone is CV load (elevated hematocrit) and trenbolone REALLY damages psyche and kidneys. It messes up serotonin metabolism HARD. You can check any respected AAS guru and he will tell you that a month on Trenbolone is ALL that should be done and that's for pros only.

I do get that you want fast effects, but it's not worth it. Any bodybuilder I know who used to run trenbolone long term has huge psychological problems, with few ending in the funny town.

In short: if you need to do it, drop trenbolone and boldenone, switch yourself to nandrolone, monitor your BP and hematocrit (you can ask your doc for telmisartan) and limit yourself to something like 400mg of testosterone a week. You will just live longer and better.

The main point of Clomid are quite usual psychological side-effects, including such fun stuff as suicidal thoughts.

In regard to this study I'd like to point one thing. Therapeutic dose of testosterone enanthate (that can be prescribed legally) is nowhere near 600mg a week. Highest I heard of is 200mg. That will put average man above normal levels. 600mg is insanely high (3-4 times maximum test level) but the risk goes linear with the dose. At that level they have to be monitored pretty in-depth (BP, hematocrit, electrolytes, kidney function, lipid profile and probably psychiatric evaluation every 6-8 months. I know a lof of BB who ended up on SSRIs or in funny towns)

That to some degree is driven by how taboo TRT (fuelled by steroid craze of the `80s) was. In effect there were seriously hundreds of men forced to live for example on Clomid because testosterone was a no-no (compared to TRT Clomid is like using propofol because you can't sleep)

Something I think should pointed out in the article is that the author tries to understand testosterone (I don't know why, since it's effects through maturation are actually quite a bit studied, there are medical textbooks on it) through it's effects on trans people and/or people abusing it or using it for rejuventaion.

If so, the picture is far more complicated.

This actually makes about as much sense as trying to understand Fourier transform based on how stupid instagramming is.

It'd be a nice theory but we actually know that as men get their testosterone levels lower they get to be at higher and higher risk of certain diseases. For example, testosterone is often cited as carrying risk of CVD and for many years we were confused why men with below low cutoff testosterone are at even higher risk of CVD than men just above high cutoff. As it turns out, estrogen, another sex hormone, pretty important for CV health is made through aromatisation from testosterone in the walls of blood vessels. Thus, surprisingly being low on testosterone actually increases risk of CVD through estrogen insufficiency. Yes, human endocrine system is complicated like that, and no, testosterone is not a fashion or something we can improve because we're smarter. We're studying AAS for about 70 years now and we still know pretty little. Testosterone and estrogen are "kinda" understood as they're mainly endocrine hormones. As for those secreted in para- and autocrine fashion (e.g. DHT) we still know not enough.

Probably, not so much. The amounts of ingredients and composition of ingredients in energy drinks are just stupid. I see now a trend of "health" drinks that actually seem sensible, though a bit more pricey. Like magnesium, ginseng and vitamins.

The problem with energy drinks is that they're alike to a bottle of all things that may be fuel, combined. I've seen recently a tin of Monster that had 0.5g of caffeine. That's insane. And caffeine pills are even more insane. You can drop 1g of caffeine like it's M&Ms.

At this rate we're going to have coke and amphetamine in those next year. And, you know, you can go on a limb and say that some of the modified amphetamines or phenidatess or what not maybe should be on the market. In Canada they have effedrine in OTC supplements and people don't die from overdose.

But the thing is, we either demonise or just assume something is safe. How many people knows that acetaminophen (APAP, paracetamol) is liver toxic? And how many people knows that NAC is the antidote (N-acetylo-cysteine, popular OTC expectorant)?

Well, yeah. This is the level of oppression Soviet Russia was. The horrors of Nazi camps are often discussed - not many people discuss Russian camps on Siberia.

This isn't really huge news, technically speaking. Any anti-inflammatory drug will have negative net impact on your body function. For a while we know now that NSAIDs alter ROS levels in response to injury and in fact any normal process. NSAIDs also have negative impact on training adaptation or cell death due to overexpression of ROS. So no - taking overabundant levels of oral NSAIDs isn't going to be good for you and that's why topical NSAIDs make sense in cases of joint pain, tough they're not as convenient.

Note: I remember taurine had protective effect on testicular function in men treated in 19-nor derivatives. Maybe worth checking out if it does so also for ibuprofen :)

And an extra note when someone says "it's hard to implement ... without locks and so". Look at Firefox. I dumped it's bushy tail around 7 years ago when switching to the apple-scented world for good.

I came crawling back. Why? Because people at Mozilla spent their time working on their product, finally coming to agreement that the fact your product is OS doesn't mean you can cut your standards in half focusing on features you like instead the ones that actually make it better.

Here's the link in case someone missed it https://hacks.mozilla.org/2017/11/entering-the-quantum-era-h.... I'm not a Mozilla fanboy, to be frank for a while foxy browser scored lower on my "software like scale" than Redis.

And they won me over. In 5 minutes. And it's been proven time and time again that performance is a feature.

p.s. Now that I write it I realize that for certain reasons I should just try to write the damn thing and instead of writing pointy comments let antirez rip my software apart :)

Also as a pinch-of-a-salt in the whole sugary environment of HN where every new feature is cool by definition. For example, what are the shortcomings of Kafka compared to Redis Streams?

It was meant as a joke.

Alas, I have been more than once bitten by poorly implemented GIL and in my personal experience any GIL is problematic in a high-throughput environment. It simplifies the problem of implementation of environment or API for the price of introducing global lock into the system, thus eliminating any possibility of lockless design. And we know it's doable.

I spent years trying to work around GIL in production environments and we have the tools about now to do it reliably. We have on_commit in Django, we have Celery with proper support for mechanisms like chords and a myriad of others.

I do get that Redis has a different approach to many things. But here's the deal - every time I had to rely on Redis as a critical component, there was a problem. Either there was that "one gotcha" in the config or I didn't understood something or else.

A while ago I was a part of discussion with the author of Redis on using Redis as cache. And quite some people, not only me, noted they had bad experience and their benchmarks didn't show Redis is better than Memcached. And, I think that's ok. Unless you pose your product as a competitor to memcached. Would I use memcached-db? No, it's a bad idea.

My problem is that Redis originally was a key value store with datastructures. And that's a great idea and not that many services let you model datastructures in a distributed way. I actually implemented a distributed system of progress control for a very critical piece of architecture at my current workplace. I'm a Redis user since 2014 in regard to commercial products.

My point of view is probably largely skewed but I don't understand and I never seen that explained why Redis tries to do everything. We have battle tested Kafka for streams, ElasticSearch and Solr for searching and Memcached for caching. Can't we get a super reliable data store that supports data structures? A data store that is _able_ to utilize the fact we have more than one core?

I know my view is unpopular, but I don't see addition of GIL as a genius idea. I simply don't see a coherent direction for Redis development.

BTW: is there a benchmark comparing latest Redis without the GIL and the latest with GIL?