moduspol

It's that, but it's also that AI is not visibly providing any tangible benefit for most people. It'd be one thing if you had to tolerate a datacenter at the edge of town, but at least now you have a robot to fold your clean clothes. Instead, you get the threat of losing your job, the privilege of dealing with AI customer service chatbots, and higher energy costs.

I think most datacenter criticisms are actually coming from people who were going to oppose them anyway. Though a lot of their criticisms are valid, too.

Our small team (~6 devs) is still using Claude Code because we're still on the cost-per-seat-month plan. If we were being pressed to pay per token, we'd be re-evaluating for sure.

This stuff happened years ago, right? Something tells me that discussion has already happened, and they went with Google.

Besides: Apple is a "real" company that will definitely still be around in five years. They've already fumbled Siri multiple times. IMO Google was certainly the right choice for actually executing well on Apple's own terms for the foreseeable future.

If matrix multiplication isn't the main primitive, I think we have a lot of pain coming our way.

I thought that a year or two ago. Thankfully I did not. I have no idea how long the music will keep playing.

It's anecdotal but the kind of people I know that bought Mac Minis for this purpose are what I'd call "light techies." They definitely know how to use an iPhone or a Mac but would struggle on the CLI of a Linux box.

Anyone who wanted the OpenClaw use case that is comfortable with Linux probably already has several Linux machines (including a few Raspberry Pis) on-hand.

I'm doing both. I've only got so many years remaining and very few of these things "only" work if you've also optimized your diet and exercise. I do acknowledge that diet and exercise have a bigger impact than any supplement, but they're not mutually exclusive.

I take:

- Essential Capsules - it's like a multivitamin except with better stuff. I've seen mixed evidence that multivitamins actually provide much benefit if you're already taking C and D. This fills the same kind of gap except with a lot more beneficial stuff in it

- Omega-3 - it's like fish oil except from algae, so it has fewer heavy metals. Fish oil is well understood to be a good supplement for the Omega 3, but it can be tricky to source and often contains elevated levels of heavy metals

- Longevity mix - daily shake with a bunch of different stuff for sleep / metabolism / healthy aging / performance / recovery / etc. I'm already drinking protein shakes and such each morning so it seemed like a fairly cheap way to get a little more good stuff

- Snake oil (yes it's called that) - it's just extra virgin olive oil that is very carefully sourced. Apparently olive oil is one of those things that is often mislabeled and mischaracterized as something it's not when sold en masse. Extra virgin olive oil is also one of those supplements that has good evidence for daily limited consumption, and I trust it more with someone's name on it who has something to lose if it were found to be mislabeled

You're welcome to peruse his site [1] if you want more specific details. Each one goes in-depth on what the key ingredients are and why they're in there.

[1] https://blueprint.bryanjohnson.com

But I'd bet that if he hadn't been tracking his labs, he would've lived a pretty normal life.

Well I mean we have a control group consisting of just about every other person diagnosed with this disease, right?

The wikipedia page [1] suggests you're probably right, especially given that he is male.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrophic_gastritis#Signs_and_s...

I buy a lot of his supplements. They're competitively priced for what they are, and what's in them is based on the studies and science they dig up. Not all of them will be cost-effective for whatever benefit you're trying to gain, but that's the case with all supplements.

Do you expect this to result in much substantive change relative to before the ruling was made?

I think ratification by 2/3 of states fairly meets the definition of "difficult to change, but not immutable."

That it's been done numerous times in the past suggests it is quite far from immutable.

If it were easy to change, there would be no purpose to having a Constitution.

Campaigns already have strong limits. They get around it by giving money to PACs, which can spend money opposing other candidates or talking about issues in particular.

Should there be limits on spending on messaging opposing a certain candidate? Or supporting / opposing a specific policy? It's going to be pretty tough to draw a line there that doesn't sound a lot like solidifying and entrenching the powers that already exist. And it usually includes an ugly way of determining what speech is "political" and what is not.

Hmm. Dreamweaver must be what the cool kids were using instead of Frontpage.

Because they're reading blog posts and listening to podcasts that increase their expectations of what your output should be.

Normal people just reuse a few variations of the same password across all of their accounts. Federated identity isn't bulletproof but it beats the heck out of reusing the same password.

We only learned how to do a lot of those things because we gathered and analyzed data to find out how best to do them! "Eat healthy meals" means something completely different today than 10, 20, or 50 years ago. How you exercise matters a lot. Smoking wasn't always considered unhealthy, nor was drinking. These "simple rules" and what they actually mean have been refined quite a bit.

You figure out this stuff by gathering and analyzing data. Whether or not this specific implementation will result in more meaningful actionable steps, I guess we'll see.

What on earth do you think that load of garble means? "50-100 years further along" is absurd.

It seems straightforward. Imagine where medical care was 50-100 years ago, and then imagine they had all the data, resources, and practices we have today. In that case, they would have been 50-100 years further ahead than they were.

Why do you think "more data" is necessarily meaningful, in a health context?

I think the only way to find out what data is meaningful is to collect and analyze more of it. That does not imply that all data is equally worth collecting.

I think if we already had everyone wearing commercially available continuous glucose monitors and gathered and analyzed that data, we'd already have diagnosed and solved a lot of our most common health problems.

Obviously not all data is useful or meaningful, but even with the tech we already have, there's a ton of it that we're just not collecting or using.

I think the only way you figure out which data has value is by collecting it first. And I don't trust pharma any more than I trust tech.

I'm 100% OK with health-conscious yuppies that have too much disposable income being the guinea pigs paying for this until if/when it demonstrates medical value.

I think in a more sane universe, we'd be 50-100 years further along into medicine today just by gathering and analyzing more data with the technology we already have. And all doctors would be able to make better decisions.

The way we figure out how to catch issues before you notice them (i.e. proactively keeping you healthy) and figure out the best ways to fix them (i.e. reactively helping you get back to healthy) is by having more data from more people in more situations, so we can make those determinations.

I understand some of the current fatigue around biohacking and chasing perhaps-irrelevant metrics, but takes like this surprise me. Do you think people said the same kind of things before the blood pressure cuff became widely available? Or heart rate monitors? Or bathroom scales?

Do we just want to walk around with blinders on because we think we feel OK right now? More data is the only way to get better at this stuff.

I mean it's true, but I don't see it as so black and white. Even more than I'm looking out directly for my own compensation, I'm also incentivized to help the company itself succeed, so it can make sense to help out with small requests that won't get you a parade.

Likewise, there may come a day when I need something from coworkers, and when it comes, I'd appreciate enthusiastic help instead of being swatted away and told to go through the "proper" channels (which could take much longer).

I heard this new tobacco is a national security threat. You don't want China to be making it, do you?

This is from the same company that brought us Windows NT (New Technology).

It's a lot cheaper in Turkey. I don't remember the exact numbers but each of mine (in the US) was in the high four figure range.

I originally felt more confident going to a plastic surgeon, though even though the doctor oversaw the process, it was being done by highly trained technicians. That's probably more ideal anyway because it's very manual and meticulous work, so (IMO) you want someone who's done it a thousand times--not someone who did a nose job yesterday, a boob job the day before, and only does a hair transplant every couple of weeks.

I'd assume the techs in Turkey are about as experienced as you can get.

I had three done in the states and I'm happy with them, but it's tough to argue it was necessarily worth the increased price.

The threat is that users who are not sufficiently tech savvy will shoot themselves in the foot, including using methods they don't understand. This is a pattern we've seen play out numerous times. The more secure platforms are overwhelmingly the ones that protect the users from themselves, and (most) users value security over absolute computing freedom.

I think it's reasonably within scope of the threat models considered by operating system creators.