numinoid

I'm not interested in writing a testimonial for Remix, merely commenting on the absurdity of calling a project of this scale as nothing more than a grift to sell educational content. There's no reference to these paid courses anywhere on the landing page, there's no callout for paid courses in the main navigation. The only mention of tutorials at all is buried in the community section which leads to: https://remix.guide/ which seems to be unaffiliated with the Remix team, and has no section advertising paid courses anywhere. You're talking about a framework that has been acquired and subsequently used in production by a global company in Shopify - clearly there is something to the framework beyond being a vehicle for tutorial sales.

Again, I want to be clear: This is NOT an endorsement of Remix. Your line of thinking seems to be conspiratorial and not grounded in reality. You mention repeatedly about pricing and the end goal of funneling noobs toward course purchases... One would assume that in conspiring to sell courses the team behind Remix might actually advertise that they have courses for sale on their website.

I have to be honest as a third party that a. doesn't work with remix, b. doesn't know anyone who works on remix, c. doesn't know you - it seems like you have a personal vendetta.

Not really sure that's relevant. Grift implies an intentional value extraction without providing anything. Using your example: I'm confident that the time spent working on remix and courses related to it resulted in far less monetary gain than spinning out courses on React. If you think Remix is misguided or a bad framework etc... that is very different from grifting. A corollary: Is Deno a grift because it shares the same creator as Node and has a paid product attached to it? In my opinion no but you might disagree... I'm mostly opposed to the idea remix in particular exists purely as a grift - love it or hate it there are far easier ways for someone with the influence of Kent to make money.

Not sure it's fair to characterize a repo with 6k + commits and the last being 10 hours ago as "pure grift".

The guest is an absolute clown and charlatan.

My issue is more with framing it as a lobotomy analogue when in reality the similarity ends at them both being brain procedures. My read is that this is more akin to something like rehabilitation in that previously damaged tissue is being worked on to improve function.

With regards to the body horror thing, that is legitimate and there is the possibility that we look back on this in 20 years like we do with lobotomy. I personally think it's unlikely considering the differences in how research is regulated compared to the past.

In general I think we need to reframe how we look at medical treatments. Changing the brain is literally the point - it's dysfunctional. Whether that be through physical manipulation like this or via pharmacology, something HAS to change functionally or there will be no difference. Until the point that we have nano robots carrying out bodily processes for us it's on our brain and body to adapt to whatever environmental stress it's exposed to, for better (exercising improving health for example) and for worse(trauma causing increased likelihood of addiction etc). This treatment is no different from anything else, all that matters is the positive or negative reaction.

It seems you could do this with any technological/medical advancement - how is this any different from semaglutide for obesity or wellbutrin for addiction? It's just a different lever to pull.

Harkening back to lobotomies is a false dichotomy, the environment in which research is done today wouldn't even allow for an outcome like that.

Have you been tested for sleep apnea? Your symptoms are pretty on the money.

This can't be emphasized enough. Exercise is likely the single most important and effective intervention we have available from a preventative medicine standpoint.

If you're not optimizing adequate exercise alongside controlling bodyfat levels first and foremost you're doing it wrong.

Do you have any evidence of these claims? The research I'm aware of strongly contradicts your initial statement.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4744961/

tRPC on the back end essentially is sharing the typed return value of an API route call with it's react query wrapper on the client. It's useful with Prisma because you can leverage type inference coming from the Prisma query, meaning your types will always be up to date with your DB. EG a tRPC query that returns prisma.posts.findMany() will share the typeof Post with your client when you call the tRPC route as the return type of the API call, without you having to do any type definitions etc.

Not sure if this is intentional, but your blog posts seem to be ordered alphabetically rather than by time. Having that as default behavior feels a bit weird.

I haven't looked into that wrt creatine broadly - you can get generic creatine monohydrate across the spectrum from cheap to expensive. In the case I gave, bulk supplements does heavy mineral and contaminant testing on their supplements but it's going to vary depending on where you buy the generic from.

As you said, you need to look at individual resellers/distributors and see what kind of QC/testing is being done on a company by company basis. Raw ingredients are sourced from China regardless of if they're expensive "designer" supplements or cheap generics. My comment was more along the lines of different formulations don't seem to have any difference wise, meaning that you can buy high quality generic creatine monohydrate at fraction of the price of something like Creapure(which is just monohydrate), creatine HCL, ethyl ester etc. Again, you need to audit who you're getting your supplements from - cheap doesnt always = poor quality and expensive doesn't always = high quality

PPS - Creatine's COVID and post-COVID price increase has made it more niche than it perhaps once was. It used to be near $10 per 30-day from a reputable brand, not it can be $20-30 depending on brand (e.g. Creapure is $32/30 day right now).

There's no reason to be using anything but generic creatine monohydrate - studies show no difference in efficacy between different formulations. BulkSupplements current price is ~$56/kg at ~28 cents per dose per day. No reason to let price scare you away from one of the few supplements with a real body of evidence.

Just an FYI, your styling doesn't seem to be responsive on an iPhone X

Agreed, for best user experience animations are generally capped at 500ms. Dealing with something like this checkbox where you interact with it more than once would kill the novelty real quick.

Where are these home sized apartments you speak of?

Anecdotally, I had to bump up to 10,000 IU to see a difference.

your brain's decisions to try to make you over-eat are no more under your control than your intestine's decisions to more or less thoroughly digest food

They literally are though. You can decide to eat less and then… eat less. CICO is the last word on dieting; but the words, sentences, and paragraphs that get you there are up for interpretation.

Lofta does sell CPAP machines whereas Helio doesn't. I just did my sleep test and follow up through them and the process was quick and painless.

Research is showing that most (all) of the benefits related to IF are due to fat loss. As long as calories in - calories out are equated, there is no statistically significant difference between a regular caloric deficit and IF. This isn't to say IF is bad, adherence is the most important part of any diet. If it works for you great, but there's not any evidence that it's superior to any other form of diet in terms of bio markers.

There's really not enough evidence for longer multi day (5+) fasts at this point either, but it's a promising avenue of research.

EDIT: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32363896/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34733895/