erentz

> The CAC scan, which detects calcified plaque in the arteries, is recommended for adults with borderline or intermediate risk of coronary disease for whom the decision to start preventive therapy such as statin drugs remains uncertain.

That is such incredibly bad advice. DO NOT WAIT until a CAC tells you to start a statin. You know you need to start if your LDL is high right away.

My doctor referred me to get a self pay ($100 at the time) CAC 9 years ago. It was completely clear.

However last year I had a cardiac ultrasound and it showed calcification.

In reality the CAC caused a false sense of security. My LDL had been high the whole time and not managed with any intervention despite having been tested multiple times and showing high over that time. This was a failure by my doctors IMO. (No it’s not diet or weight related before people give advice).

I didn’t need a CAC to tell me everything was fine. I needed to be on a low dose of statin that whole time.

A clear CAC doesn’t mean you are safe. And a positive CAC is already too late and is not really telling you anything useful.

What people need to do is just watch your LDL regularly starting from any age (yes even some 20 year olds need to check this). Don’t wait to middle age. And no matter your age use whatever methods you prefer to get that down as low as possible. Think of it as cumulative exposure over time that matters.

(There are new oral PCKS9 inhibitors out now which is cool, but the reality is all the misinformation about statins has been bullshit, don’t be afraid of them.)

> An engineer checked progress twice a day and reviewed every proposed change.

It doesn’t sound like that much changed. If one engineer can really review all the changes in under two weeks, the original estimate of 5 years of engineering work has to be waaaaaaay off.

I think the genesis was the Panama papers release way back. Turns out the US is one of the better places to launder money through.

I don’t understand though: Why would any company find it difficult to register their owners? That seems like a pretty basic thing any company should know and it’s a perfectly normal thing in most countries.

This all feels like when Enron started talking about making a market for trading /bandwidth/.

See: “benefits in terms of capital spending + the few ongoing jobs created”

> There IS value being created, or people wouldn't use the tools.

But for who and where is it realized? Ireland’s massive data centers aren’t there to serve Ireland’s tiny population. The value is exported overseas and profits realized overseas.

So what really matters for Ireland (and any country/region hosting these data centers) is whether the benefits in terms of capital spending + the few ongoing jobs created outweighs any increased electricity and environmental costs faced by everyone else.

> Americans really do get screwed in so many ways.

Absolutely. I assumed the parent was talking about the US because that's the only place in the world I've encountered this.

It’s not your property they care about. They usually want this because it includes liability insurance if you damage their property or someone else’s, or your negligence causes harm to someone.

What is the rationale for going to the trouble of such a law but only banning sale, rather than all sharing?

What makes it giving up sovereignty? I understand it creates the potential for separation in future but not yet. The devolution of Scotland and Wales happened peacefully a couple(?) of years later, and Scotland may also separate in future.

How can we know the IRA “won”? The country changed a hell of a lot over the course of the Troubles and by the time of the GFA in 1998 I don’t see how it is so clear that the reforms wouldn’t have also been achieved via other peaceful and democratic means.

You’re extremely confident about this just based on your experience of it not happening to you. It’s good that it hasn’t driven you into a house but that doesn’t mean it can’t fail in a way that does drive someone else into a house.

Your example would call more to create an "information technology" subject in schools, that updates its curriculum to include changes like the development of AI. Thus, you go to that class, some of your coursework in the year is going to involve learning about AI and how it works, what it can and cannot do, using it for some project, so on. Not using AI for doing your homework in every other subject.

It’s a tax. So the government wouldn’t be buying anything. OpenAI (for example) would need to issue 100% new shares and give them to the government to hold in this new sovereign wealth fund. This the new sovereign wealth fund holds 50% of the company.

I don’t know how you decide what companies are targeted though. OpenAI/Anthropic are pure AI plays. But what about an AMZN or AAPL that have AI as only a part of their business.