itchyouch

I used to believe this.

It seems like a reasonable take. But when we look at any oppressed group, getting murdered at the hands of their oppressors, there often is no negotiation through peaceful means.

History shows us that the threat of violence or violence becomes a necessary point of leverage to bring about change.

American schools have washed the story of the civil rights movement, but MLK only had success because of Malcolm X.

There’s many other historical instances of this. Whether it’s the Indian Independence movement in the 1940s fighting from British rule, the 1500s-1800s of native Americans resisting our ancestors colonialization, our own American revolution, and even labor movements like the battle of Blair mountain in the 1920s.

We like to propagandize American history where non-violence was productive, but violence has always been an unfortunately necessary tool when it comes to changing oppression.

I hope that with AI, this becomes a far more compelling selling point that consumers demand.

I think you hit on a point with git and sql I made in a different context.

Removing friction from the context and flow. For what git and sql do, they arguably have the most efficient and effective work flows for their purposes.

Managing complexity becomes unavoidable for certain problems, so for challenges of the tool, sometimes, it's simple the challenge of the problem.

I would say his point is not articulated well. Tools should be less toilsome and provide faster feedback loops.

I think of "invisibility" as a way of removing unnecessary friction and the author doesn't quite drive home that point effectively.

Good invisibility is like well designed roads. Smooth, clear markings, adequately wide or narrow for the desired speed, easy and obvious signs. Unbothersome and pleasant. Drivers simply drive, rather than get bothered by, "gotta avoid the pothole. Here's comes the bumpy part. That blindspot, I gotta slow down for way too much. Unseen pedestrians pop out here."

This is where invisibility in interstate highway regulations are obvious.

When I see TUI vs GUI comparisons, it distills to friction for a given context/workflow.

I worked in a restaurant with a micros system. It was a very easy to use GUI that was touch screen button driven. A 1 person order could easily be entered in 6-7 button pushes in 2-3 seconds to a seasoned operator: drink > coke > dish > steak > medium > a1 > submit

The beauty with micros was that it reduced the typical navigate > select > add > back-to-navigate workflow into 1-2 button presses with a receipt-like tally providing immediate state feedback.

In this scenario, telling a user to get into a terminal console and type "cd Foo; ./add ketchup" would violate the invisibility principle. It has nothing to do with TUI or GUI.

To me, good tools get out of the way, in the given context. Micros did that.

CLI users are in a CLI flow, thus introducing a mouse to a keyboard workflow violates the invisibility workflow. But for a GUI user to hit up the terminal violates their flow.

Ultimately, all workflows are in search of a faster/less-toilsome feedback loop to the desired goal and tools are in service to the loop. Well designed tools with rabid followings understand through usage where to add friction, and where to cut toil and I'd argue this is where CLIs shine with decades of refinement of the same tool chain.

GUIs are a, it depends on how composable or self contained the given problem for a GUI interface is.

But yes, tools should be invisible. How they become invisible depends.

What’s interesting to me is that the conversational nature of the LLM tends to lead folks down an unproductive convo path.

“Don’t do X” is just as useful as telling an infant not to cry.

When an infant cries, we implicitly understand there is a form of discomfort to address (food, diaper, etc).

To me, when a LLM fails, it signals to me that the architecture and structure of the code is problematic and that needs to be addressed.

Any seasoned dev can usually see non-DRY, non-KISS patterns, then will structure an encapsulation around said pattern to address issues.

I’ve found that this same type of refactoring is needed in LLM code to improve its outcomes, of which then it’s capable of overcoming the bugs.

Simply telling the LLM to refactor for cleanliness in between code generation runs will do so much for maintainability.

I had a very similar reaction.

I went the same way with simply bumping up my bash skills.

Part of me feels like I'd prefer pry loaded with a library that provides shell like methods for doing ruby-esque things.

The trick with the vo2 max measurement on the apple watch though is that the person can not waste any time during their outdoor walk and needs to maintain a brisk pace.

Then there's confounders like altitude, elevation gain that can sully the numbers.

It can be pretty great, but it needs a bit of control in order to get a proper reading.

When considering NAC's mechanisms, it seems that it's efficacy is likely dependent on an individuals's glutathione status.

I doubt that folks with a solid diet, high in sulfur would find much benefit from NAC.

However, as someone who's gotten to use it first hand and have dealt with lifelong, mild inflammation (puffy fingers, clogged nose here and there), it's definitely been a huge quality of life enhancer.

While I can't speak to whether there are enzymes for the proper copy/paste I do have a set of random cancer related bits I've picked up over the years.

There are some basic, well-known nutritional interventions that are generally important/critical for DNA repair processes. The 2 main ones are Vitamin D and Magnesium. Ensuring adequate amount of these tend to be helpful (most folks aren't getting enough sun and greens).

Other than that, a steady and adequate source of the substrates seems to be important: ie protein (nitrogen), and phosphates.

One of the interesting bits about some cancer cells is that while they simply haven't gone through apoptosis, physical sheer stress incurred from physical activity (exercise) can cause cancer cells that travel beyond the tumor point (before it becomes metastatic) to finally self destruct.

It seems important to me that the best strategy for cancer is the compounding of many different strategies that optimize the body's innate defenses to run optimally.

It does seem that ketogenic diets may have adjuvant properties, but there is yet to be a clinical trial that demonstrates it, so it's basically stuck in paper and R&D stages as to whether being in a ketogenic state can be one of the last areas that may help cancer patients extend lifetime from say 1 year to 2 years.

I generally agree. It's all interconnected, and we could point to a singular cause, but to treat them all as one and of the same class of disease seems reductive and not useful.

Though, to be play devil's advocate for a second, it does seem that diabetes is typically where the symptoms start, and we do understand that diabetes is fundamentally metabolic and/or functional dysfunction in 1 or more of 7-ish different areas.

I think it's the level of perspective zoom + timing we take that makes the article's assertion either useful or not.

If we zoom out, while catching disease early on, and we address the metabolic conditions via lifestyle and/or certain drugs like GLP1, then we prevent the need to intervene on the kidney and cardiac front.

But if we zoom in to a specific issue, after disease has progressed a profound amount, a GLP1 intervention may be too little, too late.

Hopefully though, this may help the messaging to folks that if they are contending with metabolic disease that presents as diabetes, introducing lifestyle and pharma interventions early may be helpful on the larger epidemiological front.

While the area under the curve for glp1 administration may be the same, good chance that the story is informing us of a mechanism such as the absorption rate between two different sites.

Slower absorption in the thigh may blunt the immediate peak dosing and the acute hunger effects.

As always, the small details matter. I'd guess that pharmacology also has their own thundering herd problem with the dosing of certain drugs.

One of the interesting bits about pharmacology seems to not be the active molecule as much as the innovations in delivery mechanism.

There were no recommendations.

Usually this type of anecdata becomes the basis of legitimate, controlled studies and over time can inform and/or adjust.

It would be premature to simply write off all influencers or limiting to only accept the medical profession as the immutable truth.

The reality tends to exist somewhere in the middle, outside of a formal proof.

I've listened to many health influencers and among the legitimate and balanced tend to be Rhonda Patrick and Peter Attia.

Attia provides guidelines for how to think about items, but usually it's the fan base that tends to sully the messaging as the base tends to be far more polarized and dogmatic over bits.

It is interesting to see that there is another poster confirming a slightly different effect though. Regardless of things being "systemic", just understanding that fluids dynamics are complex, I imagine diffusion of a systemic molecule like GLp1 could possibly be variable? Or perhaps there is a localized tissue fatigue?

Many potential options do exist to propose as hypothesis.

An interesting FYI is a comment made by Peter Attia on his podcast.

He had a patient with metabolic markers that were not improving and they had exhausted all the typical avenues. Presumably they were things like weight loss.

They put the patient on GLP-1 but injected into the thighs (or butt, I don't recall) for the metabolic benefits without the hunger blunting effects.

It seems like GLP1, even in skinny patients (implied by Attia in this particular case), has metabolic benefits.

The longevity community seems to be hinting that there may be geroprotective aspects of GLp1 as well, so we may be looking at the benefits beyond weight loss for metabolism.