ursAxZA

Thanks.

Outside weight-class or aesthetics-driven sports, it’s hard to imagine any scenario where a GLP-1 analog creates a net advantage.

In endurance disciplines the binding constraint is almost always fuel throughput: if an athlete can’t take in and process enough calories, recovery and performance fall apart. Anything that suppresses appetite or slows gastric motility is basically disqualifying.

You can already see how narrow that margin is in the sheer amount of gels, bars, and mixes riders consume during long sessions. From that angle, GLP-1 simply doesn’t occupy the same decision space as substances that expand performance capacity or recovery bandwidth.

Fax is still acceptable in parts of healthcare for a reason — privacy under low-tech constraints is an actual requirement.

Dial-up was slow, but at least the internet still felt human.

Fiber gave us speed, not soul.

Sometimes I miss yelling “Corp Por” into the TUBE — back when the screen wasn’t a window, but a passage.

I’m not an expert, but GLP-1 is a hormone.

Wouldn’t using something like this trigger anti-doping concerns if an athlete took it?

In sports, manipulating appetite or insulin pathways sets off red flags immediately.

It’s interesting to see the food industry treat the same biological mechanism mainly as a market trend rather than a medical one.

If you compare the viewership of Game of Thrones with the readership of the original novels, the gap is enormous — not because one is “better,” but because different media win different kinds of attention.

Most people are never choosing between Being and Time and an HN thread. But if they were forced to choose, we already know which one would dominate sheer engagement.

That doesn’t mean HN replaces philosophy — it just means that attention has its own economics. And any medium that captures attention will inevitably show qualities (good and bad) that heavyweight works simply can’t compete with.

If Jim Keller says it, I’ll believe it.

My Ryzen agrees — the fans just spun up like it’s hitting 10,000 rpm.

Exactly — if we want redundancy, we should plan and build it.

That’s why I offered one possible implementation as a hypothesis, not as a law of nature.

If you have a better non-ideal, real-world design in mind, I’d be interested to hear it — it makes the discussion much easier.

Thanks for sharing this.

It made me wonder where a future goes when it keeps trying to define both barbarism and normalcy.

As a small tribute in return, three films came to mind:

Bicentennial Man,

Gattaca,

Fight Club.

I’ve always preferred Ivan the Fool — choosing to live, rather than living inside a definition.

I get the intuition behind fully socializing it, but I wouldn’t go that far. Single-operator systems lose redundancy fast, and that’s dangerous for infrastructure.

A layered mix — county-level public utilities, some private operators, and some hybrid/municipal entities — might be closer to a resilient structure.

Not clean or elegant, but fault-tolerant.

The long version would take us far off-topic, so here’s the short one: if the tax-paying base collapses, none of this matters.

At that point the debate isn’t about pricing — it’s about survival of the system.

I could outline the full methodology behind this view, but that would turn the thread into a private seminar — and that’s not what comment sections are for.

My point was simply that electricity has a “civilization tax” aspect to it, and lower baseline access feels closer to the kind of future-proof system we should be aiming for.

If the floor is gentle, people can actually reduce usage without feeling punished for doing the right thing.

At the moment the baseline tier feels… maybe a “C-rating” version of what a real baseline could be?

That makes sense — but it feels like the balance could be better.

If we treat baseline access as a kind of ‘civilization tax,’ the pricing shouldn’t feel punitive for low-usage households.

It’s strange that in 2025 we still don’t have even a minimal, per-capita baseline tier for electricity.

If a household uses less than the monthly per-capita average, why not cap that baseline at something like $10?

Yes — that gap would need to be subsidized, probably through taxes. But that’s already how grid maintenance works: we socialize the fixed costs while pretending rates are purely volumetric.(and I might be overstating this slightly).

Right now we punish low-usage consumers and reward structural inefficiency. A baseline tier would at least make the incentives coherent.

I might be missing some procedural detail, but if there’s no formal “warning → fixed-window for correction → penalty” sequence, isn’t that just state overreach?

If the issue has existed for years, retroactively jumping straight to fines feels less like regulation and more like the government exploiting its timing advantage.

Which one ends up being more accurate — quantum-computing forecasts or fashion-magazine trend predictions?

If the official time drifts by 4.8 microseconds, should I worry about my VHS timer recordings?