yrjrjjrjjtjjr

> The advice today is the same as it has ever been, though. Always assume that any networked computer is or may become compromised. Do not do anything critical on a networked computer, because it is or may become compromised.

This is completely unrealistic advice that 0% of people follow.

My advice is to embrace it. Being recommended by ai is worth $$$ and if it starts recommending you for something you don't offer then better start offering it. If you can't provide it in-house then make a deal with someone who can and send the people their way.

Even prior to this study I've seen people post memes about terminal lucidity. In subsequent discussion people have said it's related to the immune system finally giving up, reducing inflammation, leading to increased perceived health. And then you die from what the immune system was keeping at bay.

So this study ties in neatly with that.

Bonds and a high risk high reward business model feel like a bad fit.

Like if there is a significant risk of bankruptcy then there must on the other side of the scale be a possibility of making bank like you have with stock or derivatives.

If they deny everything they didn't do, then whatever they don't deny will stand out.

Supplements are cheap

I think it's a question of internalization. When you have internalized the correct way to think about it, it feels obvious. And wrong ways to think about it seem absurd. We stand on the shoulders of giants, Plato being one of them. We have internalized their philosophy. And that's why it feels idiotic.

The closer to lightspeed you get the more shit you would collide with. I think you would reach an equilibrium speed where drag balances thrust?

We don't give mathematicians research positions to solve crosswords for fun. We want something back. We want theories and results that will advance our civilization.

> How would a fitness reducing mutation become a feature of a genetic line in the first place in asexual reproduction?

A random mutation. Especially when combined with the founder effect or some other genetic bottlenecking.

Let me rephrase to be more neutral. Imagine two genetic lines. Both lines have one bad mutation. Survivable, but makes the individual less fit. With asexual reproduction evolution has to pick one or the other. With sexual it can get rid of both.

Sexual reproduction can remove bad mutations. Imagine two parents. One has bad mutations m1. Other has bad mutation m2. They have three children. The first gets only m2. The second gets both and dies. The third inherits neither.

Even though neither parent was fully healthy, one of the children was. Asexual reproduction cannot do this.

The current paradigm of change something and wait half a century to see if it caused or prevented cancer is ridiculous. We can do better. Look at proxies and early warning signs. Do intervention and look at something like cellular aging, DNA damage, cell death rate ( renewal requires cell division which is error prone). Bring the feedback loop down to a year and maybe we can make some progress.

Even if the money is used completely legitimately it will be exchanged for goods and services thus ending up in someone's pocket. Someone who may want to buy Bitcoin.