"because you said <that>, I won't do <this>" is rarely an issue in these matters. What people say, and what people do, are divorced.
This isn't contract law. The WH can declare victory and stop, or declare victory and continue, or declare defeat and stop, or declare defeat and continue, or declare nothing and {stop, continue} and what the Iranian government say is not relevant. But, stopping or not stopping sending up UAV and sending over missiles and aircraft, IS relevant.
ie, this is just speech. we judge on outcomes not on words said.
Classic IBM Thinkpad was pretty good. I replaced keypads twice on an X30. I did heaps of inside-the-box fiddling. They never complained.
I think the carved aluminium unibody thing was the death knell. Hard to be fashionably sleek and also easy to mod/fix/replace. But then they made hard a feature.
Stuck down memory and SSD is just evil nickel-and-dime stuff.
I think the write up and rationale and FAQ are near perfect. It's a KISS pure NetBSD model, it's deliberately reductionist and it discusses reasoning and why it differs or is an analogue of other systems.
I probably won't be using it because my core investment on FreeBSD does what I need but I think it's interesting.
Making way for new hires is a virtuous circle. Making way for AI driven de-hires and no new starters is killing the future.
We need a Butlerian Jihad because we need future wage earners to exist. If people don't have jobs, who is buying the goods and services? AI job displacement impoverishes everyone.
> we need future wage earners to exist. If people don't have jobs, who is buying the goods and services
When you travel around the world, you often see jobs that exist in one country but not in another, for multiple reasons but including automation or self-serve, etc.
It is impossible for us to be confident about what specific jobs (or activities) humans will do 15+ years, but we also know that people need a way to exchange something of value to get something of value and that jobs provide a sense of purpose that people might otherwise not know how to fill.
The first is collagen: I'd love to see Lowe's take on recent peer review which says boosting oral collagen does appear to show signs of improved joint pain and skin resilience. Obviously modulated through how protein deprived you are, but for older people, eating enough protein can be an issue: it's not rapidly absorbed so you need 3 squares a day to get to the higher numbers. Collagen powders and vitamin C (oj) at breakfast might kick start this.
The second contradictory point is that this entire thread makes me want to shout GELL MAN AMNESIA because it's an exercise in otherwise intelligent people who can distinguish between anecdata, their personal experience and some cold hard facts in their core field, but not when it's self injecting unknown chemicals from China bought off-script.
Note that there is research showing that whey protein powder has exactly the same effects as collagen, for much lower price.
Mechanistically it makes sense, as I understand the ingredients in Collagen are largely a subset of the ingredients in whey powder, albeit at different ratios.
it is the same if you base it just on the amino acid profiles, they are both just proteins with different amounts.
I always wondered if there were nutrients we can’t measure though, because collagen is typically made from skin or bones whereas whey protein is dairy. Even though both have similar “nutrition facts” maybe there are some unmeasurable differences. Both are highly processed though so who knows.
I think the idea is that some short peptides might survive the digestion and make it to the blood stream, but I'm doubtful there's any specific benefit to collagen.
It has a Mechanism section which explains that when collagen is digested, one of the products of that is Gly-Pro-Hyp, which is what has the effects. I don't think that conflicts anything in this post?
I assume they're referring to the brief bit in the post that indicates that oral ingestion leads to a breakdown that makes oral supplements of amino acids pointless. They say it very briefly and they don't really outright assert it, it's just a sort of implied aside.
That's not the exact quote lol you cut out the exact part I was referring to.
> because unless a really substantial amount of engineering has gone into it, any given peptide is going get the same treatment from your digestive system as a chicken breast does, i.e. a complete teardown
> Every single YouTube video and blog post I have read about peptites is exclusively about injectable supplements.
Collagen peptides, ghk-cu, and many other peptide supplements are often taken orally.
> Collagen peptides, ghk-cu, and many other peptide supplements are often taken orally.
And with very rare exceptions, it's as useful as watching someone workout when you want to gain muscle. Every meat we eat is awash in peptides, and to keep our body from getting hijacked by the signaling for, say a chicken, our body has to break down almost all peptides ingested orally.
There are a few exceptions, notably there's one that is produced by our own bile acid, that can be taken orally, and then SNAC, which was developed by Novo Nordisk over thirty years and has extremely limited capabilities and is fully patented and cannot be made by your fly by night distributers. SNAC achieves a whopping 1% bioavailability of the peptide, and it's ability to work depends on the size of the peptide, specifically the only commercially available use for this is Rybelsus.
Sweeping statements in biochemistry must be made with caution. It is well known that there are some small peptides that are absorbed following oral administration.
Interestingly enough, those two, as well as Gly-Pro-Hyp, are proline/hydroxyproline-rich, which might suggest that proline-rich small peptides are resistant to degradation in the gut.
Anyway, in general oral proteins and peptides are broken down prior to systemic absorption, but not always...
> It is well known that there are some small peptides that are absorbed following oral administration. ...BPC-157 itself is said to be among this class
Do you know of any studies that suggest BPC-157 absorption from gut?
Among others. If you read the paper, it's actually apparent that there's little difference between i.p. and oral administration in terms of efficacy -- both were roughly equally effective in improving MCL ligament healing.
Admittedly the paper's in rats -- as are 99% of the others -- as there's no incentive for anybody to run human trials.
You should note that your study is not controlled.
There are two groups, those with oral administration those with sub-q administration. There is not group without administration.
This means you can't say that oral vs injected is "equally effective" because you can't assert that BPC 157 is effective at all. You can't tease out the effect size because you don't know if any or all of the MCL ligament healing was done via normal pathways
You just read the abstract and didn't read the full paper.
There were control groups.
> Methods:
> [administration] as follows: (i) BPC 157 10 mg or 10 ng/kg or saline 5.0 ml/kg (controls), intraperitoneally, or (ii) BPC 157 in neutral cream (1.0 mg dissolved in distilled water/g commercial neutral cream) or commercial neutral cream (controls), as a thin layer, locally, at the site of injury, administered once daily with the first application 30 min after surgery and the final application 24 h before sacrifice; (iii) BPC 157 0.16 mg/ml or nothing (controls) in the drinking water (12 ml/day/rat) until sacrifice.
There was a big difference vs. the control groups.
> This means you can't say that oral vs injected is "equally effective" because you can't assert that BPC 157 is effective at all
Is that true? It seems that you can say that they were equally effective without quantifying an effect. It could be the case that both are equal in that neither has an effect, which this would validate. Then you can just point to other studies to claim effectiveness of injected.
I want to point out your own contradictory comments about absorption and specifically mentioning a typically highly processed food (orange juice), one which has been stripped of its natural fibers and flavors.
That age group (and all others) should be eating real/whole fruit or having the juice fresh (I.e. just juiced). They would be better served getting this advice than creating more anxiety about protein intake.
> Commercial orange juice with a long shelf life is made by pasteurizing the juice and removing the oxygen from it. This removes much of the taste, necessitating the later addition of a flavor pack, generally made from orange products.
There is reason to think the differences are biotic vs. abiotic, between the two. Our digestive system is dependent on healthy microbiota. Pasteurization would be the difference here.
Raw milk is on the fringes of the same argument that whole foods play a more beneficial role in healthy gut microbiota and digestion, and that our current models focusing on nutrient composition are incomplete. It says that our measurements are off, and that there’s more to nutrition than composition alone. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11901572/
It is my belief one of the classic footgun moments for the Australian science/industry body the CSIRO was defunding and deprioritising work on SEL in favour of formal methods applied to block chain. Yes, an analysis of etherium contracts was interesting and topical but not at the cost of remaining a committed partner securing operating systems.
The silly thing is that your "blockchain" could be the smartest thing in the world, have super incredible cryptography or whatever. You can have the smartest developers in the world writing the software without bugs.
But you run that software on a mainstream operating system (Linux/Windows), your funds are not safu - they're just one confused deputy away from being stolen.
Having a secure by design operating system is a fundamental requirement for "blockchain" to ever become more than an online casino.
Online payments through centralized entities don't have this problem. If you get hacked, someone can revert the payment. If you get hacked and the private keys for your smart contract are stolen, there's nobody who can just roll it back for you.
The OS is the weakest link - a side-channel that will bypass any and all clever cryptocurrency designs.
I wonder if this turned out to bake an attached device, if Motorola would have to accept their design caused third party damage? I can't see how you'd get a case up but a class action, if enough people got devices fried, seems possible. Spec is a spec. You match the spec.
The VMware s/w rental market has no relevance to this deal, any more than the IBM role in data processing in germany in the 1930s had any relevance to their business in Israel in the 60s, or Oracle's failure in the DC market impacts licencing of the database product.
It's just not material. Broadcom make devices they need, and Broadcom want to sell those devices and exclude another VLSI company from selling, so the two have an interest in doing business. That's all there is to it.
About the most you could say is that the lawyers drafting whatever agreement they sign to, will reflect on the contract in regard to future changes of pricing and supply, in the light of what Broadcom did with VMWare licencing costs.
Statistics presents problems in all kinds of ways, when processes wish to seek absolutes. Interesting that the one polity with a "maybe" verdict: Scotland which has "not proven" -is walking away from it, because of the taint on somebody who otherwise would be found innocent, being held to "if we find more evidence, you're back for another go-around"
If you ranked DNA, lie detectors, hidden memory and facilitated communications, where do you put it? I still put it ahead of the others.
reply