In my (obviously anecdotal) experience, that’s not who the primary GLP1 user is.
It’s the suburban mom (or dad sometimes) who wants help losing a little weight. Instead of being 300lbs like your example, she’s 160lbs and wants to be 140lbs.
6’1” 230 wanting 210 without having a third bike injury for it. 40 doesn’t heal like 20, turn your head wrong and you are in pain for a month. It sucks.
The morbidly obese people I know fall into two camps:
Those that still want to reduce their weight: All of them are on GLP-1s now (and losing weight!)
Those that had totally given up: They had long since stopped attempting anything to reduce their weight
I suspect that the larger you are, the more likely you are to fall into that second category - getting to 300+ lb involves a certain level of accepting defeat to begin with.
I really feel like this is just about the circle you are in. How many 300lb people do you know? 16% of the country is on GLP-1's as of mid 2024, Im sure its higher now. Every single massively overweight person I know has at least tried GLP-1s
Hmmm I know this it’s true because if management only thought quarterly, no one would ever hire anyone. Hiring someone takes 6+ months to pay off as they get up to productivity.
I can't tell if we're doing like a sarcastic joking thing where we're making fun of management, or if you really believe this. If we're joking around, then haha. If you really believe this to be true, then you have a warped view of reality.
The street cred doesn't come from managing more resources, the street cred comes from delivering more.
Yes, this could end up either turning into a Linux or like when Microsoft released Tay and Twitter users taught it to be a Nazi. Or anywhere in between, really.
It really can't for numerous reasons, one of them being that PRs have to be fairly low effort, and this will be even more so if the popular "merge daily" PR is voted in. People talk about this "evolving", but it's nothing like biological evolution or genetic algorithms. It's just a linear sequence of small changes, and without either planning and central authority or some stable fitness function (the ecological environment in biological evolution) the changes are directionless.
That has nothing to do with a stable fitness function ... an external set of factors that determine which changes allow offspring to survive. This thing doesn't have offspring (or always has exactly one offspring and then the parent dies) and it survives until the whole thing collapses.
And I think they already have what you describe or something like it ... PRs have to build and survive CI.
It should have been abundantly clear that wasn't the way the word "evolution" was being used here to being with. (Actually the comment you replied to used the word "metamorphosis" so what are you even going on about?)
Nonetheless, if you're going to quibble that it isn't ahckchtually evolution because it's missing a fitness function then I'm going to counter that you can form a loose analogy so long as you have some fitness apparatus that's conceptually and operationally separable from the implementation itself. I think some unit tests and a CI pipeline is sufficient.
> It should have been abundantly clear that wasn't the way the word "evolution" was being used here to being with.
My whole point was that the sort of evolution that this will undergo isn't like biological evolution so it won't be effective the way biological evolution is. That should have been abundantly clear.
> Actually the comment you replied to used the word "metamorphosis" so what are you even going on about?
Did you ever bother to look upthread? I wrote "People talk about this "evolving"", and that comment was not a response to the one mentioning metamorphosis. See the title: "Open Chaos: A self-evolving open-source project"
I'm not quibbling and that's an offensive accusation as is your "ahckchtually" mocking as well as the rude tone of your clueless whooshes above so I will only respond you this once. Biological evolution has powerful mechanisms that this lacks ... in fact the biggest lack is that there's just one "organism" here, not a population, and just one change at a time. And your fitness function only determines whether something compiles and runs; it gives no direction to the "evolution" ... it's not being fit to anything that drives its progress (the choices come from the PRs, not from the fitness function, and they are independent of each other or at best loosely coupled--thus they aren't stable) which I explicitly pointed out previously when I mentioned the fitness function. So your "loose analogy" fails miserably and this thing is going to be directionless, as I said, and so it won't build up something like a Linux kernel or AGI (both of these have been mentioned, but hey, not in the comment that used the word "metamorphosis" -- apparently I have to say this).
> the average monthly new-car loan payment in the United States ticked up to $748. Says who? Some random finance company you’ve never heard of? Ah, no. This time, it’s from Experian—the folks who can see your credit reports. I’m going to go out on a limb here and say their data on this sort of thing is probably pretty good.
Why would anyone write like this? Why couldn't the first paragraph just be:
> The average monthly new-car loan payment in the United States ticked up to $748, according to Experian.
That article says "at least 19 protesters and one member of the security forces have been killed", although that was as of a few days ago.
The numbers you quoted are from the end of the article, which is about the previous demonstrations in 2022.
(In fairness, it's confusing because BBC News articles put almost every sentence into its own paragraph, which I think is intended to help low literacy people read them. But it does make it hard to follow the connections between sentences that really ought to be together in a paragraph, like in this case.)
Unfortunately we've seen protests like this before in Iran (perhaps not this widespread, however).
Shouting in the streets won't end the regime. The regime will either just wait it out, or clamp down with violence. The people will need to take more direct action if they hope for any change to come out of this - which unfortunately likely means more death.
Without weapons, the people of Iran will have a difficult time overthrowing the regime. This may highlight to some folks abroad the importance of the US's 2nd Amendment, and an armed civilian population - things we take for granted in the US, and some wish to abolish.
It's a nasty, depressing situation. The regime needs to end. The people of Iran, and the people of the world will be far better off without this regime.
I disagree with this - there have been overthrowings that did not require weapons in the field (i.e. Egypt, Tunisia), while widespread weapons were likely to cause civil wars (Lybia, Syria). In these cases however the role of the army was key in forcing the rulers out (and in Egypt to replace them), which might be unlikely in the case of Iran.
> This may highlight to some folks abroad
> the importance of the US's 2nd Amendment,
> and an armed civilian population
British India, the USSR, East Germany, Francoist Spain, Apartheid South Africa, Communist Romania etc. etc. The 20th century is full of repressive regimes with even more repressive gun laws that fell due to protests etc.
The idea that everyone can show up at the protest with their AR-15, somehow defeat the state's security forces in armed combat, and that the result will be some enlightened republic is an American fantasy, informed by what's at best a selective reading of American history.
If it comes to that you're much more likely to end up under some warlord. Afghanistan and especially Africa are full of people who are well armed and where exactly that's happened more often than not.
The actual idea is that this will give individual members of the "security forces" a plausible excuse to not repress the protests violently - which can be very helpful in shifting the overall incentives towards a peaceful transition of power.
> This may highlight to some folks abroad the importance of the US's 2nd Amendment, and an armed civilian population
I don't think this highlight that at all. Judging by what has happened so far, the people who have the guns join the tyranny rather than oppose it. Why would it be any different in Iran?
You can look at historical revolutions - going back to the beginning of time - to see your statement is obviously false. An armed civilian population is one that can enact revolution. A disarmed population is one that gets killed, beaten and controlled.
No rebellion or revolt had ever been successful without arms supplied from outside sponsors.
Random personal small arms that a bunch of people just happen to have at home are not enough to win a revolutionary war against a professional military.
> Random personal small arms that a bunch of people just happen to have at home are not enough to win a revolutionary war against a professional military.
They're absolutely enough to tip the scales in favor of those within that professional military who would rather support the prospective revolution. Such people will definitely exist given a widespread revolt against a violently oppressive regime.
Yes random small arms make quite a difference in many scenarios. I can say this with zero commentary on whether one feels society broadly should have more guns.
September 9, 2025 - Protesters storm the Nepalese parliament, ransacking it and setting it on fire. Homes of leading politicians are also torched and the politicians themselves attacked.
Soon thereafter, the prime minister resigned along with other ministers and the president dissolved the parliament and scheduled a new election.
I think that counts as a successful rebellion or revolt.
Except authoritarians can only clamp down in protests so much, working against them is economic and even regional social collapse due to running out of water. There's a lot building against them.
I actually hope western countries stay out, lest it gives support for nationalists to rally
> requires stronger justification, like active, extreme mass killing.
… which actually did happen under Maduro, btw.
> Protests following the announcement of the results of the presidential election in July were violently repressed with excessive use of force and possible extrajudicial executions. Thousands of arbitrary arrests were carried out against political opponents, human rights defenders and journalists; hundreds of children were among those detained. Detainees including women and children were allegedly tortured. Detention conditions continued to deteriorate. Impunity prevailed for human rights violations.[1]
Is your argument that his dictatorship wasn’t repressive or bloody enough to warrant that? I don’t think that argument has legs - I think it is reasonable for him to be ousted based on the repressive regime argument. Yes, there are bloodier regimes around the world, but that’s like a speeder complaining to a police officer, “why did you stop me? I was only doing 80, the guy in front of me must’ve been doing 90!”
To me, the strongest argument against overthrowing Maduro is geopolitical destabilization and the general, “don’t mess with other countries because it erodes the norms that keep peace around the world.”
I am unsure. It's certainly very good that he's gone. I don't know if it meets the threshold. There being bloodier regimes is I actually think a reasonable counter-argument: should we topple all them, too?
If polls show over 95% of Venezuelans are happy with this outcome after three months, I may shift my position a bit. In general though, I think it's a bad precedent for the world superpower to bomb countries and abduct rules because the ruler is bad. Plus, Trump's motives here are not remotely pure.
Now it’s not clear who is running the country. Maduro’s administration is saying they’re still in charge via their VP, but the opposition has said they are “prepared to assume power,” wherever that may mean.
I fear that there could be so much suffering as a result of this. Power vacuums and forced regime changes don’t seem to go well.
This reminds me a little of when the US toppled Saddam Hussein in Iraq - initially there was celebration, which soon gave way to, “oh shit… now what?”
> But what was created as "ride-sharing" was in fact a way to 1) destroy competition and 2) make a shittier service while people producing the work were paid less and lost labour rights. It was never about the social!
Framed this way, sure. But for the most part, I like Uber. The competition it "killed" was monopolistic and stagnant, and the "shitty service" was the legacy taxi industry that Uber forced to modernize. Yellow taxis got phone apps and credit card processing devices because Uber forced them to keep up.
I remember trying to order a taxi to the airport 15 years ago in one of the most populated cities in the world. I had to look up taxi companies on Google, call their dispatch, and ask for a ride. 40 minutes and several calls later, none arrived, so I had to call a different company's dispatcher as I scrambled to catch my flight.
Now, I've called countless taxis with the push of a button in several countries. I get an estimate of pricing and arrival times up front.
For me, Uber/Lyft is an incredible service. I'll leave the labor rights discussion for a different thread. (inb4 a HN contrarian jumps down my throat about this.)
But that was a long winded way of saying: to me, the author's analogy seriously weakens his point. I could argue that highly personalized entertainment is way better than 800 cable channels of bleh. We still have plenty of non-enshittified communication (I text and call and Whatsapp and Telegram my friends).
reply