Unless you're doing something blatantly wrong or have a very specific disorder like coeliac, diet just doesn't have very much influence on health. There are a very wide range of diets that are more-or-less equally healthy, within a margin of error. Humans are highly adaptable omnivores that have evolved to survive and thrive on a broader range of foods than pretty much any other species. The data seems so mixed because the effect sizes of reasonable interventions are so small - a tiny signal drowned out by noise.
The entire problem is that most people in high- and middle-income countries are in fact doing something blatantly wrong - they are consistently eating vastly more calories than they use. Some of those people are ignorant of what 2000 to 2500 calories actually looks like, some are deluded, but a very large proportion know damned well that they're eating far too much and do it anyway.
The obesogenic environment that we now live in is partly due to the influence of the processed foods industry, but in large part it's simply a product of abundance. Before the late 20th century, it was simply inconceivable that poor people could afford to become morbidly obese. Agricultural productivity has improved beyond all recognition and the world is flooded with incredibly cheap food of all kinds.
We've spent the last few decades trying to push back against that with all manner of initiatives intended to endgender behavioural change, with very little success. It doesn't really matter what guidance we give people when they have shown a consistent inability or unwillingness to follow it.
If we're actually serious about the effects of diet on public health, I think there are only two credible options - extremely heavy-handed regulation, or the mass prescribing of GLP-1 receptor agonists. All of the other options are just permutations of "let's do more of the thing that hasn't worked".
Most things in the Chinese military system are numbered rather than named. Military units are numbered twice - a public cover designator and a private true unit designator, originally four and later five digits. Factories got a three digit number - 296 for the small arms factory in Jiangshe, 816 for the uranium enrichment plant in Fuling and so on. Everyone in and around Factory 404 would have known it as such, but the mere existence of Factory 404 was a state secret.
The existence of such a large and conspicuous secret might seem bizarre to the post-cold-war mind, but it was fairly common in the West too. For example, the British Telecom Tower in central London stands at 189 metres tall and had a revolving restaurant that was open to the public, but was also a designated site under the Official Secrets Act.
Is it victim of the enumeration vulnerability, ie between 403 and 405 you can guess what they were busy with and therefore identify the activity? Or do they randomize the numbers, but then just 3 digits seems little for such a big country?
How valuable are those trophies compared to bribes, or the tacit bribes of cushy "consultancy" roles? How do you stop lobbyists from gutting those regulators - what use is a fiercely independent regulator that has no resources?
Getting money out of politics is the hardest part.
I am not sure how the US will find the political will short of getting burned badly enough for partisans to align on reform. How bad does it have to get?
Unit 8200 hand-picks the best and brightest young Israelis and trains them in computer science. You might as well say "It's always MIT" - of course an elite educational institution produces a lot of successful startups.
If you're looking for a sinister plot, look no further than In-Q-Tel.
MIT students have different loyalty than to a fascist government like Trump's administration. The political situation in USA is also not like the one in Israel (which country is a direct result of the outcome of WWII and hatred by nazi-Germany, who are in constant fight with their neighbors). It isn't a fair comparison. One should also take into account that Mossad's way of operating is aggressive.
The English article doesn't mention this, but vulnerabilities were found in Zivver. See my comment elsewhere in the thread referring to the Dutch version of the article.
There's something very visceral in being attacked by Jihadists, rockets and ballistic missiles which makes Israelis quite enthusiastic about taking on the fight.
There's something very visceral in being attacked by Zionists, rockets, and bombs (for 70+ years) which makes some folks quite enthusiastic about resisting ethnic cleansing and genocide in their homeland.
The Palestinians have the right to fight just like the Israelis have the right to win. I don't see a non-violent solution to this conflict. Maybe you do.
It's more to do with the bureaucratic costs of getting a product licensed as a medical device. By the standards of the medical industry, an F1 wheel nut gun or a WEC refuelling rig isn't particularly expensive; the prohibitive part is getting a specialist item approved for medical use. Motorsport can do things that don't scale, because no-one is stopping them from using a one-off prototype made to precisely fit their needs. They (and their suppliers) iterate incredibly rapidly Bringing a new medical device to the market is an immensely expensive multi-year project. Obviously there are benefits to the precautionary principle, but I'm not sure that anyone has quantified the costs.
To reiterate a crucial point in this comment, replacing the Office apps is the least of the issues. Enterpise customers rely on 365 for identity management, endpoint protection, business intelligence and a whole bunch of other stuff that the average user pays no attention to. We aren't talking about replacing an office suite, but an entire model of IT infrastructure management.
I think it's just that HN audiences is generally detached from the harsh reality of the "money people" who make these purchasing choices and are generally choosing the safe low friction option, that lets the business free to focus on product development and sales that are the core of business, rather than wasting resources on building and managing IT infra from FOSS scratch for the sake of avoiding $BIG_TECH.
If your business is making and selling a new type of energy drink or gluten free bread, you're not gonna bat an eye on going all-in on Microsoft Office 365 and Azure for your IT infra so you can focus on the product.
Same story on how even software-first companies like Google just default to using SAP for ERP and be done with it instead of trying to write their own solution for no benefit even if they technically could, why bother when they can just focus on doing what they know best, getting you to click on ads, and outsource the annoying boring part of the megacorp business to SAP.
not believe it???? just click past button and its shows top 50 of HN upvoted thread for yesterday and its shows multiple of SaaS product or SaaS clothed OpenSource in some form or another
Users have "brutally rejected" pretty much everything that Microsoft have done since MS-DOS. Some cohort of users will get incredibly angry about any conceivable change to mature software. Add in the people who passionately hate anything AI-adjacent and you've got a recipe for a social media firestorm that probably doesn't accurately reflect the sentiment of the average user.
Personally, I think that Copilot for Work is a good product that does useful things. I use it daily. It isn't particularly groundbreaking, but it's nicely integrated with the wider 365 ecosystem and it has saved me a bunch of time on tedious tasks. The usual LLM caveats apply, but I just don't get why someone would be so annoyed by an entirely optional feature.
Microsoft has a bad history of actually making things optional. Required Microsoft account, Edge automatically importing your browser history and syncing it to Microsoft, OneDrive automatically copying your files and sending it to Microsoft, the repeated attempts after every update to make Edge default again...
They haven't given a fuck about the user experience for years and that's colliding with AI exhaustion. There's well over a dozen different things you need to turn off in various parts of Windows at this point to make it accept your decisions and stop throwing ads in your face, all tucked behind multiple layers of dark patterns.
But in the end, you could run what you needed, and move the garbage they threw in, out of the way. Now, I can't run Minecraft without logging into the MS Store. That was the last straw for me, and I built my entire career on Windows and .NET.
It is highly likely that your mother was misdiagnosed as suffering from unipolar depression when she was in fact suffering from bipolar disorder. A sudden switch to mania is a common outcome, even in cases where the patient has no previous history of mania. It is crucially important to take a comprehensive history to rule out bipolar disorder, but many general practitioners (and some psychiatrists) reflexively prescribe SSRIs whenever they see a depressive episode, even where there is clear evidence of a personal history of hypomania or a family history of mania.
If someone is sad for a specific, identifiable and tractable reason, then they are experiencing a categorically different phenomenon to someone who just feels sad all of the time regardless of their life circumstances.
One of the key diagnostic criteria for melancholic depression - what we might lazily and inaccurately call biological or "real" depression - is mood unreactivity. Someone with severe melancholic depression could win the lottery one week, lose all of their family in a plane crash the next, and feel literally nothing about either event.
Some people with atypical depression (or normal sadness that has been mis-diagnosed as depression) can respond rapidly and dramatically to a change in their circumstances. For many others with depression, there is no external why - something has gone fundamentally wrong in the functioning of their brain. Trying to help those people with talk therapy or exercise or companionship would be as futile as using those things to treat hepatitis or gangrene.
> Trying to help those people with talk therapy or exercise or companionship would be as futile as using those things to treat hepatitis or gangrene.
I get what you want to say, but to nitpick the analogy: If the "treatment" for gangrene is amputation, then that's not really "fixing" anything. That's just the scorched earth strategy of destroying the afflicted along with the affliction. Like lobotomies. What do people think of them now?
> Someone with severe melancholic depression could win the lottery one week, lose all of their family in a plane crash the next, and feel literally nothing about either event.
Why SHOULD someone feel a specific feeling about any event? If you're subconsciously aware of the ultimate pointlessness of any event, if you're aware that feelings won't change what happened, you won't. You'd move on and handle the new reality in the means available to you.
I'm not saying that medicine should never be used and there's never a "chemical" cause to sadness (or any "wrong" feeling), just that it may be used too often as a lazy escape for the "helpers".
>Like lobotomies. What do people think of them now?
Lobotomy was in fact an effective treatment (albeit with extremely severe side-effects), but we now have much better and safer treatments available. The abandonment of lobotomy was fundamentally driven by the invention of effective antidepressants, antipsychotics and mood stabilisers. Neurosurgery is still offered to an extremely small proportion of patients suffering from very severe and treatment-resistant depression and OCD.
well, yes, it did work. the side effects are horrible, and often the disease was better than the cure, but it worked, similar to how being dead also is extremely effective for managing depression.
The entire problem is that most people in high- and middle-income countries are in fact doing something blatantly wrong - they are consistently eating vastly more calories than they use. Some of those people are ignorant of what 2000 to 2500 calories actually looks like, some are deluded, but a very large proportion know damned well that they're eating far too much and do it anyway.
The obesogenic environment that we now live in is partly due to the influence of the processed foods industry, but in large part it's simply a product of abundance. Before the late 20th century, it was simply inconceivable that poor people could afford to become morbidly obese. Agricultural productivity has improved beyond all recognition and the world is flooded with incredibly cheap food of all kinds.
We've spent the last few decades trying to push back against that with all manner of initiatives intended to endgender behavioural change, with very little success. It doesn't really matter what guidance we give people when they have shown a consistent inability or unwillingness to follow it.
If we're actually serious about the effects of diet on public health, I think there are only two credible options - extremely heavy-handed regulation, or the mass prescribing of GLP-1 receptor agonists. All of the other options are just permutations of "let's do more of the thing that hasn't worked".
reply