theneverfox
Nah, ozempic and Co change sugar absorption and satiation. People on it primarily eat way less instantly, apparently they just feel full and don’t feel any desire to keep going. It also slows sugar absorption which is why it helps manage diabetes, so that might also play some role
So far we’ve found it thickens the intestinal lining and significantly messes with the reward pathways, we’re not sure what the long term effects could be. It seems like at best, you basically have to stay on it indefinitely or regain the weight (which is true of current weight loss drugs)
The real issue is that anyone can come up with an economic model, but politicians and public figures get to pick and choose the one that fits their beliefs most closely. The model can be crap and barely hold up beyond an ELIF narrative about why it’s true, and people will base their careers around believing it
I think there are good economic models out there, it’s just the convenient ones that are spread… Ones that don’t generally hold up against actual observation
It’s a matter of motivation. It’s not like the surface web is very worthwhile… Imagine if you were introduced to the web today. Twitter is on fire, Reddit is nonsense karma bots, common searches return unhelpful SEO garbage, YouTube has 10 ads to watch a 10 minute video… Why would you bother?
Doesn’t mean there’s not much worthwhile, it’s just buried. They have braille readers, you can learn to use a screen reader at crazy speeds, and an endless amounts of sites use a consistent layout that a screen reader could easily handle, let alone specialty devices
It’s just one more layer of bullshit that turns people away
Ironically, most technology is the opposite. At least when you’re designing and developing things, it’s all individuals - you can have assistants or small teams, but institutions don’t invent new things, individuals do.
I don’t mean that pedantically, I mean one or two people were the driving force behind near every innovation. A company can sit those people in a room and fund them for a decade, but you have to keep them happy and leave them alone - if they leave or they’re meddled with too much, you’re back to square one
Big companies can’t innovate (except in monetization)… It’s all done by start ups now. Then they get acquired, and all progress halts
Just makes me think, in science (or academia at least) researchers are tied to their research to maintain their position, rather than their position deciding their research. It’s still a pretty broken system, but between that and the incentive for open collaboration it just makes me think. If every piece of technology was open sourced, if everyone from phone manufacturers to game designers existed in a world where designs could be improved upon, where would we be now?
It’s because Obama was polarizing, but he sold himself as progressive convincingly
He literally ran on the promise of change - unfortunately his actions were firmly neo liberal, and he prioritized compromise over meaningful reform
If Obama was a neo liberal in progressive clothing, Clinton was a diehard neo liberal from top to bottom.
Unfortunately, the lesson learned was “people don’t like Hillary” rather than “people want a real progressive”
Interestingly, it’s looking more and more like evolution isn’t random, and not only is evolution happy with “good enough”, it seems like it actively stops there
Based on some recent experiments with bacteria and editing out existing genes, it seems like it chooses one genetic area at a time, and once it makes a marginal increase in an area it switches to another
It’s possibly a mechanism to avoid a population boom then bust - if you improve too much too fast, you’ll outcompete your environment to the point you destroy your own ecological niche
However it works (and figuring that out is bleeding edge research), it’s very old. Interestingly, Darwin’s later (unpublished) writings went in this direction, but the theories lost out to the random mutation theory
