Verbatim response to that tweet, from a highly qualified friend with relevant scientific expertise:
"idk that critique is pretty dismissive of the actual experimental evidence that they generated in the study… consuming an erythritol sweetened beverage raises the erythritol level in the blood to a level that clearly causes an effect on platelets, and coincides with the difference between the measured levels in the observational study… seems pretty convincing to me".
Can't you recommend someone stop drinking alcohol (for behavioral/psychological or physiological health issues) without giving him something that tastes like alcohol and inebriates you like alcohol?
If you want the lowest risk option and don't experience any of the side effects, aspartame should be your choice. A 'newer' and promising substitute is Allulose, though some people report bowel complaints.
Er... Aspartame is a NMDA receptor antagonist, but at a site where it actually increases NMDA activity. I get super panicky and jittery/feel like my nerves are physically overloaded with Aspartame. My mom would call her reactions "aspartame headaches"
Each sweetener is different and different for different people. Allulose is not metabolized by the body but is free for all those bacteria to eat! Yum! Much much more sugar for the bacteria. It does taste truly lovely though, that said. Stevia glycosides are not bad at all with the taste a bit to get used to. Sucralose is just sucrose IIRC with three chlorine atoms... substituted on it? I think? It's not taken up in your intestine but it does block the transporter in bacteria/yeast that does take it up. So, havoc on the gut flora! I'm pretty sure it kills the bacteria/yeast too. I think.
Acesulfate Potassium is okay but it activates your insulin receptors, so your blood sugar plummets. I can barely stay awake after a single diet cheerwine for that reason.
Glycine is a fun one that's expensive that no one uses. It's literally the opposite of aspartame, even binds to the same receptor at the same receptor site, just... Opposite! It's also like magnesium in which lots of people could use to have it/maybe are deficient in it...I think (don't quote me on that please! D:) I always wanted to try it dusted on a blueberry cake donut. :3
We don't talk about saccharine, but D-ribose (this one is actually caloric) is very expensive but tastes fantastic and is great for your mitochondria to boot! It's a DNA building block as well. I use it when going on ultra-long physical excursions. Blackstrap molasses is great for cutting with any of the above sweeteners for cheap caramelly roasted toasted robust flavor without many calories. Inulin, a digestible fiber is also sweet and worth a shot! (I don't think it's super cheap, but I don't think it's break the bank or no).
Oh, 70% sucralose solution is fun (and cheap!) too. It's 600x sweeter than sugar lol. It tastes almost soapy bitter it activates whatever receptors so strongly lol. I love it. Sometimes it leaks and crystalizes on the outside of the bottle. What a rush it is to have those. Oh, to see my life flash before my eyes like that again....
I use that as my emergency sweetener sparingly. I have a small bottle that's lasted me for years at this point.
Stevia from Trader Joe's is my go to. I add it to beans with molasses and some garlic infused oil and some spicy stuff and such. Yummmmmmm. Gonna have to have some of that soon!
So there you go. There's more of course (like some corn fiber of some kind IIRC), but those are a lot of the main ones. And erythritol. But I say use what's good for you. It's literally different for each person. They're drugs but boy do I like the sweet flavor, and Stevia is a good tradeoff for me that I've come to love so much.
Hope that was interesting, if you made it to this point, thanks for reading and so much love! :)))) <3 <3 <3 <3 :))))
Great write-up! Thanks for putting it all together. Just want to add: Aspartame is extensively studied, the known side effects are very well understood and the probability of undiscovered side effects is extremely low. That's why I wrote lowest-risk. That is, if you don't experience the side effects.
The problem with monk fruit is that while it seems relatively benign on its own, many/most commercial products that claim to be "sweetened with monk fruit extract" actually have other cheaper commercial sweeteners mixed in.
If you google "monk fruit extract diarrhea" theres a good amount out there on this.
So you may switch to monk fruit thinking its a better alternative but actually be consuming erythritol anyway.
I'm pretty sure you're referring to the poor health outcomes correlating with high caloric intake, which afaict, come from people's consumption of heating oils (seed oils): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetable_oil
There's bound to be mixups what talking about sugars and fats. But these fuel oils are really really bad for us. We've demonized sugars unnecessarily. Right?
It's more about Heroku dropping free and low-cost plans, which is them demonstrating that they don't currently care about three low end of the market, more than any specfic feature.
Also the absolute disaster with security they had just before dropping free tiers, and the awful response which took months to even acknowledge some kinds of data (such as pipeline keys) where affected. [0]
> There's no support for a single dedicated IP address for your application. With Heroku, your application's CPU resources are mostly located in one datacenter. Heroku doesn't support HTTP2 or Brotli compression and it doesn't do Edge TLS termination. And it doesn't run your applications on dedicated MicroVMs. These are all things that Fly's Global Application Platform does.
The other comment that mentions Heroku dropping low cost plans is the reason for the explosion in growth as I understand it though.
People don't trust it any more, because Salesforce have been under-investing in it for years and recently rug-pulled on everyone who had ever used the free tier (after providing that free tier for 15 years already - long enough for people to reasonably expect it to continue).
I was confused by your first reply at first. I think that's because you are answering a different question from a number of other people. You're asking about the conditions under which and AI might fool people into thinking it was a human, whereas I think others are considering the conditions under which a human might consistently emotionally attach to an AI, even if the human doesn't really think it's real.
Yeah, I think the effect they are talking about is like getting attached to a fictional character in a novel. Writing good fiction is a different sort of achievement.
It's sort of related since doing well at a Turing test would require generating a convincing fictional character, but there's more to playing well than that.
My father was present, as a boy, at the opening of the Lancaster bypass, which was the first section of motorway constructed in in Britain, followed by the Preston bypass. He was always very careful to remind people how the M6 was the first motorway in Britain and not the M1.
"Sticklers will point out that the Preston Bypass was the first motorway, and they're right. It was part of the M6, but only eight miles long. Opened just a year later, and initially covering 60 miles, the M1 was the first long distance motorway in the UK."
Another issue here is there is a problem with laws which are broad enough that it requires selective enforcements for them to be available. Because then you can get a problematic force which then uses them selectively for political purposes. This indeed is how the Soviet state worked and indeed current Russian state works to quash dissent.
There's "the Constitution" the document, which has some words in it.
Then there's "the Constitution" the spirit, which is what the American public feels abut the document, irrespective of the words therein.
The two are never quite the same, and the latter is often the deciding factor when it comes to writing laws. The former factor, carefully parsing the words in the context of laws, has been where the courts come in. But these days is seems the court's view on the Constitution is colored as much by their feelings about the words as the words taken literally themselves. For example, for decades one court can say that a right to privacy is implied by the Constitution, and then suddenly a new court can completely flip that. Despite the words in the Constitution remaining the same in the intervening period, the feelings of the court about the document changed, and so what is considered "Constitutional" under the law changed as well.
In that sense, what is normal can in fact be Constitutional, as long as people with the right power say so, even if the document doesn't say as such in literal words.
I like the ending:
'If you don’t like Hancock’s story about the super-intelligent advanced civilisation being wiped off the face of the planet, here’s another that might explain how Netflix gave the greenlight to Ancient Apocalypse: the platform’s senior manager of unscripted originals happens to be Hancock’s son. Honestly, what are the chances?'
While I don't disagree with the general tenor of the article and the apparent real issues with these oils,
Regarding the section quoted below: this doesn't appear to have any statistical coherence, since naive calculations like this tend to make many implicit unwarranted assumptions.
'If heavy smoking (a pack of cigarettes per day) increases risk of death by 80% and increasing vegetable oil consumption (by 12% of calories) increases risk of death by 62%, we can use some back-of-the-napkin math to infer that every 5% increase in daily calories from vegetable oil is as dangerous as smoking 7 cigarettes per day.
Another way of looking at it: each additional teaspoon of vegetable oil you consume could increase your risk of death as much as smoking 2 cigarettes. '
It's not the same at all. At first glance it might feel the same, but the structural questions are different. The fact that the Facebook does have privacy problems does not show that Atlantic salmon does actually have parasites problems in the same way that pacific salmon does.
Interesting article. It seems to be saying that wild salmon are pink because of a pigment in their diet, but farmed salmon are only pink because of a pigment in their diet.
Indeed. Farmed ones aren't given the same diet. I suspect it's not as healthy for them either, but it does well enough for industrial purposes. Think of cattle feed v grass, etc
"idk that critique is pretty dismissive of the actual experimental evidence that they generated in the study… consuming an erythritol sweetened beverage raises the erythritol level in the blood to a level that clearly causes an effect on platelets, and coincides with the difference between the measured levels in the observational study… seems pretty convincing to me".