I learned on this. It’s near perfect. Nothing to say but thank you!
356 karma · joined April 13, 2024
However, systematically performing robust N=1 trials individually across multiple substances can be impractical—too laborious and time-consuming for most people. An interesting business model might be a startup that facilitates personalized N=1 experiments at scale: providing users with high-quality compounds, matched placebos, structured dosing schedules, and data-tracking tools. This could empower more individuals to accurately assess personal efficacy across a wide variety of substances, potentially offering valuable, personalized insights that large-scale clinical trials can’t capture.
People of the internet, you were right. Now, this is incredible.
My guess: You can’t outwit a digital native generation. Websites with less concern for the rules in general will become digital hangouts.
TLDR: Children do not need teaching as much as they need love and understanding.
I interpret their explanation for “no” as follows: these are probabilistic outputs, and so given any changes, for some inputs, some outputs will be worse some of the time.
The argument goes that, given they’re probabilistic, even without changes, for some inputs, some outputs will be worse than the last time you gave it that input, some of the time.
To be fair to them, it makes sense that any change would then be met with some vocal users who are genuinely experiencing worse output, but are not generally using a worse product.
Smells like the old internet!
Runpee.com for when best to pee during a long film, Mr Skin for nude scenes (Flesh of The Stars in Knocked up fiction) … and titledrops.net for title drops.
I believe this is because 1. Doctors don’t want to blame their patients for becoming sick. 2. Many of the lifestyle factors are societally systemic and feel too big to try change. 3. The money is in treatment, not prevention.
Edit: (See: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2515569/#:~:text=Th....)
You can imagine how sensitive detection/incidence amongst this cohort is to detection bias.
The article demonstrates this by a known factor, tabacco. Other lifestyle factors are similarly predictive and already known, like diet and pollutants (which the article mentions).
The article curiously doesn’t mention detection bias: the tendency for increased access to diagnostic tools or medical evaluations to lead to higher rates of detection/incidence. This is almost certainly true of comparing rural Armish to city dwellers, and has a demonstrated enough effect to explain the difference in non-tobacco related cancer cases between the two groups - and much more likely an influence than genetic protective differences.
The genetic angle is likely to be so minimal to be trivial, IMO.
Long story short: this isn’t very new or interesting.
The biggest surprise for me was that the people running the company were gamblers too. If someone beat them, then they wanted to beat them back (which made no sense to me… given that the statistics are running over the group, not an individual). If someone beat them badly, then it was okay because it’s good marketing (and the player would always bring that money back, they’d say). They would also say “all gamblers are addicts”. Rivalry with their players high, respect low… Except perhaps for their “Whales” where the social contract between the two parties was more explicit. Also worth noting that from what is saw, 80% of revenue comes from <10% of players.
There is no differentiation to the company between sports, slots, lotteries and other games.There are no noble games, just ways to extract money from confused or vulnerable people. Crash games seem to be deluding people the most currently.
I don’t believe it’s possible for these companies to behave anything close to ethically. Regardless of regulation, the business model is corrupt.
At conferences anyone I spoke to would say “you can’t leave the gaming industry, the money is just too good”. Which is why I promptly left.
It’s amazing that since then: - A treated HIV diagnosis no longer necessarily changes your life expectancy. - Your HIV negative partner or unborn child will not necessarily contract the disease, if treated. - Treatment adherence requires just two visits a year. - Doctors have a ready solution in the case of accidental potential transmission. - I can’t remember the last time I saw a public telephone.