drankula3

I am not aware of any research, I've only connected the dots from my experience. I was super pale growing up, had orthostatic hypotension, dry skin, sweated insanely during puberty, and felt like I got progressively stupider as I got into my early 20s. I developed hypertension, and I drank lots of diet energy drinks from 16-20 and felt better when I did.

At some point, I got genetic testing done through 23andme, ran that info through software that revealed health info, and it showed I had a genoset that heavily affects phenylalanine processing. I started taking a stimulant and tyrosine, and I've felt better ever since.

My genetic oddity also affects NO synthesis, and will probably lead to my death through heart attack or stroke. It's gs224 if you're interested in the specifics.

On 2 and 3: aspartame metabolizes into the amino acid phenylalanine, a precursor to dopamine and epinephrine[0]. In normal people, breakdown of the upstream neurotransmitters increase when phenylalanine increases, meaning there are no negative effects from it's consumption. It does not store in the liver.

There are some diseases that involve a malfunction in phenylalanine processing, like phenylketonuria[1] and hyperphenylalaninemia[2]. It would not surprise me a bit if people with subclinical forms of hyperphenylalaninemia self-medicate with diet soda to feel better, particularly energy drinks that come with other things that aid in dopamine synthesis. Disfunction in dopamine synthesis often affects other things like NO synthesis, affecting blood pressure and inflammation.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame?wprov=sfla1

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenylketonuria?wprov=sfla1

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperphenylalaninemia?wprov=sf...

Edit: changed serotonin to epinephrine, as phenylalanine is not a precursor to serotonin.

How do we draw the line in what norms to enforce? And who determines that those norms are actually better than the ones in place? It seems like this would be a great way for multinational corporations to become cultural and moral enforcers, which causes bad incentives to influence people towards consumption above all else.

On sites like Reddit and HN, hiveminds absolutely occur from the voting algorithm. Content that caters to the lowest common denominator of the site or subreddit is what ends up at the top, and people with differing views stop expressing their views due to social pressure. Plus the owners of all social media sites have a financial incentive to influence the trends of the site and its users.

I'm not saying alternative viewpoints and free speech sites are all sugar and flowers, because they often are filled with deplorable content. I do feel, however, that they serve a purpose in providing alternatives to the corporate.

The post adds value because it puts the China post into perspective. There's a trend right now to make China the political Boogeyman, when the geopolitical reality is more nuanced.

This is actually exactly the response I was hoping for. Any community that responds in a black-or-white manner on a cultural issue like this one would be completely incapable of supplanting a global site like Reddit.

It looks interesting. Your blog says it has "Limited tolerance, especially for assholes." I'd like to ask you a question that would help elucidate this ethos. Let's say a user makes a comment about how illegal immigrants should be deported, and another user calls the first racist in response. How would the site respond & why?

A bubble popping and a contraction are different things.

Exactly. Metabolic changes take time.

My wife is a respiratory therapist. When asked, she said higher-than-average CO2 is seen in COPD patients, and is compensated through an increase in metabolic bicarbonate production, countering the acidic properties of CO2. We are still entering unknown territories with such large populations getting exposed to higher CO2 levels, but she thinks we'll be fine.

Sure, and there is resistance to that too.

There's a saying that comes to mind when I read this post.. You judge yourself based on intent. You judge others based on action.

They are also a nationally recognized band, increasing the perception of legitimacy.

> ...[grocery stores] choose to uphold their brand images

I'm not entirely convinced of this. ALDI grew and became popular because there was no fluff, just a limited line of cheap products sold efficiently in a store with a layout designed for efficiency. Now they are rearranging stores to be like everything else, creating "sales" to get people with poor impulse control to buy, and pushing their image of being the best "deal" while upping the price of their increasingly varied produce. They might be selling off their brand slower than manufacturers did, but the slow brand decay seems to be happening to me.

Many can agree that society needs to change. The important questions are how does it need to change, and what is a viable path of creating such change? Politically, we can't do something that would lower our quality of life en masse, which limits our options with regards to this issue.

Fighting cancer involves lowering cancer rates in each individual person. Individual likelihood of cancer is unaffected by the global population. Fighting climate change involves lowering CO2 rates for the globe, and is heavily influenced by the global population and the population of rich countries.

Limiting further population increase is in no way equivalent to saying kill yourself. This is a gross exaggeration.

Rich fat people exist, and are demonized too. Obesity is a result of overeating, and can be avoided even if you're poor. Rice and frozen bags of rich veggies are cheap.

I disagree completely. Self-loathing and the desire to be desirable was the only reason I ended up losing weight. Shame not feel nice, but it does provide social pressure, which if not addressed maladaptively can be a good thing.

Most streamers, myself included, use a filter called a noise gate, which requires the volume of the mic reach a certain threshold before being broadcast. This filters out the majority of background noise on the stream.

When corrected for inflation,I make 30% less than my father did right out of college.

I think ignoring or suppressing our tribal nature en masse is part of the problem. We evolved in an environment of small, closely related communities, and develop in groups and out groups. Without a sharply defined in group, everyone becomes part of the out group, meaning we default to distrust until proven otherwise. It's sad.

Got any proof of this? Or does it just "feel" like the truth?

Large corporations have a Board of Directors composed of people voted into the position by shareholders. This means that large corporations need for the most part to do what shareholders want, or else they will be voted out.

There's also a matter of business competition. If Amazon stops worrying about profits, leverage, and expansion, that leaves areas that competitors can move in _within their domain_. This is why it seems all the big organizations behave sociopathicly: it's required to be on top.

Laws are designed to create limits on corporations to explicitly express how big businesses can behave, and it's not the businesses fault that those laws haven't been keeping up with the times.

No, but pure expressions of emotion without anything else don't add to the conversation, it just adds noise.

I'm hitting a paywall. Does anyone know a workaround for the wsj?

Location: Ozark, MO

Remote: yes

Willing to relocate: no

Technologies: Linux, nginx, networking. Junior-level experience in web development, Java, Python, Node.

Résumé/CV: https://lhackworth.com/resume.pdf

I have a Bachelor of Science in Information Technology, CCNA, CCNA Security, and several CompTIA certs. I have an interest in penetration testing, have junior developer-level skills in HTML, CSS, JavaScript and Java, and am willing to learn new technologies. I am looking for a remote position.

Email: ycombinator@lhackworth.com

It seems like after Reddit exploded trying to catch the Boston Bomber, the insane velocity of content was nerfed to prevent hivemind comment. I don't know if any data is available on how things have changed though.

Personally, I am thinking very hard about buying rural land in Canada, as global warming and mass migration may cause the price of land to go up substantially over time. I haven't run the numbers or pulled the trigger yet though.

So what? Wouldn't that just make wages rise in those other industries, pushing more Americans into those apparently underserved fields?