morgengold

It's great if GPT-1 meds increase the burn of visceral fat. But can we really say that from that study? It could very well be just the effect of the caloric deficit per se (that follows the hunger supression and delayed gastric emptying due to GLP-1).

A caloric deficit leads to a loss of visceral fat. It wouldn't suprise me, if we see the same VAT activity if we had a control group with the same caloric deficit. Only then we could calculate the direct effect of GLP-1 to the VAT acitivity.

Actually the big evolutionary advantage of humans is that they can thrive on a wide range different diets. Unlike other animals we can almost eat everything.

There is only one thing that will work: we need a price for CO2 emissions and we need a collective of economically powerful nations that push that through at the same time. Other nations who refuse to take part need to pay for market access.

Why are Squats with weights “unhealthy”?

"People are busy, exhausted, overwhelmed. Help them. They may have subscribed in a three-second impulse, they may be subscribed to 20 different publishing-related newsletters."

I cannot relate. If I subscribe to a newsletter I know that for months to years whenever a mail pops up in my inbox.

Nice work. Would you mind sharing your programming stack for this tool?

Ivermectin, the latest supposed treatment for COVID-19 being touted by anti-vaccination groups, had “no effect whatsoever” on the disease, according to a large patient study.

That’s the conclusion of the Together Trial, which has subjected several purported nonvaccine treatments for COVID-19 to carefully designed clinical testing. The trial is supervised by McMaster University in Hamilton, Canada, and conducted in Brazil ...

Incentivise amount of data for open questions. Not "inovativeness" or size of effect.

A system with the wrong incentives will produce bad outcomes.

Although I have no doubt climate change is happening and bad, I have big problems generating an emotional response that leads to action.

Is there any website, that explicitly lists the consequences that will punch me in the face?

Nice work! Just out of curiosity: Which of the price tiers (1) is chosen most regularly?

(1) https://freesewing.org/community/join/

I have a big website about finances. Today 80% of the traffic is "mobile". I seriously don't get it.

Because personally I hate to do 'research' with my phone. Of course on the go, or for a quick lookup that's perfectly fine.

I largely agree with your position. Nevertheless I would argue that from time to time one can pick up ideas or concepts which lead to a "click"-like effect in the mind. Which ultimately changes behavior.

But I'm the first to acknowledge that these kind of things are seldom found in such self-help books. Especially not in these get rich kind of stuff. I completely lost interest in this gossip.

Yes, but in this case the criticism comes from the majority position. Not in a harsh way, but still.

Regarding your other comment about the 15%. You might have a point. But I'm not into this topic deep enough for any kind of judgement.

There is substantial criticism mounting directed at the Heinsberg study [1]

- Immunity tests used might have shown false positives. So the 15% might be too high.

- Results of the highly infected town Gangelt are not transferable to whole Germany with lower infection rates.

- The author of the study is inflicted with a marketing agency, which is at least uncommon in science.

Own comment: The danger SARS-Cov19 remains in the speed of spreading due to missing herd immunity (in contrast to the common flu). 0.37 per cent is still a lot. USA: 327,200,000*0.37% = 1,210,640. Social distancing remains the single most effective tool.

[1] https://www.zeit.de/wissen/gesundheit/2020-04/heinsberg-stud...

Targeted advertising should be banned.

There is absolutely no NEED for it. The advertisement industry will tell you that you want to be targeted so that you get the products you need/want. It's a twisted argument. I rarely/never got targeted with something useful. If consumers could freely choose, they always want ad-free stuff.

Massive societal costs come with targeted advertising. Especially psychological, political and social costs. I see no reason why we should take these risks collectively for the profit of few.

If "they" want it, they should show the evidence that it has no harmful effects. The burden of evidence should be on them.

+ he tries to save his system failure with market timed put options.

Luckily he was right 1 week ago. But it was luck only.

I get this. My problem seems to be one level deeper. I do not want to share my current plate or the hiking track I'm on. Neither am I interested in this kind of news of my friends. I'm ok with the youngsters doing that for fun.

But where is the serious conversation gone? Did we share our latest meal in the forums back then? No. Where do the young people get their information when they are serious about sth?

From a user perspective: why do you want to participate in this kind of thing?

I get why this is good for the platform. For me (1985) it seems to have zero value. I feel old more and more.

Why not just forbid the storage of user data? It would solve most problems. Why needs a whole society to be taken hostage for the profit of some companies?

I seriously do not understand.

That may be valid for the average user. All people invovled on the parliament level should want to know what the devil is doing.