saint_fiasco

It might depend on how literally you mean "have lots of sugar".

If the dominant component really is physicalist/biological then things that actually contain sugar but don't look like they contain sugar will cause sugar rushes. For example fruit juice, ketchup, pizza.

If it's cultural/psychological then only things that are "sugar-coded" will produce the effect. Like candy, syrup, ice cream, soft drinks.

If you feel like doing some mad science, see if you can give your kids a rush using sugar-free coke or something like that.

Priming effects are out of fashion now, but I can see how a bright-colored food could make a child more excited than a plain-colored food.

People in South America have never seen sugar rushes in real life, and every single child is given sugar every day. A common breakfast and afternoon snack includes coffee(!) with lots of milk and sugar.

If genes were involved we would expect the prevalence to be different, but there is no way that not a single South American child has the right genes for sugar rush.

Is sugar rush a culture-bound syndrome?

Same here in South America. We even give children coffee and it causes no apparent issues. Admittedly this coffee is taken with lots of milk, but even that is only because children don't like the bitter taste. Over-stimulation was never even a consideration.

I thought sugar rushes was a culture-bound syndrome in which children in the US go hyperactive and other children do not. From the article, it seems like it's something even more mundane than that, and children in the US never got hyperactive from sugar at all.

> "If only I had a chat bot that could act as a TA when students have questions about my lectures" is so far down the list of things they'd like to have to solve problems

I care about their problems a little bit, but I naturally care about the problems of the students a lot more. The point of colleges is to make it easier for the students to learn, not for the teachers to teach. The teachers are a means to an end.

If colleges announce that they will use AI as TAs and the students tear their hair out, then I will worry.

Not every cheap product has to be low quality. In particular, lots of products are used by poor and rich alike.

Everyone uses the same smartphones (the poor people use phones about as good as rich people used less than a decade ago), everyone drinks the same soft drinks, everyone takes the same cold medicine (the generic ones are pretty good), everyone uses the same social media, the same operating systems (even the richest Microsoft customers have to put up with their adware)

It should be, but if the teacher is teaching you multiplication and you are struggling because you haven't reviewed addition in a while, the teacher will probably just yell at you.

Only the most dedicated of teachers will review addition with you yet again before moving on with multiplication lessons. After all, there are dozens of kids in the class, they can't all delay the lesson just for your sake.

Human babies can swim, kinda. But the instinctive version of swimming that comes preinstalled in our brains is not like riding a bike. It's something that we forget how to do if we don't practice, and then we have to re-learn it.

That sounds like the opposite from the quote. The art transformation model you propose WOULD emit memorized art in benign situations, so in that judge's opinion it WOULD count as plagiarism.

Remind me again which side is the antisemitic one nowadays? Was it the far left or the far right?

Congress can still delegate the known unknowns. They can say "because we are not experts in this subject, we delegate to agency X the power to decide whether this should be done in X or Y way"

What they cannot do anymore is delegate unknown unknowns. They cannot leave X and Y unspecified, the executive agencies cannot do things in Z way that Congress didn't enumerate, or α and β way that Congress didn't even conceive.

The obvious example is pro-choice people who wish that Congress would pass a law that favors their position, and have been forced to rely on weird Supreme Court rulings by activist judges instead.

You can argue that the pro-choice people should just accept that Congress does not decide in their favor, that this is a democracy and in a democracy sometimes you lose. But it's not like Congress has decided in favor of their opponents either. They just decide nothing. If Congress actually decided one way or the other then at least people would know where they stand and could stop feeling anxious about it.

> Society can't operates if laws change every day

Funny you should mention that. Gorsuch wrote the exact same thing while arguing in favor of overruling Chevron. You can find it by Ctrl+F-ing the string "though the laws do not".

> "Chevron’s fiction has led us to a strange place. One where authorities long thought reserved for Article III are transferred to Article II, where the scales of justice are tilted systematically in favor of the most powerful, where legal demands can change with every election even though the laws do not, and where the people are left to guess about their legal rights and responsibilities"

> forcing Congress to do its job

> Why are they dreading this?

You answered your own question there. Congress should do its job, but as a matter of fact it is not doing its job and it is not going to do its job anytime soon.

The Court might be technically, legally, philosophically correct in removing the inelegant hacks that the previous courts set up to route around the fact that Congress does not do its job. But in the meantime, Congress is still not doing its job.

Objectively, opioids are prescribed much less often outside the US.

Subjectively, I got four wisdom teeth extracted in two sessions of two extractions each. Both times I only needed generic acetaminophen to manage the pain.

Perhaps an US surgeon have insisted on doing it all in one session, in which case I would have found the pain and discomfort intolerable and opioids would have made more sense.

In any case, they should probably figure out why their patients are in more pain than the patients of foreign surgeons and fix that. It could be something silly like them being less gentle during surgery because they are used to their patients being on opioids.

Right, they must have accumulated the money beforehand. But what they are doing right now with it is the opposite of accumulating it. They are taking the money that they previously accumulated and spending it on lots of random bullshit.

Suppose you were to discourage accumulation, with a tax for example. Wouldn't that lead to investors investing in even more random bullshit?

But the whole point is that in this case the money is not accumulated. Lots of different companies are each spending a lot of money in the hopes that they will be the last standing, at which point they will get to accumulate the money.

It's possible that if one company does end up with a monopoly, they will treat their employees better. Because then they will finally be able to charge higher prices to the customers without losing those customers to the other more exploitative businesses.

He ceased being the CEO for a while, and then he was CEO again. They had no choice the first time (he was the founder), but the second time they must have thought the risk and annoyance of having an asshole CEO were worth it.

But the reason you mentioned murder in the first place is that, unlike general violent crime, it always gets reported.

So it turns out that both measures are kind of hard to use, for different reasons.

Personally, that's no reason to be solipsistic about it. I can still form coherent ideas about whether or not there is more crime than usual. But it does leave enough wiggle room for people to lie about the issue for political reasons, in whichever direction you least prefer.

Make sure to also add up attempted murders, assaults with deadly weapon and things like that.

If you don't, every time medicine improves, it will look like people are less murderous. In reality the victims might just have access to better hospitals.

> I stated that there are correlations

The funny part, the reason it's called a paradox, is that the correlation can be fake or can even be reversed. We cannot know either way just from our personal experiences, the selection effects are too strong.

And the anecdote you tell, the part about smart programmers being smart enough to get away with being a little messy, and dumb programmers being obsessed with cleanliness to reduce cognitive load, are exactly the sorts of situations that can cause the paradox.

It's like when you are casually dating a bunch of people and find that the good-looking ones tend to have bad personalities because they are attractive enough that they can get away with it. It is a real correlation from your perspective, but on a global scale the correlation is opposite. Good looking people tend to be more charismatic in real life, we just can't tell while we are on the dating market because the ones who are both good looking and charismatic are out of our league, and as for the ugly/mean ones, we are out of their league.

When it comes to smart/clean, maybe you can hang out with enough people to get an accurate sample.

But then you would find other paradoxes, like maybe you'd find that the smart/clean programmers you meet have a worse personality or are less athletic than the dumb/messy ones.

The only way for it to not apply at all, for every possible trait, is if you hang out with the entire planet at the same time.

I didn't intend to make a statistically rigorous statement or anything, I just thought your anecdote was a funny application of Berkson's paradox.

The fun part is that I don't need to know how smart or clean you are, or how cool the companies you work for are. As long as you subjectively perceive people to be cleaner/messier than you, or smarter/dumber than you, Berkson's paradox will still hold no matter what your objective, absolute levels of those traits are.

For example, it's perfectly possible that the programmers you consider to be dumb but clean or smart but messy are still both smarter and cleaner than me. Berkson's paradox applies to me too, after all, and we don't hang out together.

There are smart programmers and dumb programmers, clean programmers and messy programmers. From your perspective, it looks like there is an inverse correlation but that is only because of Berkson's paradox.

The programmers who are both smart and clean don't hang out with you. They have more interesting projects to work on, or higher-paid jobs at other companies/industries. At the same time, you don't hang out with programmers who are both stupid and messy. They don't get hired at the same companies you work for, they don't have the skills needed to work on the same projects you work on, their articles don't get to the front page of Hacker News and so on.

Isn't there an aftermarket solution you can buy that would make the kia you bought three years ago more secure?

Sure, it sucks that you have to unexpectedly spend money on it, but when you bought a cheap car you knew you were taking the risk of having to deal with unknown unknowns.

I'd bite that bullet.

The FDA should be less strict with their cybersecurity stuff. The amount of lives lost to the increased cost of care is not worth the increase in cybersecurity.

If medical devices have just enough security to stop people who don't have physical access to the device, just enough to make attacks at scale unfeasible, then that should be good enough IMO.

Maybe it doesn't deactivate it you change the components one at a time over a long period, Ship of Theseus style

> there are no secure modern car options

I don't think there can be such a thing as a secure remote start option. The only way they can make it more secure than traditional keys is if they also make it less convenient to use than traditional keys, and then there is no point because the traditional keys will be easier and cheaper.

What happened is that consumers did not know that the remote keys were unsafe, and now they know.

What I don't understand is why insecure cars should be banned by law. Now that everyone knows about the issue, surely everyone will switch to a more secure system of their own accord.

Apple and Google don't sell insecure cheap phones, but lots of other manufacturers do.

I suppose organized crime doesn't systematically take advantage of that because cheap phones are cheap, and the people who own them are poor. You don't get that much benefit from pwning them.

Alternatively, maybe organized crime does take advantage of them but we haven't heard about it. They could have a giant botnet of them for all we know.

My bad, I was thinking in terms of the expensive remote start lock vs an even more expensive and safer remote start lock.

But if the fancy insecure lock is more expensive, the problem should fix itself eventually, right? Consumers will switch back to the cheaper system of their own accord.

It sucks for the people who bought the insecure cars without knowing, but banning insecure cars is not going to help them retroactively in any way.