This is not how nonprofits usually work. This is blatant fraud. I cannot think of any other case besides OpenAI of this particular shenanigan being pulled.
We're not there yet, and the future is famously hard to predict; but it sure feels like you drew a straight line and time continued to move along that straight line even if it's not quite at that destination yet.
That's beside the point, though. Imagine you are in some non-aligned/involved country with no real stake in MENA politics, idk Thailand or Peru. Corporate/national security is your job. Absent some specific need that can't be supplied by anyone else, would you want to do business with them?
You assume. They've cracked down hard on anti-war protesters inside Israel. It's absolutely not a safe, nor even likely true, assumption that Mossad does not also surveil Israelis.
No they didn't? There's protests every day, "they" haven't "cracked down" on anything. Occasional arrests here and there on both sides of the protests. It's a democratic country, people have rights to express themselves.
Why the assumption I said this about humans? I was referring to parasites in the theoretical.
More weirdly, was someone equating a tree's ability to be destructive, compared to human's ability to do so. The only time I've seen trees be destructive is due to human interference, putting them into the discussion new ecosystems where they can quickly overcome the native plants.
Linoleic acid (a particular polyunsaturated fat) is possibly implicated as one of the major villains in skyrocketing obesity rates; eg, correlation between obesity and linoleic acid content in body fat, theories about it being a trigger for an archaic hibernation metabolic shift. (Its use has risen hugely over time, along with obesity, but of course you could say the same thing about global warming and pirates.)
It's not just less or more food. Calorie density matters, as does taste.
Yes, one can lose weight by drinking some Soylent Green mush with the exact correct caloric count and macros for steady healthy weight loss.
You know what else that person will lose? All happiness and the will to live =)
Some people really are just "food is fuel" and don't care what stuff tastes like, others (like me) actually get enjoyment from eating food, different foods on every day.
This is why there isn't a one size fits all solution to weight loss. Even "calories in calories out" is a bit hazy, because not every single calorie in the food is consumed with 100% efficiency - it depends on your gut bacteria, which we know way too little about.
Nah dude it really is as easy as eat less = lose weight. In all cases if you reduce your food consumption you will eventually weigh less this is thermodynamics 101. Nobody has to drink Soylent green mush or even just salads. Just eat less. And maybe go for a run here and there that helps too.
If bodys were thermodynamic engines. We aren't! We have hormones and steroids and various receptor sites we have the stomach to brain connection... That's how someone can be put on antipsychotic medication or certain bipolar medications and then end up gaining a whole bunch of weight without changing their diet. We aren't simple calorie and calorie out engine machines we are extremely complex.
Sure we aren't simple thermodynamic engines but we are thermodynamic engines.
Calorie counting works. If you input less energy than your body consumes, you WILL lose weight. If you disagree with basic physics like that then you're deliberately misunderstanding.
And sure, many factors affect the exact balance, but it remains true that reducing calorie intake will reduce your weight.
When people say "calorie counting doesn't work" they really mean "calorie counting is hard to stick to", which is fair.
But WHAT you eat is also significant for long term weight loss. Anyone can eat 1000cal deficit of only kale and unseasoned chicken breast. But nobody can do it for 40 years, which is needed for a lifestyle change.
And now we’re back to the psychology of things, the food needs to be balanced and tasty. Not just 100% healthy.
Also if two people eat the exact same amount of the exact same food, they get different amounts of calories from it. The body isn’t a 100% efficient engine, there are losses.
I agree. Some people don't realize how many calories some of the things they regularly consume have, though, and I think that's why many have trouble losing weight, which is why it's important to track your calorie consumption when trying to lose weight.
We all know that one person who can eat literally anything and is still fit and that one person who sees an ad for ice cream and gains 5 pounds (hyperbole of course). According to these studies it's the difference in gut microbiota that's the difference here.
Thanks for sharing; I hadn't known that there were studies that show that the microbiome affects weight gain in the body.
> We all know that one person who can eat literally anything and is still fit and that one person who sees an ad for ice cream and gains 5 pounds (hyperbole of course). According to these studies it's the difference in gut microbiota that's the difference here.
I know people who seem to eat the same amount of food but gain different amounts of weight from it, but I had always chalked it up to a combination of these factors: 1) bigger, taller people naturally burn more calories than shorter people even while sedentary; 2) people may do different amounts of activity (e.g., one person jogs 30 minutes daily and another doesn't); 3) you can't know if someone is actually eating the same food as someone else without observing all their caloric intake over an extended period of time, which only happens in scientific studies.
European obesity rates are also growing, but are much lower than US.
Contrary to anecdotes, most people in Europe are also pretty sedentary, don't cycle to work and don't do sport (there's probably more active people in Europe than US). We probably walk a bit more but there can't be that much in it.
What I noticed in south Europe at least is that food in small quick restaurants is cheaper and way better quality than fast food. It naturally forces people to make good choices.
For example, in Portugal a McDonald’s meal is about €12.
Meanwhile you can get a meal of fish or meat, mashed potatoes and some veggies plus Coke Zero in a glass bottle for €8.50.
Or a plate of rice, good quality salad (not a token one) and quarter chicken plus a coffee for €7.50.
Have you been to the US? It's mostly the food. The bread aisle in American supermarkets smells of sugar. For real. Very weird.
Also... yeah we are pretty sedentary in Europe but it's another level in America. In many parts of US cities there are literally no pavements so you can't walk even if you wanted to. I can't think of anywhere in Europe like that.
I think there are two reasons for that. The first is just many people don’t like to take accountability for themselves, so they look for other things to blame. There’s now enough obese people in the population for this delusions to get a lot of mainstream acceptance. The other is that doctors know they can’t actually get their patients to do the necessary lifestyle changes, so their interventions tend to revolve around the assumption that the patients will happily lifestyle themselves to death.
Culture is just the sum of the things people decide to do, so I’d question whether there’s any real distinction between the things you’re saying here. People who lead obese lifestyles can simply decide to lead a more healthy lifestyle. Why many people don’t make this decision, and what caused these lifestyle choices to be so widely adopted in the first place are interesting questions. But lifestyle choices are the totality of the problem.
> People who lead obese lifestyles can simply decide to lead a more healthy lifestyle.
This is a greatly simplified POV and also incorrect. Lifestyle is influenced by a lot of things that are not merely choices. Stress, depressions, addictions (sugar is highly addictive), trauma, your social environment. Saying that someone can simply choose a healthy lifestyle is like saying someone can simply choose not to be depressed or addicted.
These things can influence the choices people choose to make, but they cannot make those choices for them. You’re simple stating the shared delusion of obese people who can’t confront accountability. None of the factors you’ve mentioned require anybody to have a donut and a milkshake for breakfast every morning. They might make somebody more likely to make that terrible decision, but it’s still a decision only they are accountable for.
> You’re simple stating the shared delusion of obese people who can’t confront accountability. None of the factors you’ve mentioned require anybody to have a donut and a milkshake for breakfast every morning.
I'm not saying that. I'm merely saying that things aren't so easy as you make them out to be. Read my post again.
Your claim is very explicitly that people are unable to make healthy lifestyle choices. This claim is complete nonsense. Posting a list of vague reasons why people may choose to make unhealthy choices doesn’t support your central claim in any way.
If a problem is systemic in its existence, then it has a systemic cause. Looking at it as an individual problem is fine for yourself, but if you want to fix it for a society, you have to look at the systemic cause instead.
The main problem here is that millions of people somehow convinced themselves that they’re not responsible for their own lifestyle choices. Which is certainly a systemic problem worth investigating. If people want to stop being obese though, there is no substitute for lifestyle changes
Your ruminations about how they problem can or cannot be solved are not relevant to what is causing the problem. Individual lifestyle choices are what causes obesity, this is a plainly obvious fact that a lot of people are in a complete state of delusion about. What caused this massive shift in culture is a seperate question, that you will find plenty of other people eager to debate with you.
How to solve the problem this has created is again another seperate question. But I would suggest that problems caused by individual choices have very few (and very unsatisfying) solutions, other than personal responsibility. Which all tend to require denying people their liberties (like the way you might put a person in jail if they refuse to stop choosing to commit crimes).
> Your ruminations about how they problem can or cannot be solved are not relevant to what is causing the problem.
It is, you just don't want to admit it. People didn't all individually decide to change their lifestyle, their lifestyle changed due to their environmental conditions changing. People aren't fully rational actors, but they are responsive actors.
People respond to their environment, or their circumstances, or whatever else by making decisions. We both know this is true, but it is not possible to reconcile this reality with the position you’re taking here. Unless you want to start taking people’s ability to choose away from them, by say setting up obesity internment camps, then any solution you could possibly imagine must require people to individually start making different decisions. Your insistence on absolving people of this responsibility certainly isn’t constructive.
> People respond to their environment, or their circumstances, or whatever else by making decisions.
And their decisions vary based on their environment and circumstances. Alter the environment, and you can easily get better decisions and results.
One thing some people do when trying to adopt a healthier diet is to change where they keep healthy vs unhealthy food in their house, to make healthier food more convenient and unhealthy food less convenient. They alter their environment to encourage better moment-to-moment decisions. We can choose as a society to do the same thing.
The point is not to make unhealthy decisions literally impossible; it's virtually always possible to make unhealthy or healthy choices, but how easy or hard they are can vary quite a bit. The point is to make healthier decisions the easy, default option.
> One thing some people do when trying to adopt a healthier diet is to change where they keep healthy vs unhealthy food in their house, to make healthier food more convenient and unhealthy food less convenient. They alter their environment to encourage better moment-to-moment decisions. We can choose as a society to do the same thing.
Putting aside the "healthy vs unhealthy" food contrivance, how do you propose that society decides to keep healthier food options in individual people's houses? If somebody chooses to do that, they are individually choosing to make a lifestyle change. According to you this strategy is a "smooth road to failure".
> Putting aside the "healthy vs unhealthy" food contrivance
It's not a strict binary system, but there's definitely foods that are broadly healthier or unhealthier. Unless you think Dorito's and broccoli are equally healthy.
> how do you propose that society decides to keep healthier food options in individual people's houses?
I would focus on the things the government can control. Transportation is a big one: the government already controls roads and streets, and the US has pushed car dominance in transportation options for decades now, and it's been very successful, with most trips done by car.
Switching to a model where walking, biking, and public transit are co-equal with driving overall, would result in more exercise in transportation, among the other benefits of multimodal transportation.
Tons of people actually do like walking, biking, and public transit when those options are actually good -- you see a lot of Americans comment on this when they visit other countries that do better here -- but in most US cities, they kinda suck. There's usually little that's useful within walking distance, biking feels both unpleasant and unsafe, and buses/trains are slow and unreliable, if they even exist at all.
Those are all fixable issues, it's just a matter of where we choose to invest as a society. We've mostly been investing into car-dominant transportation, and so cars usually make the most sense in our built environments. And we're talking about societal-level choices here; people don't get to individually choose if the buses are reliable, or if bike paths are unsafe, or if zoning allows for neighborhood bakeries and grocery stores.
I'd also recommend Experimental Fat Loss, although some of his stuff can be a bit ranty. He's got good data and experiments, though, which is why I recommend him. Notably, he cured his non-24 with his diet. https://www.exfatloss.com/p/losing-43lbs-in-144-days-on-ex15...
True, but they could have multiple parallel running training processes going on at the same time. And they could release models that result from partial training checkpoints if they can quantify that they are better than the last released model and also "safe."
It's "on San Andreas Fault", in the usual "the"-dropping style of headlines. The fault is named after the town of San Andreas but extends well beyond it.
