Well Whoop-D-Dooo. NYC has 8.5 million people vs. SF at 850 K and they just FINALLY got more tech workers. NY would be one of the FEW places more expensive than SF. I can see the draw to NYC, but this seems like a hollow celebration.
  In the news NYC has more muggers than SF, and probably, maybe more homeless ?

Or...I've very personally seen and live with the resulting human destruction low life people can and will do to them selves and everyone around them. It is amazing, how you fully analyzed me from a paragraph. You must be a genius...or something. Live a while, watch the needless suffering caused by drugs and the morons who use them. If it hasn't touched you personally, be thankful and STFU about things you can't know unless you lived them.

Crank whores deserve whatever they get. Meth during pregnancy is the almost worst thing you can do. 2 decades in jail for ruining your child's life, and inflicting your forever needy child on society seems like she got off lightly.

Oil cooled with "Canola"

I live in australia in a port that used to get a lot of US ships (and marines) visiting, so I spent a fair bit of time propping up bars listening to US marines telling stories about fucked up shit in Iraq and Afghanistan. One thing that surprised me was that literally every single soldier I spoke to told me stories about being super poor and disadvantaged and that the military was their way out of the hood, serve a bunch of years, get some school done, hopefully come out of the other end into a viable career. Note: None of these where officers. I've always presumed the officer class had different career motivations.

But yeah, get out of poverty, get a degree , get a job. I dont think once did I hear one of them say "To defend america" or "To fight for freedom".

Then the same company will have to sue every kid who plays Stairway to Heaven or Blackbird on the guitar they got for Christmas, in order to maintain the same merit. It's not about the training; it's about the money. The suit only exists because Anthropic has money.

This is a magical thinking argument that assumes that a kid learning from listening to music is the same thing as an algorithm adjusting weights in a regression to try and replicate data. Its not how humans work, and its not how ML works.

It also fundamentally ignores the fact that when a kid buys a record, he's engaged in a lawful transaction to purchase the rights to listen and enjoy (and study) music he paid for with the artist understanding that kid might pick up a guitar and write a song too.

This is not whats happening here. This is illegally scraped data that HASNT been licensed for this purpose , and often obtained from torrent sites. used to create AI slop to displace artists and steal their royalties.

Comparing them is intentionally muddying up the waters and is a dishonest way to argue.

This is why a lot of chronic diseases will NEVER have cures. It's more profitable to treat than to cure.

While I get the skepticism towards big pharma , I dont see any evidence of any of them thinking this way. Cures are cashmoney right there in the pocket, and if you dont have the patent on the maintainence drug, then competition dictates that if you can beat your opponent by getting the cure, then your going to destroy your opposition and win. Capitalism prefers long term payments, but to state this is the reason why there will be no cures assumes there is only one company in the world, and thats absurd.

The reality is some conditions are hard to treat. HIV is a perfect storm of infernally difficult self reinforcing obstacles towards cure. It targets the immune system, it embeds itself in the patients DNA using reverse transcription, it hides cryptic populations in the bones to evade antivirals, and so on. Its a big bitch thats *really frigging hard* to dislodge. Cancers are often similar, DNA altering (intrinsically difficult to purge), entropy monsters that are made out of the patients own body. Whats more, there are thousands of types of cancer, each its own unique disease.

Cures for any of these would be a license to print money, but the difficulties are epic in scope.

Whats needed is government investment, and frankly it needs time, something patients often dont have on their side.

I live in a no fly zone corridor near a bombing range. No RC planes, No kites above 50ft, No personal flyers of any kind. What I do get is sonic booms and bombing runs but that's entertainment.

Ragebait isn't about seeing what the other side says.

It's about seeing an inflammatory caricature of the other side.

For example, a Liberal isn't going to see some Conservative discussing some of the hard tradeoffs we'll need to pay down the debt. They'll see a Conservative proposing that Trump be given a 3rd term and trans kids get rounded up and forced into conversion therapy or some crap like that.

Meanwhile, Conservatives won't see some Liberal discussing the economics of Universal Healthcare. They'll see someone proposing that the police be defunded and all drugs are legalized.

Ragebait creates echo chambers because it gives the false impression that everyone on the other side is insane.

It's a fun conspiracy theory, but this is actually just how biology works.

There's basically four kinds of things that can go wrong with our bodies. Infections, mechanical issues, system errors, and cancer.

Infections we can cure by helping the body to kill off the infection, it's only some rare stubborn ones like AIDS that are chronic like you describe.

Mechanical issues we can fix with surgery.

System errors? That's stuff like genetic disorders where our body creates too much of hormone A or doesn't create the proper form of protein B. The problem is in our DNA and you can't cure it without rewriting our DNA (which we're getting to).

And then there's cancers, which are similar to infections, where we try to kill it (as they're doing here), though weirdly, some research suggests treating it as a chronic issue might be better for the patients.

In either case, it's not the fact that pharma is deciding "don't make a pill to cure it, just find a lifetime treatment!". It's only in the past few years that we're reaching the point where we can actually cure things that were traditionally chronic.

So the study does actually address that , and found that indeed people who didnt eat the sugar in those first 3 years tended to consume less later in life.

Annecdotally (which isnt evidence!) that rings true to me. My mother was pretty strict on no sugar and minimal salt (in the 1970s the thinking on salt linked it a lot closer to heart disease than current thinking does which has de-emphasized that a little), and nowdays I pretty much never put it in my food and shy away from sweet food, and use pretty minimal salt.

With all that said, the study does mention that children exposed to less sugar in early childhood appeared to have longer telemeres and that there is likely the smoking gun on the early childhood / sugar link, as theres a pretty well established link between telemere length and cancer succeptibility in late life. Essentially the telemeres are the caps on the end the genomes, and the longer they are, the better protected the ends of the genome are from copying errors. Its also closely associated with the hayflick limit (essentially how many copies a cell can make before it shits the bed).

OS/2 should have taken over the world. It was THAT much better than anything else. I'd love to have seen OS/2 on an Amiga...

This is everything you need to know about running an airline into the ground. The worst in customer service, the worst in maintenance, the worst in cleanliness. Garbage In Garbage Out, the saying applies all kinds of places.

I've got my modem, router, NAS and printer attached to an extender from the closet they reside in. If Comcrap, or Rectum cable turn this on they get the 5x5 room. closet.

Not often I stumble across properly understood post-structuralism on this forum. Well done. :)