GLP-1 agonist didn't stop progression of AD in patients who were already on the disease course. I haven't read the protocol (if they enrolled in the EU it's out there somewhere), but I'd bet that the inclusion criteria included something about amyloid positivity, either in the blood, CSF, or from PET imaging.

What does that mean? It means that GLP-1 agonists may still prevent AD from being as likely to occur through indirect mechansims (i.e., obesity is tied to AD, less likelihood of developing AD if healthy weight), but probably can't slow it down once it's started, e.g., amyloid is laid out and tau is starting to pile up along that trailblaze from the amyloid.

Congrats, you've read an actual intelligent comment from someone with relevant knowledge and experience.

I disagree, and I am smarter than you. My IQ puts me in 1/1000 territory, I have a PhD in physics, patents, papers, prizes, and an appearance on Jeopardy. Now go fuck off.

The reason for the rules seems like common sense to me. There is a certain distance needed to stop or change lanes when driving at highway distance. If the truck breaks down just over a hill, cars won't see it early enough unless the warning signals are put further back where they can be seen coming up the hill.

I seriously doubt that these rules were just shit someone made up. The NHTSA has so many studies regarding road regulations and guidance. They might be outdated for modern technology, and might be worse than newer alternatives - I don't doubt that hasn't been studied yet - but I would absolutely wager that there were studies done to justify the original numbers.

Furthermore, when congress delegated regulatory power to these agencies they included laws dictating how the rules needed to be determined, specifically so you can't have a bunch of political hacks changing them on a whim. Changes to the regulation need to be justified, and there needs to be comment period to gather any information and concerns that the agency itself might have overlooked, respond to the comments and incorporate any changes as appropriate. I don't want regulators to be able say "this is just some crap" and change rules every four years because they shoot from the hip. That means that changes take 1-3 years depending on how complicated and motivated the agency is, but it is worthwhile to end up with better regulations and avoid being constantly jerked around.

> And, in that case, why add a new law versus just adding to the CCPA?
It is an amendment to the CCPA. Websites covered by the CCPA are required by law to honor the opt-out, and browsers are required to implement it.

Why? We are working to find therapies, and maybe some day preventative cures.

737 is designed for roll up stairs. Thatâ(TM)s how old it is and why it is so low slung. This is also why the 737 maxes have crashed: lots of mitigation and design choices to accommodate an ancient platform. Hopefully they are starting from the ground up instead of variations on a very tired theme.

Creationism really pisses me off. What a crock of shit. No one can logically believe any of it. But you can't cherry pick science, choosing to believe in only theories that can align with your worldview. Science DGAF about your feelings.

man, you all donâ(TM)t know what the fuck you are talking about. PhD in physics, a decade in clinical trials, 30+ years of science experience starting in NASA labs. But sure, OK, thereâ(TM)s a conspiracy in physics and big pharma is keeping you from baking soda cancer cures. You are fucking idiots.

Now tell that to the c suite and startups hellbent on forcing AI down our throats.

I've never seen a cookie banner ask for consent to collect and store my IP address. If that is their reason, they completely failed to obtain consent in a manner that meets the law.

The reason for the banners are simple - a court case ruled that cookies are covered by GDRP, but they haven't explicitly ruled on other tracking mechanisms. So ad companies pushed the minimum and most annoying method of conforming with that ruling without changing their practices, and continue to ignore the fact that all the other tracking they are doing without consent is blatantly illegal.

Solid oxide fuel calls can generally "autoreform" hydrocarbon fuels into their elemental parts so they don't need to run on pure hydrogen. They can run on natural gas, ethanol, methanol, even some on ammonia which doesn't emit CO2 at all. I don't know if *this* fuel cell has that flexbility but high temp fuel cells generally have it.

Gaseous hydrogen, green or otherwise, is a terrible fuel and I don't understand how any reasonable person sees a future for it.

The Switch 2 pricing was announced well after Trump was elected, and undoubtedly included *some* additional markup for tariff increases from the get go, since he had been talking about tariffs the whole campaign, even if it has been a continual game of roulette trying to predict the *exact* tariffs. So it makes sense that the Switch 1 prices would be more sensitive to the tariffs than the Switch 2.

I mean sure, the average layperson is gonna fuck it up. But what about professionals, e.g., a PhD scientist?

I use LLM-based models for lit searches (typically, these are dedicated tools for lit searches, but I have tried it on ChatGPT). I don't use the summaries, but I do use the lists of papers it comes up with and generally go through them in whatever ranking it spits out.

Works pretty well, saves a ton of time in *starting* lit searches. Still have to do the reading. The AI sucks at interpreting papers, wouldn't ever trust it as it stands now.

You mean the JFK documents that were released containing hundreds of social security numbers of federal employees? Not exactly a glowing recommendation.

Anyone else on an iPhone?