To actually make a study conclusion that is truly solid, you would need a RCT (Randomized Control Trial) - this is impossible for such a hypothesis.

A confounding issue issue such as the amount of sunlight a person gets per day has been shown to affect mitochondrial health - 15 minutes per days makes a big difference. If you work inside, there is an observed difference in health outcomes based on the spectrum of the artificial light (full-spectrum being healthier). Did they control for these affects? How could they possibly do so. Did they control for percentage of processed food fiber intake, serum Vit D levels, glucose and sodium sensitivity, liver and kidney function, ad infinitum. We don't even have an accepted gold standard for measuring sodium sensitivity (that I am aware of).

I'm not saying researchers were dishonest, I'm saying that observational studies are very difficult to be coerced into truly clinical significance, much less something that would be considered proved in other areas of science. Human behavior and biology is very complex and messy. A shame considering how nice it would be to develop reliable answers.

I can confirm. Age 67

Price of silver has also dropped about 50% since it's peak in January. Yet, silver is valuable as both a monetary metal and industrial metal.
50% drop in the value of an asset is not that unusual.

If you have assets, you are wise to spread them out because anyone of them can underperform or fail. If you want to put 2% of your portfolio into BTC, you can only get burnt by 2% by that decision. If you invest in pre-IPO stock, you should limit percentages because risk of failure is high though returns can be spectacular.

If you think nothing more that betting on a greater fool you're in good company, Warren Buffet said, "Now if you told me you own all of the Bitcoin in the world and you offered it to me for $25, I wouldn't take it because what would I do with it? I'd have to sell it back to you one way or another. It isn't going to do anything."

Personally, I hold no BTC. I do hold some gold and silver, I hold some pre-IPO stocks, but most of my assets are spread around in what is considered low-volatility assets, mostly stocks.

On the contrary, this is exactly within the legal definition of insider trading. Polymarket is legally not considered gambling, it is commodity trading. The fact that this is a silly classification matters not at all to the legal situation.

26 atomic worth - assuming 14 kT each means 364 kT. This is 423 GWH of total boom. The Utah hyper data center is projected at 9 GW. 24 hours gives 216 GWH - Throw in full heat load for thermal generation based on light-water nuclear generation and you are likely adding over 600 GWH of heat load in total. It's not at crazy as it sounds. Meaning that the total load thermal load could well exceed that of 26 smallish nuclear weapons.

This does not count the massive firestorms associated with the bombs of course. But after a short while nothing would be left to burn anyway, so I think it's fair to neglect the firestorm in the thermal load calculation.

GOP is a mutual fund that tracks the stock profiles of Republicans, NANC tracks the Democrats.
Full discloure, I own just a little of each - I thought it would be interesting. There may well be similar funds - have not looked.

Since Kalsi is subject to US regulators, it is illegal for US citizens to use Kalshi for insider trading. Of course, congress does not necessarily play by the same rules as us peons.

There are many widely used libraries, and code trees within libraries that are far from multi-megabyte. Looking for security vulnerabilities in such widely deployed code seems like a potentially useful source of zero day exploits if you happen to be a ad actor with significant resources to look for such. Maybe few as simple as a 128 byte patch, but lot's of potentially juicy targets to throw at the AI.

Ford did not give a raise to employees so that could afford to buy cars. He gave them a raise because work was hard and often boring; turnover was high (over 200% IIRC). It's better for Ford if they are not constantly training new employees. Even with the assembly line, high turnover was quite expensive..

I learned in engineering long ago that road damage was proportional to the 4th power of vehicle weight. This is not a complete picture; much road damage is environmental due to temperature fluctuations, etc. But is is mostly accurate in terms of road damage due to the flexing of the roads due to vehicle weight.
The myth of electric vehicles being twice the weight may be a result of confusing the cost due to weight. A 19% increase in weight being a 100% increase in road damage.
Or maybe it's just the all too common, FUD.

You fucked up. You trusted us!

Ref: You Tube

Live in the area. They work well for the 1-lane version. Most people don't have a problem with the 2-lane version. Things get a bit dicey for the 3-lane version. Familiarity is definitely a factor. For the I can't be bothered to drive because my phone is more important crowd, roundabouts are good at capturing them on the center island.

Any dealer at a gun show is still required by federal law to run a background check and follow other laws. There is no federal requirement for private sales, though 22 states require a background check for some or all private sales (usually by using a federally licensed dealer for the transfer). There are no special federal rules that apply to gun shows. I'm not aware of any state/local rules specific to gun shows.

You can obtain a firearm illegally just about anywhere in the world, difficulty varies, as does the legal consequences of getting caught.

Well, according to this article the Trump administration is a fan of right-to-repair. I recall seeing another article recently where he agrees with Elizabeth Warren on dumping the debt-ceiling completely. Politics is strange thing.

There is disagreement in the medical community for failing to distinguish the difference between and a low acute dose (less than 100 mSv but dosage accrued in a short time period, such as a single day), vs. a low gradual dose (e.g., less than 100 mSv but accrued over the course of a year)

The difference is that the bodies repair and disposal methods are thought to the be able to handle low-dose rates more comparable to high-level background radiation, than the unnatural effect of intense dosage rates that arise from nuclear accidents or bombs.

This is why the report you reference is not the high-quality support for the LNT model that you think it is. That report takes it's LNT data primarily from the low-level bomb data as 100 mSv - but 100 mSv for a single incident is nothing at all like a gradual dose of 100 mSv over the course of a year because the body for no chance to self-repair for that much radiation from a single incident.

The authors of that study frequently say that they don't have evidence that LNT is not the correct model. Not that they have strong evidence to prove that LNT is the correct model. I think the report is an honest assessment of the facts that they have.

I'm also not suggesting 100 mSv per year at a constant rate is perfectly safe - we don't have enough data to conclude that - for some reason the relevant double-blind studies never get done.

Others have suggested the acute doses less the 10 mSv are in fact safe or more accurately do not supply convincing evident that it is harmful. But public policy certainly does not support that view.

Since I expect it to be worthless, it's entirely possible I won't be disappointed by the result.
Still, why would I want MS to have access to some content that I create that actually might be useful.
I think I'll pass.