Thanks, that is very interesting. But something smells fishy.

1. 1 false positive from "over 641,533 faces" seems too good to be true. Very few systems of any kind are that good, and facial recognition? I don't buy it. And that's an oddly specific number to be "over". It does not pass the smell test.

2. "Shows no bias" is similarly too good to be true and doesn't pass the smell test. Didn't Apple have some problem in the last year or two with trying to spiff up faces, where black skin didn't work as well? "No bias" is not credible.

3. "Zero unlawful arrests" is weasel words. Just because an arrest has conformed to various legal standards, such as having a warrant, being cautioned, not beaten up, etc, does not make it a proper arrest. Lots of people are acquitted at trial after having been lawfully arrested.

4. The rate has not changed. Well, yes, it must have, if this is the false positive rate, since it presumably once upon a time had 0 false positives and now has 1, and the denominator has been increasing all this time unless the first 641,533 faces were all recognized in the first day.

5. The only credible answer. There may well be no national false positive rate.

But it's an interesting response. Thanks.

I don't know what she's been doing. But from the fact that it took 40 years to track her down, and that only because a non-cop found her, I'd say the evidence is strong I know what she *hasn't* been doing -- terrorism, or training terrorists.

Seriously, if she's been living for 40 years training terrorists who haven't done anything to draw attention to themselves or her, she's either been running a false flag terrorist school with the government's connivance, or she hasn't been running a terrorism school.

If society wants to punish her for what she did 40 years ago, fine. But stop pretending the police took a dangerous terrorist off the streets.

If she's been in hiding for 40 years, she's not exactly violent any more. Her capture has nothing to do with public safety at this point, more for revenge and closing the record with some HooRah We Got Her theatrics.

Might DOES make right; that's how government works. One definition is a monopoly on "legal" violence within their territory, although they aren't very good at it, considering how many riots there were in 2020 and the two autonomous zones where city governments surrendered their monopoly for a spell.

AI is here to stay. Acts of rebellion like this will only cause harm. This isn't some noble preservation of human dignity or anything. It's just punishing people for using new tools. Not cool.

Everyone knows that 10x engineers validate inputs and carefully manage dependencies; so clearly there's no risk of unexpected behavior.

It seems worth noting that one of the items in Wyden's rather pointed inquiry is the fact that the feasibility of doing this is known to have been demonstrated for the DoD by outside people familiar with it at least as early as 2016; so while this is the first confirmed case of adversarial use it's the outcome of at least a decade of just ignoring the problem; and a significantly longer period of failing to reasonably anticipate the problem. It's not like there's No Such Agency you could ask about "how could you spy on someone with the internet even?" if you wanted to know how well or poorly readily available information matched a nation state signals intelligence apparatus.

Purely as a matter of cellphones being expensive and somewhat tepidly capable in the before times I assume that there was a period within living memory when merely telling people not to Gordon Gekko on their DynaTAC where the russians can hear you was good enough; but that would have clearly and rapidly been getting less true for at least a quarter century.

If you want to make the case that government should use facial recognition, you'll need some real data.

* One success ... how many false positives -- how many people were wrongly tagged? How many false negatives -- how many times was this woman seen but not tagged? Was she a hermit and this was her first public appearance in 40 years?

* How recent were the pictures of her which were the basis of her being tagged? Do you really want us to believe the only success story you have is based on artificially aging her photograph by 40 years?

I'm thinking about starting a very low dose when the pills come out in Europe. That gives an extra year for more data.

For me it's purely about health (well, about 90% about healthj). I'm a marginal case weight-wise, but the overall health impact profile looks spectacular. If a pill seems likely to add a number of healthy years to my lifespan, yes please. But the more data the better.

One thing that held me back was, I'm very averse to addiction, to anything that might have withdrawal symptoms. People report being ravenous and needing to eat all the time when they quit. BUT - the data shows that after one year, people still retain about 25% of their weight loss, and at two years they're about baseline (some above baseline, some below - the "above" people may be due to sarcopenic obesity, in that you put fat back on faster than muscle, and so your metabolism is lower until the muscle comes back). This is very different from when you diet to lose weight and then stop dieting - you're not ravenous at all, you finally have satiation.

But given the weight regain stats, and the general way these work, what I think is going on is: when you lose weight, you've been training yourself for months on how to ignore or alleve your hunger pangs, so when you stop, you're well trained to it. Whereas GLP-1 agonists are just the opposite: you don't even need to think about resisting the temptation to eat, it just comes naturally; you can get pleasure from something, such as a tasty dessert, without feeling the need to eat everything on your plate; pleasure and craving get separated. So people who just suddenly cut off from GLP-1 agonists are "mentally unarmed" for the reversal. The weight-regain stats however suggest that it doesn't leave you long-term disabled in this regard; that you're just back to your old self once you readjust, whatever that old self may have been.

I haven't read these particular studies, but a lot of the fascinating impacts of GLP-1 agonists occur whether the person loses weight or not. For example, the cardiac benefits are massive, like 2/3rds of the scale of benefits of being on statins, and it apparently occurs independent of weight loss.

One of the annoying things about our wetware is that systems aren't isolated; a "part" that gets used for one thing might also be used for half a dozen unrelated things.

Please understand that there is a balance. Taking things to "reduce inflammation" or to "boost the immune system" run counter to each other. Inflammation *is* the reaction of the innate immune system. The immune system defends not just against pathogens, but also cancer. If you shut down the immune system too much, you can shut down cancer surveillance, which I don't need to stress, is a bad thing.

The downside to inflammation is that, yes, it is damaging. Needless inflammation is bad. And, as an added twist, from a personal example: my mother has Sjögren's and MALT lymphoma in the salivary glands. Sjögren's is an autoimmune condition that attacks exocrine glands. In doing so, it triggers a nonstop immune reaction in the salivary glands and the development of lymphoid tissue, with lymphocytes constantly proliferating. This nonstop proliferation runs the risk of - as in my mother's case - developing mutations that lead to lymphoma. So too much of a needless immune reaction can also cause cancer.

The immune system is an extremely complex, with hundreds of known cytokines, each causing various activation / suppression effects in others and having various other interactions with the body. So it's extremely hard to say, if you tweak this one thing, what will be the overall impact in the long term?

These GLP-1 agonists inhibit the NF-kB pathway and downregulate pro-inflammatory cytokines like TNF-a, IL-6, and IL-1. We think that this sort of downregulation is probably in general beneficial, in that in most cases it should not weaken cancer surveilance, and actually can help with certain types of cancers (but still can be harmful to some). Everything is situation dependent, and there's a lot we don't know.

I decided to randomly pick one of your claims to fact check - that beans are "less than 300 calories a pound!" Here's the info I find:

Cooked Bean Variety Calories per 100g Calories per Pound (approx.)
Red Kidney Beans 127 kcal ~576 calories
Black Beans 132 kcal ~600 calories
Navy Beans 140 kcal ~635 calories
Pinto Beans 143 kcal ~649 calories
Chickpeas (Garbanzo) 164 kcal ~744 calories
Great Northern Beans 139 kcal ~630 calories
Lentils (Cooked) 116 kcal ~526 calories

According to FAO, the average person eats 1,88kg (4,1 pounds) of food (wet mass) per day. Thus beans, with an *average* dietary wet mass (not that one can't readily just eat more!) corresponds to 2157-3050 calories per day.

Globally, most hunter-gather tribes get most of their calories from plants, not animals. Meat commonly acts like a multivitamin - while not that much is eaten compared to plant matter, it provides nutrients that are hard to get (or impossible) from plants. My favorite example is that there are tribes that get the vast majority of their calories from sago, with the Yimar/Yimas getting 93% of calories purely from sago alone. BUT they also eat the sago grubs they find while pounding sago. Sago provides the energy, and the other 7% (commonly shrimp and small fish) provide critical protein and nutrients that aren't present in the starchy sago.

GLP-1 isn't a drug at all...

You know what else distributes spike proteins throughout the body in orders of magnitude greater quantities (rather than the barely-measurable quantities you're referring to)? *Getting infected*. And the lower your antibody titres, the more the spike proteins. Also, vaccine spike proteins are mostly disabled. They're double-proline stabilized; while they can still bind with ACE2, they can't retract the way the virus does for cell entry.

You know what causes far more significant long-term antigen persistence? *Infection, particularly without preexisting immunity, such as from vaccination*.

You know what also causes cardiovascular distribution, prolonged antigen production, and immune-mediated injury vastly more often and more seriously than vaccination* *Infection, particularly without preexisting immunity, such as from vaccination*.

Modern diets barely resemble early diets. While hunter-gatherer diets have varied greatly (paleoarctic people eating significantly more meat than average, for example), modern diets compared to the average paleodiet are high meat, high protein, and very low fibre.

If you want an "average caveman diet", you'd be swapping out a lot of the red meat for plant fibre.