And BTW, to all the people obssessed with "paleo" / "cave men" diets and think that means "meat":

While there certainly were (just like today) some hunter-gatherer societies (such as in the high arctic) that got most of their calories from meat, the average hunter-gatherer got the majority of their calories from plants. But not highly bred high-calorie plants, but rather high-fibre wild plants, meaning that they had to eat significantly more of these fibre-loaded plants. Your average hunter-gatherer ancestor ate way more fibre than a person eating a "modern" diet today eats.

A proper "paleo" / "cave man" diet isn't a high-meat diet - it's a high fibre diet.

No, the last fad was antioxidants. Bodybuilders being obsessed with protein is entirely different from maxing protein in normal consumer food products (even things as non-protein-related as water itself)

Do be careful with that. Do remember that inflammation isn't inherently bad. Inflammation is the activity of the innate immune system, doing things like fighting/preventing disease and cancer surveillance/attack. Just shutting down inflammatory reactions (for example, long-term taking prednisone or an equivalent steroid treatment) can certainly make you feel great, but can significantly shorten your expected lifespan.

Don't get me wrong, if you have a chronic inflammatory disease, it absolutely needs treatment, and the medical system is often pathetically bad about treating them. Chronic inflammation itself can even lead to cancer, such as lymphoma. But you need to find a targeted way to control your specific condition. For example, if you have say Sjögren's with small fibre neuropathy, an appropriate treatment might be IVIG or something like HyQvia or Hizentra - not broad-based immunosuppression. Unfortunately, such treatments are expensive, and doctors often resist prescribing them, or patients end up in insurance-denial hell.

They really haven't. Nutrition science has been a process of refinement as we've learned more over time. E.g.:

"Fat is bad"
"Saturated fat is bad, non is good"
"Saturated fat is bad, monounsaturated is good, polyunsaturated is bad. Oh, and trans fat is really bad."
"Well, among the polys, omega 3s are good, others are bad"
Many refinements later: "Concerning this specific fat molecule, the health impacts are X, except there's evidence that people with Y genetics have Z impact..."

The earlier statements weren't wrong, they were just overly broad.

This is part of why I had the new "ultraprocessed" label. We've been working so hard to separate out what specific things are causing what impacts, and then they just leap backwards and lump everything back together again : Homemade doughnuts deep-fried in coconut oil and lard: "not ultraprocessed". Store whole-grain bread: "ultraprocessed". Such a moronic grouping. Yes, the average of the ultraprocessed category is worse than the average of the non-ultraprocessed category, but that says nothing about individual foods. It's also a back door for anti-tech/anti-science woo to sneak into food science.

The issue is that this is only relevant to sustenance farmers, people with certain diseases, and alcoholics.

It's almost impossible to end up with an essential amino acid deficiency eating any "normal" modern diet. Even a vegan eating junk food is going to get sufficient quantities (they're going to suck at bodybuilding, but they're not going to get deficiency symptoms). There's too many staples that go into modern food. Nobody eats "only corn", "only wheat", "only potatoes", "only soy", or whatnot; it's always a mix. And there's no need to get everything all at once within a single meal - it's fine for it to be spread out not just between meals within a given day, but across multiple days.

Yeah, even on a vegan junk food diet, it's almost impossible for a modern person to not get all the amino acids they need, for the simple reason that there's not just one plant used in vegan junk food - corn, wheat, potato, soy, etc - and together, even if their protein is watered down with a lot of carbs and fat, any realistic mix still hits sufficient levels of essential amino acids, as the required amounts of each to avoid deficiency aren't huge.

Vegans have other actual things to worry more about. B12, for example, requires fortification or supplements (the body stores years worth at a time, but eventually you will run out if you don't consume it). Iron is highly likely to be in the low-but-acceptable to deficient range if either the diet isn't specifically high-iron or supplements taken. Some other minerals are real but lesser risks than iron as well. Etc.

Re: protein, they're surely talking about "in a modern diet, without disease, alcoholism, etc". Of course people in sustenance diets can readily end up with protein deficiency. Some diseases can cause it, and severe alcoholism can lead people to it as well. But a "normal" person eating any "normal" modern diet doesn't really need to think about whether they're getting enough protein.

Now, deficiency aside, people working on muscle building do need to actually think about what they're eating. But again most go too far - benefits taper off after about 1,6-2,2g/kg-d. There's some uncertainty about these figures, and it's possible that there may be some benefit to somewhat higher protein intake, but there's no benefit to living off of an extreme protein diet like some do.

Yeah, the grocery stores in Iceland stock huge amounts of "Collab" sparkling water, whose main selling point is that it contains "marine collagen". Aka fish skin. People are buying fish skin soda. En masse.

This world is insane.

So I guess a supply chain attack now needs to flag the version bump as 'security' then.

No one can hear the failure of their consumer platform business over the massive flow of money for their cloud and office businesses.

If they shrugged and canned the entire Xbox and Windows things entirely, that's less than 9% of their revenue, and likely an even tinier portion of their profit. They would probably also lose all their consumer Microsoft 365 except people who never check and cancel subscription services, but that's probably similarly tiny in the scheme of the business.

You basically have a story of robust cloud revenue and also as I understand some 'rotation' in the market as investors decide that the AI darlings are probably going to be already as high as they can get for a while, and it's time to cash in and switch to other companies that either seem plausible for share price growth or at *least* actually profitable today with dividends and/or stock buybacks. So the viable quarter came at just the right time to catch investors looking to cash out of their big AI investments for the short term.

But maybe they have?

Windows+Xbox was less than 10% of their revenue. They note it is in decline and looking at the bulk of the revenue, not much of it seems vulnerable to people just not caring about Windows. Their cloud business is the bulk of their business and it is not particularly sensitive to OS selection on desktops.

One might argue that Microsoft 365 is at least in part tied to the Windows platform, but in my experience non-Windows businesses still buy into it, even if their users are largely relegated to browser based access only. At this point they have businesses so scared of not having it, they would have it even if they were just phones and ipads. You *never* want to risk a customer or partner sending you some office document that can't be read, and whether or not other options are actually capable hardly matters in the face of the *impression* that anything less than Microsoft is a risk.

The biggest unknown that I think would be sensitive would be the 'consumer cloud' portion of Microsoft 365. That's going to be mostly people who clicked through the Windows built-in advertising for using Microsoft 365 as storage and backup for their laptop and add-on software from device sales that prod users to up-sell to Office. The release doesn't make it clear what the absolute number there is, but I seem to recall hearing that's actually a pretty small number too.

Microsoft is primarily a cloud and Office company now, and I'm wagering the markets have largely already accepted that.

They have steering wheels.

Yeah, LLM is tricky since sounding correct is the priority, and being correct is a side effect of sounding correct.

Business executive style behavior.

I'm not confusing anything. I'm saying you are applying a rather picky definition of 'cost' to disagree with the assertion that 'using fewer tokens is a strategy being used to reduce AI cost'. The assertion makes sense so long as you don't get very weird about limiting the definition of 'cost'

Code analysis is a bit more unambiguous in terms of value, as long as the findings aren't taken *too* seriously. It has impossible attention span and can spot real issues, or failing that a mistaken issue can highlight something 'off' and inspire a true finding. It will also indicate lots of false positives, but at least the consequences can be limited to wasting your time so long as you take care to analyze.

The code gen is a bit more harrowing since it requires human vigilance to correct the problems in ways that humans are just not good at (the AI makes output that *looks* right, and you have to be really used to people lying about what they think they know to not give such output the benefit of the doubt.