The strong scientific consensus is that saturated fats are worse for you than unsaturated fats.
The idea that saturated fats are better than unsaturated fats is a small minority opinion. It's all the rage with wellness influencer types, but it is currently supported by far less evidence than the consensus.
I suspect the community will start creating lower precision/quantized versions of the model very quickly. LLaMa 30b quantized to 4 bits is runnable on a 3090/4090.
Stimulant addiction is certainly real, but addiction recovery groups are obviously going to self-select for people that have/had a problem. The reality is that there are millions of people who take ADHD medicine at therapeutic doses (which should _not_ induce a high, FWIW) for years without developing an addiction or needing dose increases.
Knowing the potential risks of stimulants is good, but unduly scaring people or over-restricting access for the majority who use them properly is not helpful.
>Stimulant addiction is certainly real, but addiction recovery groups are obviously going to self-select for people that have/had a problem.
Please re-read how I presented that link carefully. I've encountered several people here claiming that stimulants don't get you high and that they aren't addictive. The point of sending them to that sub was to demonstrate that others have a different experience. I'm not making a larger argument here that they are harmful for everyone, just that they aren't magic drugs and they might have glowy feelings about them for a less comfortable reason than they think.
People downvoting me for stating simple known facts about these drugs is troubling...
> I've encountered several people here claiming that stimulants don't get you high and that they aren't addictive.
Just because stimulants _can_ get you high and be addictive doesn't mean they will when taken appropriately. The only time I felt any kind of high from my ADHD medicine was the first day I took it. And I quite easily skip taking it on weekends, with the only side effect being that I browse the internet all day and struggle to do anything productive.
To be honest, I don't actually like being on stimulants. Methylphenidate made me feel like I was constantly in low-grade fight-or-flight mode and dextroamphetamine (which I'm on now) gives me mild emotional blunting. Plus both cause slight dry mouth, appetite suppression that I have to forcibly eat through, and insomnia if I take them too late in the day. Not to mention the fundamental hassle of taking pills every day within narrow bands of time, something I regularly procrastinate and/or forget. (Also, I have tried taking higher/double doses as you suggested earlier when I was figuring out my optimal dose. They just made me feel jittery and on edge - not exactly pleasant.)
If I had no ambitions or responsibilities, I would be more than happy to throw my medicine away and sit around on my computer all day every day. Unfortunately, I do have ambitions and responsibilities and medication helps mitigate my crippling, career-threatening inability to get things done. So I'll take that tradeoff.
>Just because stimulants _can_ get you high and be addictive doesn't mean they will when taken appropriately.
I'm definitely calling out inappropriate usage, so I don't disagree.
>Plus both cause slight dry mouth, appetite suppression that I have to forcibly eat through, and insomnia if I take them too late in the day. Not to mention the fundamental hassle of taking pills every day within narrow bands of time, something I regularly procrastinate and/or forget.
Yeah the side-effects are not great. Throw in teeth-grinding, compulsive behaviors, irritability, aggressiveness, etc.
>If I had no ambitions or responsibilities, I would be more than happy to throw my medicine away and sit around on my computer all day every day. Unfortunately, I do have ambitions and responsibilities and medication helps mitigate my crippling, career-threatening inability to get things done. So I'll take that tradeoff.
I'm happy to hear about your self control. I wish I were effective as a person naturally, I'm sure you can relate. Unfortunately they don't work for me as well as they once did.
Actually, my self control is really quite bad. I'm terrible at doing difficult or unpleasant things and am very prone to low-effort, self-destructive hedonism. But as a result I have a very intense fear of addiction because I know I would struggle to pull myself back from it - I've never drank alcohol or done any recreational drugs for that exact reason. I was very hesitant about pursuing potentially lifelong medication, I requested the smallest possible starting dose from my doctor, and I don't intend to ever increase it beyond what I currently take (10mg/day).
On a philosophical level I still don't _like_ that I'm taking medication, but the benefits are significant enough that I tolerate it. And perhaps ironically, ADHD medicine actually helps me push past my lazy hedonism and do things that are necessary but dull.
(I would note that it doesn't make me _want_ to do boring things, nor do I think it's supposed to if dosed correctly. Even on medication, I'd still rather play video games than do work. But it at least makes it possible for me to sit down and work anyway. Whereas before, every day was an exercise in staring futilely at the screen while begging my brain to do literally anything.)
> I wish I were effective as a person naturally, I'm sure you can relate.
Very much so. I really wish my productivity wasn't dependent on medicine that
a) I need to remember to even take
b) Has annoying negative side effects
c) Is a controlled substance, with all the hassle that brings
But unfortunately, I guess that wasn't meant to be.
There’s really no link between your average person taking 5–10 mg of Adderall twice a day and a support group for people smoking upwards of a gram of meth a day.
Please be more careful and honest in your assertions. My point is that there are people who struggle with abusing prescription stimulants. I did not make a comparison or suggest a link between harder stims like your strawman suggests.
A 200lb person can get a decent high from as little as 30mg of adderall.
My uninformed speculation is that this might be an artifact of the embedding layer (e.g. CLIP), not the image training data.
Presumably, the dataset for training the embedding layer (which is trained separately and then fixed) is not stripped of copyrighted content. So it will have learned that "Pikachu" is related to words such as "yellow" and "rat".
Therefore, even if the image dataset didn't have a single picture of Pikachu, the image generator will still likely produce a yellow rat. Just one that doesn't actually resemble Pikachu.
That seems plausible to me. I assume if Adobe felt like even these results were too legally risky they could create a new embedding layer with fewer copyrighted concepts (so Deadpool would always output a spooky looking pool). I don't think that's likely though.
In my experience ADHD medicine doesn't actually induce weight loss, despite weight loss being a desirable thing for me.
It suppresses your appetite, sure, but it doesn't shield you from the effects of not eating all day. I often force myself to eat something for lunch or I'll just end up tired and annoyed in the afternoon/evening (edit: I don't eat breakfast).
Plus, once the medicine wears off at night (or on weekends when I skip taking it), I usually get ravenously hungry and easily make up any caloric deficit.
I think the boring but true answer is simply that no one cares.
Users don't care because Teams still basically functions and the performance problems are at most a minor inconvenience. As a result, organizations don't care because Teams is cheap and does everything they need it to. As a result, Microsoft doesn't care because dedicating dev resources to something which neither saves them money nor attracts more customers is a waste.
Microsoft employs many smart people and I'm sure Teams' performance could be improved by orders of magnitude if they wanted to. But why would they want to?
(And to reinforce my point, when the performance _did_ get so bad that people apparently actually started caring, Microsoft not only improved it but made a video advertising it. It's just that there's no incentive to optimize any further than is necessary.)
Anxiously, I would almost say "No one important cares"?
In my experience, the further up the org chart you are, the less likely you are to use Slack directly, instead deferring to assistants or at least only posting announcements periodically.
Ditto goes for Internal IT who I've commonly found never use these chat platforms instead deferring (correctly) to ticketing systems.
Those two groups are both the ones who would probably advocate for adopting these platforms yet they never use it in any regular sense so they don't feel the sharp edges
I know of mid-size organizations where everyone up to the very top complains at length about Teams being slow and buggy. But they still use it, because it's cheap and doesn't actively hinder work getting done. I don't think it's simply a matter of bean counters being out of touch.
Talk is cheap - actions are what reveal true preferences. The fact that Teams is so widely used despite it being slow garbage indicates that people actually don't care (enough to overcome whatever benefits they see in Teams).
Sorry, I imagine you posted this before my edit. I don't think this marketing video contradicts my point at all. For Microsoft to commit a large amount of dev time to rewriting Teams and improving its performance, there must have been an actual business reason. That's not something you do because some nerds on HN think your app is too slow.
Presumably, Teams was so unbelievably slow that it crossed over to being an actual problem for customers and not just a mild nuisance. So Microsoft improved performance just enough to stop affecting sales. Is the performance _good_? No, it's still comically slow. But there's simply no incentive to improve the performance further.
I wonder what "economically conservative" means here. Usually I would expect someone economically conservative to be against government intervention and prefer market-oriented solutions to problems, but the people you're talking about tend to want the opposite.
Directly? No. But indirectly? Yes. The rampancy of NIMBY, PHIMBY, and "anti-gentrification" attitudes leads to decreased construction, increased housing prices, and the enrichment of (existing) landlords at the expense of tenants.
It's not, but I didn't say it was. Plus the reasons that "the left" opposes housing are generally quite different than the reasons "the right" opposes housing.
By reducing instances of private equity firms buying all housing stock en masse and "maximizing profit" by squeezing every last cent their tenants could give.
Also Adam Smith has a lot of rants against rent seeking behavior and landlords if you want to go with that "communist" writing.
> The rent of land, therefore, considered as the price paid for the use of the land, is naturally a monopoly price. It is not at all proportioned to what the landlord may have laid out upon the improvement of the land, or to what he can afford to take; but to what the farmer can afford to give
Funnily enough, check how far back the 1/3 income for rent comes from and the context on which it is mentioned:
> The rent of an estate above ground commonly amounts to what is supposed to be a third of the gross produce; and it is generally a rent certain and independent of the occasional variations in the crop. [..] This rent “is seldom less than a fourth ... of the whole produce.”
Private equity firms are nothing compared to the power of average homeowners using land appreciation as their retirement plan.
A simple rule is that nothing people blame on corporations is ever caused by corporations. People and governments are legitimately more powerful than corporations! And they often use that for evil.
Reduce demand for housing, if appreciation is low enough, investors will invest their money other things than housing. With equal supply and reduced demand, this should normally lead to lower prices.
The idea that saturated fats are better than unsaturated fats is a small minority opinion. It's all the rage with wellness influencer types, but it is currently supported by far less evidence than the consensus.