Processed foods are much cheaper per calorie than "healthy" options.
GLP-1 helped me kick my cravings for junk food, but that just meant I was eating more of the "expensive" stuff. Instead of $0.50 worth of Doritos as a snack, I'm eating $1.50 worth of Greek yogurt and $1.50 worth of fruit.
People must be getting prescribed this medication in a vacuum without any corresponding nutritional guidance. I can't see any way of going back to my previous eating habits, mainly because I've really had my eyes opened to how mindless some of my eating was before.
Which is no surprise to anybody with common sense, the data for discontinuing GLP-1s show exactly the intuitive outcome. Zero diet change, zero habit change for the vast majority of users. Weight loss is accomplished via biochemical tricks to eat less volume of calorie dense junk food, rather than diet substitution. When the artificial appetite suppression ends, volume of the same food increases again leading to weight yo-yo. Plus why start to exercise when you’ve got a magic weight loss drug?
Don’t get me wrong, there are some people using these drugs to get out of a pit of inertia with weight and sedentary lifestyles. But it’s small. GLP-1 drugs will have most users hooked for life because they don’t have the discipline and motivation to maintain the weight loss without it. Cha-Ching!
> they don’t have the discipline and motivation to maintain the weight loss
That argument has been tried for years and yet it fails nearly 100% of the time. Should we be trying something different than claiming it's a moral issue? Or is that too scientific?
> In experiments, a single 92-microliter raindrop generated up to 60 volts and several microamperes of current. When four generators were connected in series, 144 LED bulbs lit up instantaneously.
"Instantaneously" in this instance meaning "for a fraction of a second" -- specifically, the time between the drop hitting and it bouncing/reforming into a bead. Probably (back of the envelope) for on the order of 0.1 seconds.
In my daily usage and coding ChatGPT 5.2 is far better than 3.5 or 4… but as you prefer.
Anyway the point here is Chinese LLM VS Americans. DeepSeek is very close to Claude or ChatGPT performance, that’s why companies are using it, probably they don’t care about privacy and security issues. That are why I’m not using Chinese LLMs
This is a PR release meant to accompany the scientific work shown in the actual source / link. I don’t mean to be argumentative, just, would have taken back the time I spent reading it after reading the Nature version. It’s just “go read Nature” + 3 bullet points + anodyne CXO quotes.
Yes it’s illegal but because the car dashboard usually is placed in a better position than your hand/phone and also because you don’t chat with the car :) but in the end yes it’s a bit pointless ban the use of a phone and allow a “big phone built in the car”.
You can hold your hand/phone anywhere, including at the same level as your windshield, so that you can look at it without turning your eyes away from the road. Below the dashboard always puts your whole windshield in your peripheral at best.
Looks weird. But they claim that their financiers are the former CEO of ASML and the inventor of the microprocessor Faggin. The specs of the chip are impressive.
Euclyd is an European technology startup pioneering ultra-efficient silicon systems for foundation AI models, including large language models.
By rethinking every layer of the stack—from custom neural processors to memory architecture and system-level design—Euclyd dramatically reduces the energy, cost, and footprint of AI datacenter infrastructure.
Rooted in European engineering values, Euclyd builds environmentally conscious, socially responsible, and meticulously crafted AI solutions. The company is headquartered in Eindhoven, The Netherlands, with offices in San Jose, California.
Euclyd is led by a team of visionary engineers, mentored and backed by industry legends including Peter Wennink (former CEO of ASML), Federico Faggin (inventor of the microprocessor and founder of Zilog and Synaptics), and Steven Schuurman (founder of Elastic).
In a nutshell, there will be no more intrusions into chats, but only obligations for the companies to provide preferential channels for victims of these crimes.
And companies considered high-risk will have to "contribute to the development of technologies to mitigate the risks relating to their services." Which sooner or later will involve another attempt at client-side scanning.
reply