AI is great at any styling solution via system prompt + established patterns in codebase. Tailwind is just slightly more convenient since it's consistent and very popular.
Arthritis is a general term; need narrow down for useful advice on managing symptoms.
Two most common types are osteoarthritis (wear-and-tear associated with aging and/or injuries) and rheumatoid arthritis (autoimmune).
I only know about age-related knee osteoarthritis to try to help my mom manage her symptoms, so I'll share my understanding of treating that.
High ROI, low cost:
- weight management. Extra lbs are extra stress on the knees, plus I suspect chronic inflammation associated with being overweight can exacerbate arthritis independent of mechanical stress.
- exercise, specifically low impact cardio and any pain-free strength/hypertrophy work targeting the musculature around the knees (mainly quads).
Variable ROI, low cost:
- NSAIDs, specifically topical to focus on treatment area and reduce impact on GI system/kidneys.
- curcumin, mixed evidence but some people report benefits.
Variable ROI, high cost:
- PRP injections. Apparently the quality on these varies dramatically by provider. Would recommend doing research and comparing multiple providers if possible.
- Knee replacement. Far from a panacea; you'll lose range of motion forever, plus plenty of other trade-offs. Most people recommend putting this off for as long as possible.
Also interesting is low dose radiation treatment for knee OA. More affordable than other procedures and has some promising research.
Not much else on the novel treatment front that I've found. Curious if anyone thinks I've missed anything worthwhile.
My read of your argument: international law says don't intervene in foreign government, and by intervening we legitimize future violence.
I'm not sure this argument makes sense. Maduro stole an election to force his way to dictatorship, is widely blamed for running the country into mass poverty, and continues to hold onto power through threat of violence. The Venezuelan people don't have any recourse here.
Also, in your example of Ukraine you indicate that Russia frames the uprising as a "US coup", suggesting that the reality of whether there even was external involvement isn't so important.
Even so, if some nation tried to use this strike on Venezuela as further justification for violence wouldn't they be violating the same international law you cite anyway?
Obviously the US has a rough track record of replacing foreign governments (a much stronger argument against this kind of act IMO), but so far this mission has looked pretty ideal (rapid capture of Maduro, minimal casualties, US forces instead of funding some rebel group). There is opportunity for a good ending if we can steward a legitimate election for Venezuela, assist with restoration of key institutions (legal, police, oil), and we avoid any deals regarding oil that are viewed as unfair by the Venezuelans.
You are deluding yourself. This is not some kind of "humanitarian" intervention, this is about controlling Venezuela and its resources[1]. Venezuela will not become a proper democracy after that, instead it will be an imperial US protectorate.
Whether Maduro stole the election or not is exactly and only the Venezuelans' issue. No one but them as a standing in the matter.
I did not mean to suggest that our motives were purely humanitarian. As I understand it there are numerous geopolitical implications with Venezuela, from China's loans-for-oil relationship to the Iran assisted drone manufacturing facilities. And of course we'd like some of that oil, too.
I'm just not convinced that removing Maduro is some horrible violation of international law. As I said in my original comment, I'd be more sympathetic to the argument that the US has a horrible track record with regime change.
Regardless, given the geopolitical significance of Venezuela's relationships with China and Iran it is ignorant to suggest that "[only Venezuelans have] a standing in the matter." And the illegitimacy of Maduro's election is not a topic of serious debate as your phraseology might suggest. He stole the election, he's bad for Venezuelans, and he's good for our geopolitical rivals. It is yet to be revealed whether our intervention will be a net positive.
Panama has done fine since a similar intervention.
The US didn't loot Iraq or Kuwait.
Trump is supremely transactional, so he doesn't do anything for free, but the high likelihood is that the US as a whole will spend more than it gets back in revenue, especially government revenue.
Panamá is doing "fine" because they actually own their fucking canal. If the US had its way and reestablished the Canal Zone, the rest of the country would collapse in on itself.
Which is exactly what they want to do with the Venezuelan oil.
Today, the Panama Canal is owned and operated by the government of Panama.
> The US first built Panama, and then built the canal.
We can concede that the US played the most significant role in the construction of the canal and applying pressure for Panamanian secession from Colombia, but Panama’s national identify predates the United States.
I love the USA too, but please chill with the rhetoric.
Right. I'm not disputing that the canal is, in fact, owned by Panama today. Nor am I suggesting the US should take it back even though I think it was pretty stupid to give it away.
The North did not attack the South; it was the Confederates who initially succeeded from the Union and fired the first shot of the Civil War at Fort Sumter in 1861.
Yes it does matter because by succeeding they broke the US Constitution, and by attacking the US military they committed an act of war against the United States military. Your comparison to the current situation in Venezuela doesn't hold because the US Civil War wasn't a foreign intervention, it was a domestic constitutional conflict.
Ok! Imagine the North was the one to fire the first shot to end slavery. In a hypothetical different timeline. Apparently you would oppose this and would just support letting slavery exist indefinitely in the south?
the south was already signed onto the law for ending slavery, and were part of the same union.
you havent made a good enough hypothetical yet.
there's no lack of slave states around, including ones that the US does business with happily. i think yes, if you made your hypothetical "what if the US had a slaver neighbor" yes, the US would be leaving them alone, other than some economic pressures here and there
You’re assuming that’s the only thing at issue here. When the US starts these wars for resources we always make statements about “spreading democracy” so we can hide behind that bailey. But Trump actually explained what it was really about in his speech: restoring access to cheap Venezuelan oil. Don’t give him the benefit of the doubt here. He’s doing the sane thing George W Bush did.
I'm with a company that was acquired by IBM ~2.5 years ago. The internal systems are definitely rough, but for the most part it's business as usual.
I've heard chatter from our engineering leadership that IBM is trying to push some silly initiatives, but we've been able to prioritize the right work so far.
I also get more equity (one time award + employee stock purchase plan) than I did previously, and with how IBM stock has been performing lately this has been a net positive for me.
FWIW I have heard that IBM used to force their management style on acquisitions in years past, so perhaps this is a fairly recent shift towards a less hands-on approach.
> FWIW I have heard that IBM used to force their management style on acquisitions in years past
Definitely wasn't like that for Red Hat. We had a CFO with an IBM past which was a really nice guy and never ever felt like he was parachutes from IBM.
Now after 6 years legal, HR and finance will move to IBM starting next January; but my perspective from engineering is that after the acquisition it's been and remains business as usual.
Haven't heard a damn thing about "RedHat" in years, though. It's dead as far as Linux distros go. I'm sure it's used in the IBM-o-sphere, but I'm just not around that at all.
Can't stand pre-commit hooks. I want zero delay on commits. Checks can be run against pull requests in a GitHub action runner; no reason to force me to run them on my machine.
The solution could be a pre-push hook. I am also not a fan of pre-commit hooks because I just want to commit my wip changes. Not stash. Commit.
It's fine if the auto formatting tool hasn't been run. If the pre-commit hook changes my files silently, that is a big no-no for me.
I have had tools break things before and it makes it very hard to work out what happened.
Having it fail to push means I get to choose how to fix up my commits - whether I want a new one for formatting changes etc or to go back and edit a commit for a cleaner public history.
I used to think pre-push was better than pre-commit but at some point I realized I was actually just kicking the can down the road and leaving bigger problems for myself. It's not downsides-free, but it's the better compromise for me.
As long as "don't get merged" includes squashing so that whatever your (non)hooks didn't catch locally don't end up causing failures for rebases/merge conflict resolutions for others (assuming there are repo-level hooks people are expected to be using).
Thank you. If we prosecuted scientists for a drug as well tolerated as finasteride we would cease to develop new medication and all of humanity would be worse for it.
If there was some indication that the pharmaceutical company knew of and concealed evidence that finasteride caused depression/suicidality, then there could be grounds for criminal prosecution. But a non-consensus view in hindsight that a drug might increase depression looks more like a losing civil liability claim.
Additionally, the kind of person who would reach for prescription medication vs accepting hair loss may be predisposed to depression. I.e. this may be selecting for people who struggle with self-acceptance generally.
I also wonder whether there's some degree of placebo going on. Patients know finasteride is anti-androgenic; perhaps when they inevitably experience some symptoms associated with hypogonadism they assume the worst and lament the choice between having hair and feeling youthful. This would also explain why many who get off finasteride don't notice their symptoms improve.
Personal bias: I've taken finasteride for years with no side effects.
Microsoft is not an abusive employer. Most people today or at any point in human history would envy the typical Microsoft job. Pretty much all large tech companies are similar in this respect. If your employer is actually abusing you in some way you should contact a lawyer. If you simply have a distaste for your employer you should seek alternative employment.
The defeatist "all corps are evil" mentality will not do you any good.
I didn't say it's an abusive employer but an abusive company.
It always fought against open source. Embrace, extend, extinguish. It always stifled innovation. Internet Explorer 6. And now, it bought GitHub and then plagiarized all public and private projects hosted on it. GPL cannot exist in a world where you can build a statistical model of the code and mechanically reproduce its functionality while somehow losing the GPL licensing in the process.
Also, calling it "defeatist" has no base in what I wrote. I didn't even write anything about corporations. Abuse has a much simpler description - using a power differential to benefit yourself at other people's expense.
Don't anthropomorphize organizations. It was no longer beneficial for them to openly fight open source so instead the people in charge decided they needed to get developer mindshare by changing their public signaling. The sad thing is many people fell for it. They can just as easily switch back at any time when it becomes beneficial.
BTW, the phrasing "Microsoft has embraced open source" is very ironic and given my previous paragraph, it is a nice foreshadowing or what can come next at any time.
> Are you claiming Microsoft/GitHub used or sold private source code for training LLMs?
I have not seen it denied in any official communication. After skimming this question[0], nobody else could either and the phrasing in their FAQ is oddly specific about Business and Enterprise. So yes, given their patterns of behavior, it's very likely and I will consider it true until proven otherwise.
But that's not the biggest issue. That is that every LLM or LLM-adjacent company (Microsoft included) seems to suddenly argue that a mechanical transformation of input data is enough to erase licensing and attribution.[1] Free software licenses like GPL simple cannot exist in this environment. In fact, any licenses would have exactly 0 meaning.
See a program you want with a license you don't want? Just run it through a sufficiently complex black box and out the other side you have an identically behaving program which according to big-tech has no relation to the input. You can even do this with closed source software if you run it through a decompiler first.
I recall a MS CEO shouting something about developers when developers were the thing they needed most. Now they can train NNs on the devs' own work to imitate and replace the devs so devs are no longer valuable and get thrown under the bus.
Oh and MS employees are apparently forced to use LLMs by management...
reply