>For many, the appeal of a Mac is that it isn't running Windows
Pretty much. I broke down and finally bought my first Windows machine in over a decade to play Subnautica 2. It was so infuriating to use I returned it a week later. You literally have to hack it with shell commands to bypass Microsoft login now. Never again.
This is false in my experience. You can use the cli to clear the quarantine bit, or you can take the (admittedly annoying) trip to system preferences to override. This is rarely something I need to do; most software is already signed and notarised.
Also not at all equivalent to being forced into linking an online account before being allowed to use your computer at all.
You can still bypass the login requirement for Win 11 and that annoyance only happens once during install vs. every time you try to run a non-notarized app.
It’s easily in my top 3 most hated things about my MacBook. Plus, knowing Apple and the history of that “feature”, it will only ratchet towards becoming even more of a pain over time (it was actually tolerable back before they removed the hotkey to bypass).
For me, after running Win11debloat one time Win 11 disappears into the background 95% of the time, like an OS should. Unfortunately I don’t the luxury of doing something equivalent on MacOS without completely disabling SIP.
Local account on Win11 isn't a workaround, its a fully supported option but only on Windows 11 Pro. Its a work around on home edition. The UI to get there on Pro isn't intuitive (Other Options->Domain Join Instead->Create local account), but it's there and 100% supported.
Still unacceptable for home edition users, but Microsoft has been segregating its userbase and features into Home/Pro/Enterprise for decades.
The risk of serious complications like major bleeding or perforation is closer to 40-80 per 10,000, significantly higher than the roughly 3-5 per 10,000 annual chance of actually having colorectal cancer for low-risk groups.
My doctor says that since Cologuard catches a large percentage of those 3-5 per 10,000 without any of the colonoscopy risk, the marginal benefits from colonoscopy really aren't justified since FIT+DNA testing is almost as good, at least for low-risk cohorts.
Very few things in medicine are zero risk. I wish more doctors would help balance the risk of doing A vs. the risk of doing B vs. the risk of doing nothing.
It's all Bayesian conditional probabilities, considering your own individual risk factors, and considering the false positive rate and false negative rate of each test.
not who you asked but the perforation is 3-5 per 10,000; cardiovascular issues is 52 per 10,000, polyp removal carries risks of bleeding or perforation, and underlying patient physiology.
RESULTS Among the 30,818 records identified, 82 population-based studies from 24 countries were included, involving a total of 38.5 million colonoscopies. The estimated incidence per 10,000 colonoscopies was as follows: gastrointestinal AEs, including perforation (5.15; 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.19-6.34, I2 = 99%), bleeding (18.39; 95% CI 13.53-24.99, I2 = 100%), and splenic injury (0.61; 95% CI 0.43-0.85, I2 = 93%); nongastrointestinal AEs, including cardiovascular events (52.11; 95% CI 18.67-144.59, I2 = 100%), respiratory events (4.26; 95% CI 0.73-24.99, I2 = 100%), and deaths related to colonoscopy (0.18; 95% CI 0.10-0.34, I2 = 74%). Subgroup analyses yielded partially divergent findings. The majority of the included studies exhibited a low to moderate risk of bias.
just ask any AI, i don't got time to play tic-tac-toe with the NIH.gov website gating me behind click bus images for 10 minutes
You are hardly describing "serious complications" ('bleeding', and 'respiratory events' are very non specific, and the fact that this is an uncited meta-analysis across nations makes the whole enterprise suspect), even less so since your source averages 24 countries while we are speaking about US colonoscopy recommendations.
My source is not seeing one perforation each week at work.
> just ask any AI
These do not give reliable answers, as I am sure you know
my EXPLICIT SOURCE was 10.14309/ajg.0000000000003429
do you require other ones, or do you wanna keep harping on the fact i used LLM as a fucking search engine?
Different source, friend. Please note that they say 3.1, not 3.5.
That is at about 25% less than 4 (and even less than 5, let alone your previous assertions). And if either you or your LLM troubled yourself to read the article, even this is a confounded number in that we cannot determine whether low-volume, 'community' operators are worse than high-volume settings.
> do you do SCREENING or DIAGNOSTIC/POLYP REMOVAL?
We are talking about screening—once you have a target to remove, you are looking at a high-likelihood-of-cancer population. I am fully aware of this, so I don't understand why you are bringing up this difference which has not yet figured into our discussion. Is this something your LLM suggested to you?
---
I think the thing to take away is that LLMs do not yet replace human understanding and discretion.
First, the study looks at people who had a positive screening Cologuard/FIT test. These are not normal people!
Second, the test looks at DEATHS WITHIN THIRTY DAYS of the procedure. In fact, the article goes on to say that there are ZERO deaths related to the actual procedure. ZERO.
This is funny. I've had an unbelievable string of bad doctors / clinics... almost as though something is wrong with medical care around here.
Couple of years ago the latest doctor who I fired started talking colonoscopies. I asked some basic questions like how do they get paid? How much do they get paid? Who inspects their facilities?
He took great umbrage at the notion that the doctors were getting "bounties" for nipping pieces of tissue for lab review, refused to discuss that. (Tell me you know something without telling me you know something.) He also took umbrage at the notion that his clinic wasn't "clean" and that it was inspected regularly... didn't say by whom.
So here's the deal. Here in Washington State, USA his clinic gets a "wet work" inspection, just like a slaughterhouse or restaurant, as part of the occupancy / doing business license. But there is no ongoing inspection, and fuck no there is no "safe to eat here" poster in the window of his clinic.
It gets more interesting when you start looking at the datasets an inquiry like that turns up. Like: how many deaths / hospitalizations are there per 1K procedures? Actuarily we have a number. Now clinics, at least the ones doing things on a regular basis, have to report adverse events leading to hospitalization: the reporting rate is impossibly lower than the actuarial rate, complications leading to hospitalization are not being reported. But.. there's more! The State collects "foreign contamination" stats from pathologists; you can look at this by pathologist, if they do enough of them. The majority of pathologists scoring colonoscopy samples report ZERO foreign contamination; among the pathologists actually reporting, the rate for presence of foreign contamination is around 25%.
I tend to let Feynman, Fermi, and Bayes guide my inquiries generally in that order. Part of the process is generating good questions; another part of the process is generating good actionable questions (tailored to the moment). Questions which are obvious, which are "horseshoes and hand grenades" type questions, based on what we know now. Follow things a little bit, test it, see where it's soft.
In this case I called public health and building inspection agencies and asked them what sort of ongoing inspections there were for clinics and other medical facilities. That turned up databases online, and keywords which turned up other databases.
What was the germ (pun intended) of this inquiry? Several years earlier, sitting in the waiting room of a different clinic, and the linen supply company pushes a cart through (gets buzzed through to the back) to collect the dirty linen, wearing gloves. Like they did this every day. Many years ago, the memo taped to the doors to a lab wing at a biotech: "gloves must be removed when greeting visitors". Various reports over the years concerning improperly sterilized dental instruments.
People can simultaeneously be reprehensible idiots while being a reliable expert on something they have personally invested billions of dollars into and operate at scale.
Elon is a specialist of lying about stuff he invested billions in to make it look more valuable than it is (he's been doing that for Tesla for years). It's not a lack of expertise, it's the lack of any sense of integrity (and self respect).
He's lagging the AI race despite having tons of compute available, so he tries to make a narrative about how it's not that the model is behind, it's just smaller than the competition.
Having your own home and property where no one on earth can tell you how to live: priceless.
Maybe home ownership is becoming a luxury, but humans don't exist in financial spreadsheets. The intagibles of SFH ownership are worth literally everything to me after a lifetime of renting.
It's also absolutely a class differentiator in the US. If you're behind on your rent and getting evicted, that's seen as a personal moral failure. If you're behind on your mortgage and getting foreclosed, it's considered a tragedy, and there are many options for support like forebearance. Just look at what happened during COVID; red state renters were getting knocked on by the sheriff within 90 days, while it can take years for someone to lose their house.
>Having your own home and property where no one on earth can tell you how to live: priceless.
Whatever you do don't read your local zoning code.
If you really want motivation to browse large bulldozers on Facebook Marketplace look into the legal doctrines that underpin these codes. It's pretty mind boggling.
>why is the medium relevant at all? what does radio do that a podcast cant
Deliver the news to you anywhere and everywhere with a receiver that can be built from scavenged garbage. Terrestrial absolutely still has a place, and will most likely outlive the internet.
Also, radio broadcasts a signal and is completely agnostic to who picks up the signal and listens. IOW, you can listen to radio without anyone/anything tracking what you. Not being tracked and data-collected for everything is still important to some of us.
Boomers get all the hate but GenX really is the absolute worst. They took the me-me-me of Boomers without the civic minded temperance of their G.I./Silent grandparents. Life goals of that generation include climbing mount everest, writing a novel, really anything that would make you sound "cool" at a cocktail party, but they never realized that nobody cares unless you've made the world a better place for others.
I like "...lead is responsible for the loss of 824,097,690 IQ points as of 2015" which is something I never hear from the people who are so interested in IQ and who can't stand it that the rest of us aren't.
We were told, non-stop and repeatedly, that we would probably all die in a nuclear holocaust before we reached adulthood. And yeah, lots of my generation decided that they'd rather spend their few remaining months touring South America rainforests or hiking Nepal than doing the "productive" things that the people likely to blow up the world wanted us to.
And then they didn't blow up the world. Well, crud. What do we do with ourselves now?
I'm not even slightly exaggerating, by the way. About half the popular media was depictions of how the US would blow up Russia, Russia would blow up the US, or what live would be like after the US and Russia blew each other up. Red Dawn. Most movies with Sylvester Stallone. The Day After. Threads. I assure you those weren't kitschy, ironic things we winked at. We generationally kinda reconciled ourselves to the idea we'd never grow old enough to drink. And then, we were labeled "slackers" for not having followed the same traditional routes as previous generations.
I'm hugely sympathetic to Gen Alpha. I get it, kiddos. I see you there, and I understand.
I strongly disagree with this assessment. (I am GenX so take this with a grain of salt).
GenX grew up during an era when hyper-capitalism began to take off. Manufacturing was offshored and layoffs became commonplace. Government institutions were privatized and subcontracting gave companies ways to abdicate responsibility. The corporate world didn't care about building a company and brand for the long haul, it was shareholder value and quarterly earnings. We watched our parents work their assess off for companies and then get tossed out in the name of a few more cents per share. So no one was motivated to follow the traditional Western dream when there was no assurance of any sustainable life at the end of that grind.
GenX was far more civic minded than you give them credit for. The term "political correctness" entered the lexicon because of the work GenX college students were doing to try to combat racism, sexism, and homophobia. We marched against apartheid, raised money for Amnesty International and Greenpeace, and AIDS awareness. We were the first to carry around reusable mugs for coffee and drinks and got recycling mainstreamed.
Generational warfare, like class warfare, is designed to keep us at each others' throats instead of realizing that, no matter what generation, a wealthy few hold the true power.
Life goals of that generation include climbing mount everest, writing a novel, really anything that would make you sound "cool" at a cocktail party, but they never realized that nobody cares unless you've made the world a better place for others.
Replace "cocktail party" with "social media" and you've described Millennials.
The only way to defeat a grenade is to toss it right back where it came from. Slop replies get 2x the slop in response. Most effective way I've seen to get people to stop doing it.
>Their behaviors feel so detached and alien to me.
Because they are. Extreme wealth is literally a brain disease. It is physically impossible to remain a normal empathetic human being with that level of detachment from reality. Back when things were 10x, or 100x difference, there was still some amount of reality that just couldn't be abstracted away from you having to deal with. But the modern day reality of >1000x disparity has completely removed that, and they are more or less living as demigods to us in comparison.
>"You can get huge, very high-quality diamonds now for a fraction of what they used to cost. Like 95% off. It's crazy."
The thing is though, what's the point? Unless you're trying to actually pass your diamond as real, there's literally no difference between that $1500 lab grown gem and a $5 piece of costume jewelry. No one but a jewler will ever tell the difference, so why pay anything at all? With real diamonds today you are paying for that certificate of providence, which is what actually gives it any value. Used diamonds of course are worth nowhere near their retail value, but used lab grown are worth zero, both monetarily and sentimentally. Grandma's heirloom Tiffany engagement ring will have meaning in the way that a lab grown no name ring ordered online will not, even if they are completely indistinguishable.
As a fan of cool rocks and gems, and putting aside price and societal influences, diamonds are cool!
Especially compared to hard plastic “costume jewelry” (which I think you’re referring to), gems are hard, don’t scratch as easily as hard plastics, and have cool reflections.
> there's literally no difference between that $1500 lab grown gem and a $5 piece of costume jewelry.
Sorry but this is just not true. Diamond has a very high refractive index compared to most materials. Even a total amateur will quickly notice how much more shiny a diamond is compared to a cheap piece of glass or plastic.
> Grandma's heirloom Tiffany engagement ring will have meaning in the way that a lab grown no name ring ordered online will not, even if they are completely indistinguishable.
Not sure how to parse that. Perhaps it's a cultural thing? This seems to be conflating value, meaning and worth in a confusing-to-me way.
- "Grandma's heirloom" would have sentimental value, regardless of brand name, production process or monetary value. Grandma's candy box or her modest music box would have similar sentimental value. Depending on what this grandmother meant to you as a person, this could be positive or negative sentimental value.
-"Tiffany's" versus "no name, ordered online" might for equal quality jewelry make for a slight higher resale value. All other things being equal, that is.
- Lab grown versus mined could make a slight difference in resale value. This is very often very much overestimated because of how the diamond retail market works.
- Lab grown versus mined really depends when it comes to emotional value.
- For example, if someone were to offer my wife or me a mined diamond with no history, we'd assign it negative emotional value because of the suffering attached. Unless it were to have come from a historical source with no money having changed hands, not even in the second hand trade. In which case no extra harm would have been done even by trading in the secondary market.
- Others might attach positive emotional value to the rarity of the mined diamond.
- Some sociopaths, psychopaths or sadists no doubt attach positive emotional value to the knowledge people had to suffer for the ring on their finger.
Pretty much. I broke down and finally bought my first Windows machine in over a decade to play Subnautica 2. It was so infuriating to use I returned it a week later. You literally have to hack it with shell commands to bypass Microsoft login now. Never again.
reply