> Intellij doesn't have aarch64 Linux distributions

https://www.jetbrains.com/idea/download/download-thanks.html...

https://www.jetbrains.com/rider/download/download-thanks.htm...

I stand corrected! Thank you.

Sounds like Sonic. They're building out fiber in various zip codes around the SF Bay Area.

It sounds like Sonic, but Sonic's 10 Gbps offering is AFAIK symmetric. Of course Sonic's gotten a lot more cagey about specifics and I don't have any 10G equipment so it's hard for me to tell.

It’s actually just “up to” 10 Gb/s. And my 10Gb hardware is pretty janky so my speeds might not be representative of the full capabilities.

Pretty much any consumer internet service (including Sonic) will be "up to".

I dunno. I’ve only read the abstract [1], but I feel like the second paper was like, “glucose = bad because of glycemic response? Nope!” And the first paper was just like, “glucose = bad”

That is, the earlier paper noticed that consuming glucose/sucrose-containing beverages reduced cognitive performance compared to consuming beverages with no glucose, and the later paper was trying to figure out why. And to figure out why, the second paper compared glucose and isomaltulose (glucose-containing saccharides with different glycemic responses) to see whether a sugar’s predicted glycemic response could account for the differences in cognitive performance noticed in the earlier study between beverages with glucose and those without.

[1] This second paper’s abstract doesn’t mention glucose vs. no glucose’s effects on cognitive performance like the earlier paper does.

I think you got it mixed up, because the second paper is not

> "glucose = bad because of glycemic response? Nope!”

but rather:

“glucose = bad because of perceived sweetness? Nope!”

There are sweeteners that do not activate insulin (like stevia).

I am not aware if the converse exists though (not-sweet-tasting molecules that activate insulin).

Their case in the paper is that fructose is not "bad" (like glucose is) despite of being very sweet-tasting.

We might be referring to different “second” papers :) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00319... is about about perceived sweetness

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41430-020-00749-6 is about glycemic response, which I referred to as the second paper

Though it could be argued that both papers were trying to figure out why glucose = bad (the first, testing perceived sweetness, and the second, glycemic response)

Oops, my bad! :(

>I am not aware if the converse exists though (not-sweet-tasting molecules that activate insulin).

Pretty much any large, digestible carbohydrate. Starch being the prime example.

Fructose might not have an effect on cognitive performance. It is still bad for you, since its effect on the body is similar to ethanol. The liver will transform it into fat, high fructose consumption will net you a fatty liver.

Based on table 1, it was probably about 4000 companies and 66000 employees total.