I take both. 500-1000mg acetaminophen, 200-400mg ibuprofen. Usually helps for headaches which I get frequently. I only take them for the worst headaches though, so probably once every couple of weeks on average.
Yeah if I need to I take both also. In addition I be sure to have a caffeinated drink also as caffeine has been shown to both speed the absorption and boost the efficacy (5-10%) of paracetemol over a multi hour period. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17442681/
I was approached on the street by a girl working for a marketing company, wanting me to start a subscription for $20 a month to Save the Children which I think is a pretty well regarded charity. We hit it off and met up later and I asked her about the job. For each person who signs up, she would get about $60. So that's the first three months of my subscription in her pocket. Furthermore, her employer would fly them around the country, staying about 2 weeks in a city, living in hotels and expenses paid. This girl did not even have a home, she lived permanently in hotels paid for by her employer. And of course the employer needs some profit on top, so I'd estimate that's at least like 3-6 more months of my subscription going towards her employer/expenses.
I wonder how many more of these private companies exist to just siphon off these donation streams? The charity itself may be efficient, but how many private companies provide goods and services to them for a healthy profit?
1) group charities as "charities" when large "nonprofit / ngo" term is more suitable.
2) assume that wasteful _free_ money to a charity makes the charity less good. If a third party takes 90% of the money they raise and gives 10% to the charity, then that's free money for the charity. It's deceptive, and they are cutting a huge profit on the back of the good work the charity does, but that does not mean they are complicit, necessarily. The charity would have to sue that third party company to shut them down, and for what? Do reduce their own project budgets and also lose the money?
The third party is working with the charity(or ngo or whatever). The charity is essentially paying them for marketing, using a huge chunk of the money people think they're giving to charity. The charity is complicit in this deception, and the third party presents themselves as volunteers "Hello, I'm with Save the Children, we do bla bla bla look at this picture of a starving child would you be interested in helping us by giving money every month to give this starving child a better life?"
They don't tell you they're paid to be there. They don't tell you the first year of payments goes directly to a private company.
I looked up Save the Children in some charity index thing a while back and it was listed as something like 94% of the money they receive goes to the stated cause which I doubt includes these marketing costs. You could say this is still worth it because they increase the amount of money the charity receives even if a lot of it goes to the company. But it doesn't seem right to me, not when they deceive people this way.
The charities sign a contract with the third parties unfortunately - eg they have permission from the charity.
Here in Europe oxfam for example uses some of these private companies and they get the first year of donations and from the 2nd year it goes to oxfam itself.
Apparently the average person cancels donations after 2,5 years so for a zero marketing budget (for oxfam) they make 1.5 year x your donation.
When I first found out I was disgusted and some majors in countries in Europe have tried to ban such "paid charity workers"... (They tend to operate near train stations etc.
Or - making sensational statements gets attention. A dangerous tool is necessarily a powerful tool, so that statement is pretty much exactly what you'd say if you wanted to generate hype, make people excited and curious about your mysterious product that you won't let them use.
Think about all the possible explanations carefully. Weight them based on the best information you have.
(I think the most likely explanation for Mythos is that it's asymmetrically a very big deal. Come to your own conclusions, but don't simply fall back on the "oh this fits the hype pattern" thought terminating cliché.)
Also be aware of what you want to see. If you want the world to fit your narrative, you're more likely construct explanations for that. (In my friend group at least, I feel like most fall prey to this, at least some of the time, including myself. These people are successful and intelligent by most measures.)
Then make a plan to become more disciplined about thinking clearly and probabilistically. Make it a system, not just something you do sometimes. I recommend the book "the Scout Mindset".
Concretely, if one hasn't spent a couple of quality hours really studying AI safety I think one is probably missing out. Dan Hendrycks has a great book.
There's nothing (except their capacity and your token budget I guess) stopping anyone from having a million simultaneous conversations with Claude right now.
Maybe a million is a stretch but thousands is completely doable right now. That's thousands of Claudes. Knock yourself out.
But that's the point. No human has the capacity to handle a million simultaneous conversations, any million-sized workflow would have to be AI-managed itself, and it's not even clear what the goals would be.
If it ever becomes possible to say "build me a unicorn" you're going to get millions of people trying to do the same thing, and you no longer have the same economy.
Because the features that generate unicorns stop being unusual.
Startup slop instead of art slop.
Which is the real problem with AI. Work gets cheap, original value stays expensive no matter how much compute you throw at it.
Because if it gets cheap too, it gets commoditised and stops being valuable.
And globally that applies to everything.
AI will either have to be tightly rationed, or it will murder the competitive economy.
Oh come on man, nobody in the west wants those nutjobs to have nukes. Nobody gives a shit about morality or whatever, if you're our enemy and you try to get an advantage over us were going to slap you on the nuts if we can.
You know it's a proper witch-hunt when a bunch of bandwagoners start defending Iran's right to have nukes. Everyone's forgotten Iran is our (the West) enemy, by their own choice. They used to be our ally, then religious fanaticists took over and here we are.
Fuck Iran. They want to be our enemy, this is what happens to our enemy. They could have chosen to not be annoying counts but just like damn near everyone else in the middle East they're incapable of just shutting the fuck up and sitting down and letting things go, they just have to stir shit.
Iran funded Hamas which led to the attack that started the Gaza war, they're funding Hezbollah leading to the Lebanon thing. Iran is at the center of this entire conflict and all you fools are too busy frothing at the mouth over how Israel is defending themselves to recognize that they are in fact defending themselves.
This is honestly such a bad argument against comments.
I'm gonna note down my reasons for doing things and other information I deem useful, and if some other dipshit 5 years from now when I've moved on comes along and starts changing everything up without keeping the comments up to date that's their problem not mine. There was never anything wrong with my comments, the only thing that's wrong is the dipshit messing things up.
Doesn't matter what I do, the dipshit is going to mess everything up anyway. Those outdated comments will be the least of their worries.
IME unfortunately that's not actually the case. It very much is your problem, as the architect of the original system, unless you can get yourself transferred to a department far, far away. I've never managed that except by leaving the company.
To be clear, I don't believe it should be this way, but sadly unless you work in an uncommonly well run company it usually is.
I really can't imagine this ever becoming a real problem. Not once have I ever worked in a place where any kind of leadership would ever give a shit about comments nor anything else in the code itself. The lowest level leadership has ever gone is click a button to see if it works.
And if anyone has a problem with comments existing it's trivial to find/replace them out of existence. Literally a one minute job, if you actually think the codebase would be better without them.
This is such a humongous non-issue it's crazy man.
Leadership doesn't need to give a shit about the code to cause the cultural defect that leads to comments not being maintained. All they need to do is set the conditions which prevent code owners from having the agency to reject shoddy work. In my experience this always happens. It can manifest as either:
(1) "flat" organization where everyone owns everything and therefore nobody has the authority to reject a PR
or (2) "rubber stamp" culture where people who reject shoddy work are "not a team player" and therefore performance defective.
So far every company I've worked at has one or both of these symptoms. Working in the confines of those systems, it's not an irrational choice to decide that comments and other forms of documentation aren't worth trying to maintain, and are therefore detrimental.
I provide feedback on PRs. Then the owner of the PR adjusts it to accommodate my feedback and once I'm happy with it I approve it and we merge. If you're working in a place so cancerous that you can't just leave a comment on a PR reminding someone to update the comment they forgot to update I don't know why you're still there. This is called code review and it's common practice. If all you ever do is approve PRs then you're not doing code review and you might as well skip the whole PR step and let people merge into main as they please.
In any case your argument still just boils down to "I work with a bunch of stupid lazy dipshits" so why bother doing anything at all then? Write comments, don't write comments, write tests, don't write tests, do whatever the fuck you want because you're surrounded by useless dipshits and nothing you do matters anyway. Might as well write some comments for your own sake, everything's a ball of mud anyway it doesn't matter.
I'm gonna keep doing what I think is right in my sane corner of the world. And honestly I don't believe you. I think these excuses are just that. Excuses. I've been around quite a bit and haven't seen anything like you describe. Sure there's plenty of lazy dipshits but you don't have to sink to their level.
You may be a bit overconfident about how clear you will be with your comments.
The “dipshit” doesn’t mess everything up for fun. They don’t understand the comments written by the previous “dipshit” and thus are unable to update the comments.
Oh really? I'm overconfident in my ability to write and read simple clear text notes?
Here's what I think. I think you guys heard the "self-documenting code" BS and ate it up, and now you're grasping at straws to defend your cargo cult position, inventing these "problems" to justify it.
If you're looking at some code and there's a comment saying something that doesn't make sense to you, maybe that's a clue that you're missing a puzzle piece and should take a step back maybe talk to some people to make sure you're not messing things up? Maybe, for a non-dipshit, that comment they don't understand could actually be helpful if they put some effort into it?
Also just to be clear I don't think this is a likely occurrence unless someone doesn't know squat about the codebase at all - my comments generally assume very little knowledge. That's their whole purpose - to inform someone (possibly me) coming there without the necessary background knowledge.
It just isn't feasible to include the why of everything in the code itself. And it sure as hell is better to include some info as comments than none at all. Otherwise a bug will often be indistinguishable from a feature.
And I don't think dipshits mess things up for fun. I think they just suck. They're lazy and stupid, as most developers are. If I'm there I can use reviews etc to help them suck less, if I'm not they're free to wreck my codebase with reckless abandon and nothing I do will make any difference. I cannot safeguard my codebase against that so there's no point in trying and the fact that this is your argument should make you stop and reconsider your position because it's far fetched as fuck.
I’ll also note that I’ve worked with developers who didn't like git blame because someone might misinterpret the results. I think some people want excuses for poor work, rather than just working as correctly as possible.
reply