Getting rid of cruft and simplifying the GPU access, makes it easier to develope software that uses GPU's, like AI's, games ..etc.
Have you taken a look at the codebase of some game-engines, its complete cluster fk, cause some simple tasks just take 800 lines of code, and in the end the drivers don't even use the complexity graphics API's force upon you.
Its the low quality food, my memory improved a lot, after I stopped eating sugar and most refined foods.
Theres even some research that Alzheimer starts from bad bacteria in the gut, that loves sugar.
Shitty food has been around for a long time. Some virus known for causing long-term effects in non-negligible parts of the population has been around since 2019.
> The increase in disability prevalence from 2016 to 2022 is likely attributable in part to the long-term effects of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
Wild to me that the first mention of COVID is this far down the page.
Most people have been infected at least a couple of times may this point, and at this point it’s very well documented to cause lasting cognitive decline.
This thesis contradicts the chart though. Why would older people be much less affected and the generation 70+ even show a negative trend if these people were far more likely to experience a more severe disease progression? You would expect them to be hit at least as hard (if not harder) as young people from those long term memory effects. The trend for the youngest age group also starts well before 2019.
First when you have combination of factors, this can happen.
Second, old people were more likely to die on covid. Kids were getting covid too, just not dying and long term covid consequences were observed in then. It can easily be that where old person died, young ended up with long term consequence.
There is no reason to assume the effect would be uniform accross generations.
-----
Either way, cell phone obsession and "rewiring of biology" claims are wven further from anything shown in the article. They are both purely what HN and the blogger want it to be.
I don't see your argument. Are you suggesting that covid pruned old people with weak memory to the point that it improved their memory on average? Because that is the only conclusion of your argument combined with the data. And that's not just completely unfounded, it's a pretty wild violation of Occam's razor.
I was just talking with my wife yesterday about how readily people assume they have superior competence to or greater insight than experts in a given field. I'm not picking on you in particular, but your comment jumped out at me.
Substantially:
We've been eating "low quality" food of one type -- ultra-processed food -- since at least the '60s, so what's your explanation for the recency of the effect?
And some time earlier than that -- very roughly the 1920s and earlier -- we were eating "low quality" foods of a different type: spoiled, adulterated, and questionably-sourced food products, so do you claim that we started with poor concentration then, got better/had a heyday in the mid-20th century, and now we're declining again?
In short: what's your evidence to support your claim?
It's reasoned conjecture on an internet message board. Yes, it is over-stated. But if one treats quality of diet as one variable among many in cognitive capacity, which is the only sane approach, then trying to match the diet of a population to trendlines in society-wide cognitive performance is not going to tell you anything.
Could be multiple factors. In my N=1 experience fiddling with various things in my life.
* Improving diet (primarily avoiding refined foods and sugar) generally improves my energy levels.
* Cutting out social media mostly improves concentration.
* Trying to avoid rumination such as problem solving or rehearsing arguments through meditative practices reduces stress levels, makes it easier to be present and react to things in front of you.
* Sleep is also pretty big for cognitive clarity. Having a consistent sleep schedule and not drinking coffee past noon helps with sleep.
But really, all of these seem to tie into each other. If you want to improve your diet, it's much harder if you are tired from lack of sleep or overstimulation. If you want to improve your sleep, you can't be scrolling social media all day. Mental exhaustion also makes awareness/meditation harder.
As someone who has eaten way too much sugary food I think my gut-brain coupling may have had enough of this. A few weeks ago I had a sugar binge one night and the cognitive effects were impossible to ignore the next day. Fortunately after 2-3 days I was back to normal but of my sample size of one, and in my condition (which is pre-diabetic) I observed a clear link.
It was a good experience as it's prompted me to get more serious about cutting back sugar, implemented as long term, achievable habit change.
Bacteria (and your body) like sugar because it’s an easy to use fuel source. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with having reasonable amounts of sugar in your diet.
The catch is that the body likes lots of things that are awful for it. For instance drug abuse isn't limited to humans - some bears have gotten addicted to huffing gas to get high. [1] Quite cute if it wasn't so awful! The big issue is that in modern times a whole bunch of things are going wrong - testosterone levels (adjusted for health/bmi/age) are declining, IQ is declining [2], basically every single psychological disorder is skyrocketing, and much more.
And the reason why isn't clear. So the most likely reason is that we're doing what humanity has done repeatedly and endlessly throughout history and likely accidentally poisoning ourselves with some thing or things -- things that we believe to be completely safe. So a precautionary principle approach to consumption is to consider what we evolved with and sugar definitely wasn't that. Sugar only really took off in the 19th century. And various further refined sweeteners like high fructose corn syrup and other such things only took off in the late 20th century.
> So a precautionary principle approach to consumption is to consider what we evolved with and sugar definitely wasn't that. Sugar only really took off in the 19th century.
We have evidence that apiculture has been a thing for well over 8,000 years.
Our bodies literally love to burn glucose as fuel and we perform better physically (and mentally I assume) when glucose is readily available.
We have literally evolved to be sugar burning machines.
You completely missed the point GP was making. Yes, sugar is an easy fuel source. The point is we have NOT evolved to consume massive amounts every day without breaks (i.e. daily) and without lots of fiber to buffer it.
I think you might be the one that’s missing the point. I’m saying some sugar is absolutely fine as part of a balanced diet, this isn’t a controversial point. Excessive calories are bad, whether they’re sugar or anything else.
As a European visitong the US, I am constantly amazed at how there is masses of sugar added to 'normal' food over there. You take a bite expecting a certain flavour, and go wtf did someone glace this with caramel or drop some candy in the flour mix?
Not a major proportion of your daily caloric intake and not in excess of your daily caloric burn (unless you’re actively trying to gain weight). More if you’re doing a lot of aerobic exercise.
Apparently very popular content - a parent at my kid’s kindergarten wanted to make cake for their kids birthday, said they’d only use 1 tsp of honey in the whole thing.
Cue universal freak out in the parents’ WhatsApp group.
Apparently, sugar:
- causes cancer
- causes autism
- causes hyperactivity
- causes blindness
- makes children indolent and lazy
- will permanently ruin a child if they even look at it
It’s weird, IMO. I let my kiddo have sugar within reason, and somehow she’s leaner than any of the other kids in her class, who even already have rotten teeth at two, despite their sugar free diets. They feed them simple carbs almost exclusively, and are oblivious to amylase.
Perhaps it’s because she’s physically active - the rest of her cohort are pretty much forbidden from walking or running as those pose risks, and children must be sheltered from all conceivable risk so that they grow up into independent and capable adults.
I would argue that that - physical activity - is far more important than what you shove in your face.
There have been repeatedly, credibly and demonstrably shown to be significant benefits to not spending your entire life sitting on your ass - but I guess it’s harder to get off your ass than to proselytise about sugar being an evil and artificial harmful chemical that has no place in the human body - despite it literally being what we run off of.
"I would argue that that - physical activity - is far more important than what you shove in your face."
No, it bloody is not.
I used to drive a bicycle for 6 - 12 hours ever day while working in the delivery. I also didn't watch what I was eating.
I ended up getting fat and with haemorrhoids. So I had to quit cycling.
Then I spend some time (years actually) researching and slowly improving my diet.
Result? I lost weight, my haemorrhoids (and several other health issues) stopped acting up, and I am overall much healthier despite most of my physical activity being walking.
Yes, exercise is important. But it won't help you if you eat massive amounts of garbage food.
So stop talking stuff you have no clue about.
Also, we do not "run off of" sugar. Human body can run off sugar, or fat, or a combination of these. And argument could be made that running off fat is actually healthier. Body can in fact produce all sugar it needs with absolutely zero need for dietary sugar (note that doesn't mean you should go zero carb, just that carbs / sugars are not a metabolic necessity).
As for this:
"who even already have rotten teeth at two, despite their sugar free diets. They feed them simple carbs almost exclusively, and are oblivious to amylase."
Uhh... carbs ARE sugars. It literally doesn't matter that you are avoiding "sugar" if you end up eating bread instead.
Moderate exercising is conaistently shown to improve peoples health results. Study after study, it has positive impact.
It may or may not affect peoples weight (which is aesthetic issue on itself), but in terms of health improvements it is one intervention that consistently works.
They are not saying kids should be 8 hours on bikes whether they feel like or not. They are saying they should run around with other kids which something entirely different.
Long before RFK Jr said it recently, Dr Robert Lustig, paediatric endocrinologist, went viral about 15 years ago with a video "Sugar: The bitter truth"[1] and book and talk slots following on from it.
Gary Taubes, who became widely known for researching tons of studies on diet and coining the saying "eat food, not too much, mostly plants". Food meaning unprocessed stuff your (great great) grandma would recognise as food, wrote an NY Times article agreeing with it.
I'm all for making the apps / websites that are essential for disabled people accessible.
But for smaller companies, getting the website/app up to the rules for European Accessibility act can be over their limits, cause it's not an easy task, depending on the type of UI your app is using.
So their only option is just to avoid Europen market, if they don't want to go to jail.
And European Software marked will be left behind even more.
Europe has 0 power in online world and they keep it like that by making dumb rules everyday.
Don't know what you define as small but when you have two million per year turnover and ten employees you should think about complying to the available laws. Since those are the cutoff numbers where below it does not apply.
A 15-people business is most definitely a small business.
> complying to the available laws.
That's why Europe has gotten into its present sorry state when it comes to IT. They're winning all the law-related battles but they've lost the big war, just look of how all of Europe is a slave to the American IT industry (after all, we're having this conversation on a an American-run forum, even though I presume that we're both EU citizens).
Well-capitalized American consumer software companies have been able to outcompete European competitors by taking a product developed for the US and offering it in the EU market at zero marginal cost. In areas of IT where zero-marginal-cost expansion is not so easy (e.g. industrial control software that comes bundled with the equipment it is controlling) there doesn't seem to be much of an American advantage.
Stringent regulations that American companies won't be compliant with without extra effort can be expected to increase the relative competitiveness of European companies in the EU.
That might be true, but it’s also the reason we don’t have a Zuckerberg or Musk taking charge of EU politics. There’s a balance to be struck here, and I prefer this over being a slave to American big tech.
No. It's von der Meyer and other plutocrats, making every country lose sovereignty in ever expanding ways. We went from better trade and transport to a bureocratic unaccountable beast that eats money at insane speed and becomes more censorious, pro war and power hungry with each year that passes.
There's benefits, but there's a LOT of cons that people refuse to admit, and this is not saying "brexit was better", just that EU politics are riddled with corruption and pretending we're good because we try to compare ourselves to a different context in the USA is just pointless.
> But for smaller companies, getting the website/app up to the rules for European Accessibility act can be over their limits, cause it's not an easy task, depending on the type of UI your app is using.
If this leads to better accessibility in the common frameworks or the emergence of more accessible frameworks, it will be a win for every Internet user in the world, though. This is a technical issue that can be fixed.
The opposite, the directive is posed to harmonize a situation introducing a common ground for the states to legiferate in a similar way, helping companies have less work to do to adapt one product to another state laws, I'm quoting the first points of the directive:
The purpose of this Directive is to contribute to the proper functioning of the internal market by approximating laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States as regards accessibility requirements for certain products and services by, in particular, eliminating and preventing barriers to the free movement of certain accessible products and services arising from divergent accessibility requirements in the Member States. This would increase the availability of accessible products and services in the internal market and improve the accessibility of relevant information.
Due to the differences in national accessibility requirements, individual professionals, SMEs and microenterprises in particular are discouraged from entering into business ventures outside their own domestic markets. The national, or even regional or local, accessibility requirements that Member States have put in place currently differ as regards both coverage and level of detail. Those differences negatively affect competitiveness and growth, due to the additional costs incurred in the development and marketing of accessible products and services for each national market.
The approximation of national measures at Union level is therefore necessary for the proper functioning of the internal market in order to put an end to fragmentation in the market of accessible products and services, to create economies of scale, to facilitate cross-border trade and mobility, as well as to help economic operators to concentrate resources on innovation instead of using those resources to cover expenses arising from fragmented legislation across the Union.
I was once talking with the cto of an Ai law startup who made a presentation in university, and he noted that one of the main issue to move to other countries would have been different laws. Of course for the whole law sector that's impossible to harmonize (at least for the time being), but if for some things there can be harmonization, it's a win win for everything
ADA lawsuits in the US are frequent and often somewhat frivolous, and they probably cost way more than European fines, so I don't think the regulation puts the European software market at a disadvantage. I admit it's bad for small companies, though, when they want to or need to use alternative GUI frameworks (usually, for technical or licensing-related reasons). For instance, I was planning to use Fyne with Go for some small apps, but it has zero accessibility support and is therefore out of question.
The thing of the smaller people always comes up when digital regulations are to be, yet on other industries everyone copes, including street vendors, granted in some countries there is a gray zone in following laws, but still they usually come up.
Also we can follow China's leadership and get our own digital wall.
Most smaller companies aren't in the markets this legislation is written for anyway. This primarily places demands on four types of software/digital products (not a lawyer):
* Banks
* Webshops
* Operating Systems
* Software designed for Communication
The rest is all hardware devices (ATMs n such), public government services (the public transport schedule), relates to TV or isn't software in the first place (ebooks).
Banks and OSes are markets with only a few players and none of them are small. It'll be interesting to see if this on a technical level will demand changes for Wayland, afaik it's story on accessibility is pretty shit still.
Webshops overwhelmingly either use larger third parties as intermediaries (ie. Etsy) or stuff like woocommerce, an off the shelf solution developed by Automattic (who will obviously have to accommodate by updating woocommerce, which they probably will since iirc they offer a commercial solution for woocommerce themselves).
And communication software really is the big one, but most people aren't making new ones of those either. That's gonna be a pain for Slack/Salesforce, Meta, Reddit and so on, but they'll have legal pressure to comply (which opens up a lot more room to accelerate and give money to that sort of thing). If you start out in this market in particular, it'll probably be easy to comply with this regulation "from the ground up", just like how it's pretty easy to not build a data slurper from scratch after the GDPR got passed into law.
The thing they all have in common is that there's relatively few actual competing products.
At least the Bold and Beautiful has a story with characters. There are popular minecraft videos that are just random kids saying "here's the house I made of blocks... here are the walls... here are some torches... here are the stairs... here are the upstairs walls..." and videos that are just random kids putting blocks on top of other blocks. Some without narration at all, but others with inane chatter.
There's no compelling narrative however, no drama, no danger/thrills, no ticking clock, no "will they or won't they", and no production value.
Sure, go ahead, no taxes! But along with OP's rules against using public roads, or public infrastructure: You also can't use the public's air, because regulation keeps it clean. You can't eat at any restaurants, because the government regulates them and make sure they are serving safe food. No access to medicine, either, for the same reason. No airline travel, which is heavily regulated and safe, No working for any company subject to OSHA and other workplace safety regulations. No calling the police or fire department if you need help. Just you in your homestead in the woods--oh, and if someone robs your homestead, you don't have access to the courts to get your money back, either, money that you can't use anyway because it's issued by the government.
No taxes in exchange for you not benefiting from anything taxpayer-funded. How does that libertarian paradise sound?
Just my fantasy scenario, imagine if some kind of yeast/virus affects humans to eat so much sugar, we never need so much sugar, but there's some-kind of yeast inside us that controls us, to create and consume sugar for it.
> imagine if some kind of yeast/virus affects humans to eat so much sugar
I think the gut microbiome can indeed do this.
The episode called "Swap Out Sugar" of the BBC podcast Just One Thing explains more - the relevant section is from after 7 minutes to before 12 minutes into the episode:
So is tiktok. And sugar. And video games. And a thousand other things people are exposed to. I'm all for regulation of harmful and addictive substances and its exposure to children/adolescents, but porno is pretty low on the list of "things fucking up kids that need to be regulated"
Have you taken a look at the codebase of some game-engines, its complete cluster fk, cause some simple tasks just take 800 lines of code, and in the end the drivers don't even use the complexity graphics API's force upon you.
Improved this is not an accomplishment ?