This entire take is nonsense.

I just used ChatGPT to diagnose a very serious but ultimately not-dangerous health situation last week and it was perfect. It literally guided me perfectly without making me panic and helped me understand what was going on.

We use ChatGPT at work to do things that we have literally laid people off for, because we don't need them anymore. This included fixing bugs at a level that is at least E5/senior software engineer. Sometimes it does something really bad but it definitely saves times and helps avoid adding headcount.

Generative AI is years beyond what I would have expected even 1 year ago. This guy doesn't know what he's talking about, he's just picking and choosing one-off articles that make it seem like it's supporting his points.

Is there no worry in giving the app your password? I would never just give my password, especially my Apple account password to a random app. Is this program reliable? However it looks like a program that I want to use.

UC Riverside, UC Merced etc are not viewed similarly to UCLA or UCB.

It's treated as "good enough", and now the the second generation of SWEs, PMs, and AEs are getting hired I've seen their parents (a large number of whom are now mid-level leadership in most tech companies here in the Bay) increasingly lobby to include these "lower tier" UCs to the recruiting pool.

My point is, for the younger generation a university's societal eliteness just isn't a strong predictor for success, and I strongly believe data will back up this observation within the next decade (there's usually a 5-7 year delay on data gathering in the social sciences, eg. Data from 2018-22 is only now starting to be analyzed).

UCR is where you want to go if you're going for Geology or Ag/Hort, you aren't really trying to go there for SWE or EE, it isn't exactly known for those sorts of programs.

Source: I live right next to their citrus and asparagus test fields and often visit their geology building to use their XRD and XRF systems.

Every school has increased tuition without substantially increasing the number of students. What you are seeing is that schools are getting thousands of students that are exactly the same which is why admissions is turning into a lottery system. It's basically like a CPU maxed out at 100%. There's nothing you can do except build more schools and increase the number of students otherwise it will continue to be a lottery.

The schools that went test-optional already have switched back because this actually gives lower income students the best chance to distinguish themselves. The narrative that lower income students with less opportunities would benefit from not submitting SATs turned out to be false.

UCs already guarantee this to the top % of students in every school.

>We need to identify the highest quality research projects and fund those.

Congratulations, you have described the system that's been in place for decades.

It's not hyped. It's the most effective way I've seen the people around me lose weight. Some of them have lost a tremendous amount of weight very quickly.

But a know a couple of them that went off it and the weight came back pretty quickly. It really is just a suppression of hunger, nothing more than that.

> It really is just a suppression of hunger, nothing more than that.

It is actually a lot more than that. Many people on Ozempic report better impulse control (food or otherwise). Many stop or significantly reduce alcohol intake. It seems that gut hormones are linked to reward pathways in the brain.

It can be hyped because jabs bring immediate results. And it can be prescribed by almost every doctor so number of people who can report is big, and therefore visible results can be further disseminated (hyped).

But… treatment is working.

Question is at what cost.

If something is too good to be true, one has to ask what is behind it. But perhaps it is a similar situation to when antibiotics were invented.

Most developed medical technology doesn't have "a cost". That's puritan morality theater masquerading as wisdom.

> one has to ask what is behind it.

The human body is stupid and makes a lot of mistakes. It's very obvious to me that our bodies and minds were not built for their current environment.

When someone's brain has a bug in which is has seizures, we do not ask them "what's behind" their epilepsy medication. No, we understand their brain has a problem that should be fixed. There is no ulterior perspective, some secret hidden ability they might possess. It's just bad.

But when it comes to food, we forget this is how we view things. In it's place comes moralizing.

The blue light “science” is a fallacy. I think N=8 in the original study and the difference in sleep was about 15 mins.

It’s a combination of factors: you must reduce both blue light and intensity of light to avoid suppressing melatonin. Just reducing blue light might help a little, but it still suppresses melatonin. Melatonin levels and circadian phase shifts scale with total irradiance even if blue-depleted; basically, dimming the lights is really effective.

That’s why our products focus on both intensity and color change (but we lead with blue light reduction since it’s easier to grasp).

Also, if you look at our specs, you’ll see that we don’t use pure amber or red light; we use very low-blue white light with high color rendering. We have yet to do the study on this, but you can read surprisingly well with our lighting at a very low intensity (enough to make your mom angry that you are hurting your eyes), whereas with lower CRI sources, you would have to make them brighter to achieve the same visual acuity.

There is some emerging research that IR may play a role in melatonin production locally in cells, which is why we added it to the bulb. Early days for this scientifically, but Scott Zimmerman and associated researchers suggest wideband IR may be effective, even if it’s only 20-30% of the visible intensity.