Ive seen it in action. When you get lazy, you start to notice that the single most important aspect is posturing.

So to be lazy you start posturing, selling people how great you and your project is. The more projects you have under you, the higher the chance of something very successful too.

It works, suddenly they can work even less and get promoted.

Ofc this is horrible for the company, having the worst people doing the most “internal sales for positioning”. This also creates a giant middle management layer.

I wouldn’t say they are dumb, they just noticed that great work has no correlation with performance. What does have a correlation is how you act and speak. The All-In Chamaths of the world (not saying he is dumb, he isnt, but damn if boosting isn’t everything for him).

This is why Manifesting, was so popular for the management layer, suddenly it wasnt “being untruthful” it was “manifesting into existence”.

Seven of the eight authors of the influential 2017 AI paper "Attention Is All You Need" are immigrants to the United States. The remaining author is the grandson of refugees.

And the majority of them didn’t get their degrees from US universities.

No doubt Google was the catalyst though.

They're (still) Americans.

Yes but the point is that anti-immigrant demagoguery is about to slow immigration and weaken our future.

That seems like a wildly irrelevant claim in the context of this conversation.

It's direct and blatantly relevant to the discussion that the transformer was invented in America and the cited role of immigrants in that invention, resultingly showing how ending immigration will impact future innovation.

And how does this claim contradict my initial statement?

Worse food and less fat shaming.

I think most europeans wouldnt mind agreeing to that most Asian countries are eating healthier, and their bmis will reflect that.

I know I will be downvoted into oblivion for this but here goes: Im sorry to be crass but if someone makes lifestyle changes after taking drugs its 100% the drugs.

Kind of tired of people taking anabolic steroids and then claiming it's a smaller part of their success or people being born rich talking about hard work whilst being on the golf course.

Just be happy that we live in a time where drugs have been painstakingly researched and move on without the ego boost. Be humble.

https://nymag.com/news/features/money-brain-2012-7/

> if someone makes lifestyle changes after taking drugs its 100% the drugs

Multi-variate causation doesn't losslessly or deterministically reduce to a single dimension. Particularly when the causes aren't independent.

The drugs facilitate behaviour change. Changed behaviour helps the drugs work. Both done together are stronger than independently, and the strength of that interaction (and the overall effect) is mediated by other inputs.

I think it depends on what you mean by "100% the drugs".

I don't think anyone is arguing that the outcome would 100% not happen if it weren't for the drugs, but I think it is useful to note that part of the benefit comes from the habits the drugs help you form rather than simply 100% the appetite reduction the drug produces.

Are they really habits when they go away when you stop taking the drug?

I take a tiny dose of retatrutide for IBS (works amazingly well, btw). I’m not overweight. One week I stupidly got my injections mixed up and I took what’s still a fairly low but standard dose.

I could barely eat 1/3 of my supper. Granted, I’m sure you get used to it somewhat but it’s no small help that it’s giving you and I don’t know if it would help make new habits. The whole point of what most of us non-overweight people do is not eat despite being able to eat more, or even still being hungry. How are you learning that habit when it’s hard to eat and you stay full ridiculously long?

> How are you learning that habit when it’s hard to eat and you stay full ridiculously long?

For me? By changing my diet, understanding what "full" actually feels like, and keeping certain things I know I will binge eat out of the house. Plus the knowledge that I can have a bad day or two and get right back on the horse of healthy eating and be totally fine - if I gain a couple pounds I know precisely how to take them off in a repeatable and successful manner. That mental bit is key.

But for food itself - it's eating differently. Basically avoiding carbs and sugars does 90% of the work. It's not a 100% cutting out of my diet like Atkins, but it's prioritizing lean proteins and then simply being fuller for longer.

And part of it is learning you can be hungry for a period of time and not indulge. Which is much easier when you don't have those snacks you can't resist in the house.

It's certainly nothing groundbreaking, but habits are built over time. Motivation fades. I'm certainly not motivated every day or week or even month to eat well - but now it's habit and routine so it's almost more difficult to break it to go to the store to buy junk, or decide to order take out.

Going to the gym on a regular strict basis? I'm not exactly sure what changed. Likely being able to look in the mirror and feel a little vain? And knowing now it's all just about consistency. If I miss a day, just make it up the next day and stay on schedule. No big deal.

All those things stayed roughly the same after I came off Tirzepatide and hit my goal weight. They became harder of course, and I had some rebound (I overshot where I wanted to be on purpose on advice from my doctor) weight gain like most do - but I've now been stable at a healthy weight for over 18mo now. Habits have continued and stuck in place.

The drugs were a precondition to them being successful in the changes or seeing the level of impact be significantly increased doesn't make it 100% the drugs.

Since you brought up steroids, plenty of people take a gram of gear and look like they don't even lift. I'm not saying that someone taking anabolic steroids should act like they've worked just as hard as someone who is natural and at the same level of musculature, but good results take effort and consistency in the gym, diet, and rest of your lifestyle. You get some benefit just from being on steroids, but and there might be some genetic freak hyper-responders that blow up without any of that, but the overwhelming majority of people aren't going to look like they're a steroid user if they're not pushing themselves very hard as well, and the sheer amount of mediocre physiques from people on gear proves it.

Similarly, if someone turns their lifestyle around with the help of a GLP-1, if they change up their diet from crap to decent or good, if they move from being sedentary to exercising regularly, does the drug get 100% of the credit? Do we throw away all of the other work done?

You can both take a drug and also put in significant work that you can and should be proud of. Both things can be true.

There are studies on that that showed: Steroids WITHOUT training produced more muscle mass and strength than training without steroids. Bhasin et al., 1996 – New England Journal of Medicine

Belgian Blues dont really need to go to the gym, so it’s not really that hard to phantom.

Bhasin's study is fundamentally flawed in that it sampled muscle size while they would still have inflated muscle size from increased glycogen and water retention from the steroid use and didn't use a method of measurement that compensates for it. It is not a direct comparison of contractile tissue, which is presumably what we would care about.

Belgian Blues grow that large because of a mutation with their myostatin gene. This is hardly the same method of action.

That study was on untrained subjects. Steroids increase your baseline musculature, but only to a point.

You're not going to accidentally an Arnold by injecting testosterone and sitting on the couch every day.

Your spell checker made wonder what ghosts are doing with steroids.

"Kind of tired of people taking anabolic steroids and then claiming it's a smaller part of their success"

Sounds like you've never taken steroids brother, and with that mindset you shouldn't, because I'll tell you that no matter how much you shoot into your muscles, if you don't put in the work in the gym, there's no way you're going to get jacked.

That position does not appear to be supported by clinical evidence. [This study](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dar.12433) references several studies that show that taking low (in the context of gym users) doses of steriods and not exercising is more effective at building muscle mass than strength training and not taking steroids.

Steroids significantly increase glycogen/water retention in-muscle while on them and for a period of time while coming off of them. This would increase muscle size by the measures noted in Bhasin's study (the big one people reference here), but not increase the amount of actual contractile tissue. There's also a cap there - going up in dosage, going for longer, etc., is not going to continually increase overall muscle size at that rate because you've saturated the stores in the muscle for the glycogen and water.

You will gain some additional contractile tissue doing nothing on gear. The average person, if faced with the two options, will gain more actual contractile tissue opting to lift weights without gear.

You can find huge quantities of people in gyms that are on gear and look like they barely lift.

It might be 100% the drugs, but just watching my friend group I can say it takes something more than the drugs to change habits.

I'm not offended by the suggestion. It just doesn't make logical sense based on first person evidence. Those who change up their routines seem to (so far, at least) be having much longer and durable success. Taking the drugs absolutely allowed them (and myself) to do so, but it doesn't explain why others did not and the nearly perfect correlation between outcomes.

It could simply be luck I suppose? I'm not sure what other explanation could explain differing outcomes.

The thing is - I honestly don't care. If I return to old habits again and the drugs get me off those, great. I'll take it for life. It's not a moral issue to me, it's a practical one. When friends of friends come to me for advice, I will continue to tell them that it's most effective if you use it as a means to performance enhance your dieting and then use that space and motivation from the results to change your lifestyle habits that got you there to begin with. It's simply what seems to work at a pragmatic level.

Telling someone "don't worry, the drugs are going to change your grocery shopping decisions, get you walking on a daily basis, and get you into a consistent gym routine 100% on your own" seems rather silly. I can't see how it's helpful to anyone. It sets far more people up for success if they also put effort into change from their end as well.

Re: Steroids - those who work out while on them are going to see larger gains than those who don't. They are called performance enhancing drugs for a reason, same as I think of the GLP-1 drugs - just in a different category. You certainly will get results with either, but they increase the results of effort put in as well.

In the end, do what works for you! The health outcomes of these drugs are amazing, and I think they will be up there with the most important medications ever invented in terms of quality of life years saved.

Really hope I can return to Gentoo soon. It was just the most stable and most hacker friendly distro Ive ever used. Hats off to all the contributors!

I used Gentoo for ten years (2005–2015), and I was very happy with it! Stable was not the word I would use, in that updating frequently broke and required manual intervention. But it was so flexible! The easily accessible options one has for choosing everything about the system is unparalleled in any system I have tried since. I would still use it if I had more tinkering time. These days I am on NixOS, mostly to have the same setup on every machine I use.

What Gentoo really needs is an official immutability mechanism like ostree used by Fedora Silverblue or ZFS/btrfs snapshots of the root/boot volumes. This way the ever-experimental nature of the distro would be compensated by having an easy mechanism to rollback to previous known-good builds.

I haven't gotten around to experimenting with https://wiki.calculate-linux.org/templates and https://old.calculate-linux.org/main/en/calculate-assemble

TL;DR: you can pre-configure and keep updating/building new versions of your own live-boot image of Gentoo/Calculate. Which kind of get's you "previous known-good builds" just the other way around.

Oh and the other thing I also never needed to use is update/rescue of Gentoo/Calculate installation through it's flip-flopping between two root partitions.

Calculate installer by default creates two root partitions, but I've only ever used one. And so far `cl-update` never broke the system - even when I was so far behind that my version of python and glibc got masked (or maybe even removed).

Back on vanilla Gentoo - being that far behind usually meant it was easier to reinstall Gentoo from stage3 :D

Hah, same! NixOS is perfect for me; I love the declarative aspect. But Portage is far-and-away the best traditional package manager I've ever used. It's truly phenomenal.

I think Gentoo is very stable, but you have to make use of revdep-rebuild and know what you are doing (meaning: it is easy to shoot yourself in the foot).

I've been on Gentoo for my gaming desktop for like 2-3 years now and I don't think I've ever had an update break anything.

I will say though that my valgrind is broken due to march native. :)

If anyone can help adding AVX512 (and other CPU features) support then that would be most welcome. It’s a major task though.

Space before the command will have the same effect

The Elon way is to fire the middle manager layer, the communication layer, that are great at writing accomplishments because they can be in ten projects at the same time.

So you don’t believe in the free market?

I would say basically everything that has won a an Apple Design Award before 2020.

Things for macOS for example.