This kind of stat is misleading and is seen in many health metrics - blood pressure, cholesterol, etc. In fact, it's sometimes known as the "cholesterol paradox" because people with higher cholesterol have a lower risk of dying. However, it's misleading because blood pressure, weight, and cholesterol often come down as people suffer from chronic disease or malnutrition. The chronic diseases people get are often from their weight, blood pressure and cholesterol, and when this is corrected for, the all-cause mortality curves better reflect what a healthy person's numbers should be. So in reality the lowest point of the all-cause mortality curve for BMI is below 25. 25 is not optimal.

Dr. Carvalho recently made a video on this topic (he even mentions the BMI curve). You can watch it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4h135SBebc

Thats interesting because I am healthy in other ways but my cholestrol has been high ( high ldl, total and high apob) . My trigs, a1c, bmi, homa insulin score ect are in line. No history of heart disease in either side of family.

My cardiologist has been asking me to get on statins for a while but i've been not able to convince myself to get on board to take a pill for the rest of my life.

There's something called a "lean mass hyper responder", it's a type of person with high LDL but they're still healthy. You may fall into that category. However, high apob is more correlated to heart disease than high LDL. A lot of the online doctors who say high LDL isn't bad are saying that because some people have large LDL particles, and it's apparently the number of particles that's the problem, not the amount of LDL cholesterol.

I've dug into this topic a lot sense there's a lot of heart disease in my family. I've found that eating a bowl of oatmeal once a day reduces my LDL under 130 (I've been taking quarterly cholesterol blood tests to keep an eye on things). It's probably the fiber content that's doing the work, but I haven't tried other high fiber foods yet. However, I'm not a doctor so make of this what you will.

yeah APOB is what drove my doctor to give me a prescription for statin

I've heard people say you don't need to rinse, but from experience this just doesn't seem to be true, or at least it's based on the dishwasher you have. I had a dishwasher 15 years ago where I tested the idea of not rinsing vs rising, and if I didn't rinse, I would sometimes have dishes that weren't completely clean (ie, hot chocolate residue in a mug, cheese from mac n cheese on silverware, etc).

I find small food particles left on the top rack if I don't rinse. These are easy to remove (not baked on), but are super annoying and I can't understand why except that when rinsing it's reusing dirty water and not finishing with a clean rinse.

My dishwasher sends the water into the waste disposal built into the sink. If the waste disposal has a lot of food that hasn't been grinded it up, it seems to slow the draining of the dishwasher so not all the food gets drained before the rinse cycle. So I learned to run the waste disposal for a couple seconds before starting a dishwashing load.

For a few days I was getting the prompts and finally the 3 video warning. I went without youtube for a few days, when I tried yesterday my AdBlocker was working fine on it. I watched several videos and got no warnings. It's unclear to me if they gave up, or if they're testing this in waves to see what happens.

It's both A/B tested and a very frequent cat and mouse game with ad blockers. Youtube was pushing out updates daily, and uBlock Origin was responding in kind within hours (Sometimes you would need to manually update your extension though). The last few days Youtube hasn't put out any updates[1]. I believe the last change was 3 days ago.

[1] The current youtube ad notice version can be found at the bottom of this link. No dates, but it's useful to compare if you knew what the last uBlock Origin filter version you were aware of. https://pastefy.app/G1Txv5su/raw

> It's unclear to me if they gave up, or if they're testing this in waves to see what happens.

Or if your ad blocker updated its filters to a version which successfully evaded the ad-blocker detection.

Same here. Looks like they're A/B testing it to see if this strategy actually works, i.e., if people convert to Premium users.

I've had tinnitus for around 15 years now. I've followed the research pretty closely. One thing to be especially weary about is the placebo effect. For some reason it's especially bad when it comes to tinnitus. I think that's how so many snake oil products can thrive in this area.

Back when they were doing the OTO-313 study a year or so ago, I read several reports from people who were in the study the drug had made their tinnitus go away (one on the TinniusTalk forums, and a few in a tinnitus Facebook group). However, when the results came back, the drug did not beat placebo. A similar thing happened with the FX-322 drug (that one was for hearing restoration but people were hopeful it could address tinnitus too).

I second this resource. Lots of good threads and discussion here. The forums are full of threads where people talk about things they've tried.

As an intern 20 years ago I wrote a lot of VBScript code to automate the generation of a bunch of Excel reports. I ran into my old boss 10-12 years ago and he said the scripts were still humming along. I've sometimes wondered how long those scripts would last, I guess they're end of life is coming up (if they haven't been rewritten by a new intern already).

I don't understand why some people feel the need to be so snarky in their summary messages:

> I'll bet this clown got paid to write this article and they did a poor job of it, too.

It's really turned me off from contributing. Years ago I got into a spat where someone didn't like something I added to an article and said my sources weren't valid since they were blog posts. I went and found a mainstream magazine article on the topic and they still balked - but eventually relented since they really didn't have a leg to stand on. They silently removed the addition a few months later. However, at that point I was over it and didn't care. The fact eventually made it back into the article a few years later when someone else added it in.

In practice Wikipedia is often an effortocracy, not the meritocracy it wants to be.

I wonder if the submitted link should be changed to your link. I can access your link fine but I get an error when I try to access the submitted link.

The first book I ever bought in a computer store was Tricks of the Doom Programming Gurus. Back in the mid-90's I saw it randomly while walking by the games section and thought it almost too good to be true. I ended up spending countless hours making my own levels. I was never any good though, and I definitely preferred playing what other people came up with. Every couple of years I'll go back and revisit some of those levels and see if there's anything new. It's definitely awesome that people have kept this scene alive.

It sounds like you did the right thing, you were concerned and kept an eye on things. Calling the police would have been overkill and maybe wrecked this kids' family life (like what happened in the article). Other than that, I see no problem with approaching the kid and saying something like "hey, you can get hurt playing in the street, please take this to your backyard", or something like that. As long as you don't try and start a conversation it's not going to be weird. If you have a kid he may even know who you are already. All of the kids in my neighborhood know me as "Edward's dad", even though I wouldn't be able to pick most of them out of a lineup.