Reading online, listing to public discourse, etc. these days is like taking the Tide Pod challenge; people feeding you inedible or even toxic garbage that superficially looks like candy. If we fed others actual food with the same care we employ when producing "food for thought", we'd all be, at best, very, very ill.
When compared with what people wrote in the past (especially through a survivorship bias filter, where the best writing is preserved longer and distributed more widely) what we produce today seems crude and disgusting.
Even stranger, for me, is the current prevalence of collective shunning, the so called cancel-culture, that is triggered by the most diverse reasons, but seemingly never buy the negativity and toxicity of the discourse. It is always lone individuals leaving because of that. But as soon as another reason - political, cultural etc. — is added, there is a collective exodus and condemnation. twitter/x is good example.
The innovation here isn't the generation of ridiculously small micro-currents from raindrops (we've seen that before) but the use of expensive carbon fiber materials (that don't rust) to do it.
"Instantaneously" in this instance meaning "for a fraction of a second" -- specifically, the time between the drop hitting and it bouncing/reforming into a bead. Probably (back of the envelope) for on the order of 0.1 seconds.
It wasn't always this way. Comedy has deep, deep roots as a channel for speaking truth to power. Only in recent decades does it seem we've discovered that you can flip the parity on both aspects and run it in reverse.
If we're talking "proper math terms", if it "returns a random number" it isn't a function. In math, the value of a function can't change unless the arguments change. If you evaluate it repeatedly with the same argument(s) you'll always get the same result.
Argggh! Seeing “tell—tale sign” when it should be “tell-tale sign” is even worse! The point isn't to use punctuation, it's to use punctuation properly!
Blot out, correct, insert, refine,
Enlarge, diminish, interline;
Be mindful, when Invention fails;
To scratch your Head, and bite your Nails.
Your poem finish'd, next your Care
Is needful, to transcribe it fair.
In modern Wit all printed Trash, is
Set off with num'rous Breaks⸺and Dashes—
This use in dialogue is common in Continental European languages, especially Romance languages. I think it's also common in English among writers who were influenced by other European languages?
Why highlight seniors then? The same factors apply to younger patients. The only explanation that makes sense is that "seniors" is a valuable ad word for the market this clickbait gibberish (or rather, "tossed factoid salad") targets.
> Medicare covered it for treating Type 2 diabetes but not for weight loss
> [...] to Bucklew’s surprise, her Medicare Advantage plan covered it even
> though she wasn’t diabetic, charging just a $25 monthly copay.
> [...] Then her Medicare plan notified her that it would no longer cover
> the drug [...] With coverage denied, Bucklew became part of an unsettlingly
> large group: older adults who begin taking GLP-1s and related drugs [...] and
> then stop taking them within months.
This feels like it's really straining the facts to jam them into a narrative, then mostly fails to construct one. Is it an article about drug side effects? Insurance fraud? Health benefits of GLP-1s? Medicare policy?
Strangely, it feels like something that would actually have been more coherent if it had been written by an LLM.
Reading online, listing to public discourse, etc. these days is like taking the Tide Pod challenge; people feeding you inedible or even toxic garbage that superficially looks like candy. If we fed others actual food with the same care we employ when producing "food for thought", we'd all be, at best, very, very ill.
When compared with what people wrote in the past (especially through a survivorship bias filter, where the best writing is preserved longer and distributed more widely) what we produce today seems crude and disgusting.
reply