I'd like to see something like Carbon for old apps so that they boot in modern window frames (without the missing Tahoe corners) and can save to files.
The in-vitro caveat is the key issue here. The "100x" figure refers to inflammatory marker measurements in isolated mouse macrophage cell cultures, a setup where compounds are applied directly to cells at controlled concentrations. Oral supplementation involves digestion, absorption, metabolism, and distribution to tissues that make those in-vitro concentrations essentially unreachable.
Taking capsaicin and peppermint supplements together is unlikely to cause harm, but you're not replicating the study conditions. The in-vitro result is interesting as a mechanistic signal. It suggests a possible interaction pathway worth investigating, but it doesn't provide dosing guidance for humans.
This gap between study type and real-world applicability is exactly why I built vital-stack.com for supplement interactions in my database, I surface the study type and mechanism alongside the conclusion, so you can judge how much weight to give it.
I don’t just eat junk, but it’s hard to experiment with a whole dietary change when you have sporadic inflammation. I guess that’s why we do scientific studies, right?
It does appear a bit mechanical, like something the system would do. Maybe a submission should always automatically find all previous discussions as an automatic comment.
My current best way to write is to just write everything that amuses me, then go back and edit out the tangents, and then usually reverse the order of the paragraphs.
A common suggestion is to put the bottom line on the top line. Consider all the articles posted even here that make the reader suffer through the writer's own thinking process before getting to the point.
When news was transmitted by flaky telegraph systems, the first paragraph evolved to be a concise version. The ensuing paragraphs provided layers of detail. If the connection was lost, whatever got through would stand as enough. That is more or less how I write emails for work. The other thing is, tell em what you’re going to say, then say it, then tell em what you told them.
This. Sometimes during hectic times, my bosses need to get the right summary of everything in one phone screen. So I generally try to have mails with a first line summarizing everything in one glance, a short section you can read in an elevator ride, and then everything else.
For example, during Log4Shell, our Group Director of Operations was helping Support and Account Management with scared customers and was just bouncing customer meeting to meeting. Hence, line one of the mail was "Rollout of mitigation 1 to applications estimated by 12:13; delays expected at only internally reachable middleware". After that, a 3-4 sentence paragraph with more details and then a longer explanation in detail, ideally with keywords highlighted and such. Those would be discussed in some peace later on.
I don’t know. When I jam out a comment I seem to summarize at the end when I’m done, and then I reread quickly and see the summary made a weird conclusion but was a fine introduction.
I would actually like a setting for less. I don’t like upvote downvote social dynamics. How about giving me a mode for a simple conversation by time, without the hierarchy.
This is honestly a tell about you. “Smart people” doesn’t imply that everything that comes from them is smart like they’re a branch of life with left-handed proteins. It’s much more complex.
I like this idea and it should work -- whatever microphone you have on should be able to hear the speaker. LMK if not (e.g., are you wearing headphones? if so, the mic can't hear the speaker)
> Unclear. But the more pressing question is, how is she tweeting from prison at all? And are these tweets real?
So no idea.
reply