You have statistics even if 2 people. The probability of the result matters, if you have n=1 and cure cancer it would be incredibly stupid of you to claim it proves nothing.
You're accidentally providing a great counter example to your own argument. Cancer is not one disease but thousands - with complex multi-factorial causes, progress and prognosis. 'Curing' cancer in one patient with a novel treatment would be an interesting data point. 'Proving' the cure was due to a given intervention (rather than say experimenter error, spontaneous or temporary remission, or the body fighting off the cancer itself) is a completely different order of problem. Generalising that treatment to other patients, testing its safety and then mass producing distributing it would be a multi-year perhaps decade long process. Inevitably, the high variance in types of cancer and responses to treatment would result in an efficacy significantly lower than 100% (I hope my understatement is clear here).
In this case ABA treatment is already well known, and there is significant experimental research into it's efficacy. It's demonstrably not effective in 'curing' austism in most people and has measured, known 'side effects' including anxiety, depression, or other mental health problems.
The study I linked to was specifically about TRF. Here's Attia on TRF, where he mentions the reduced insulin sensitivity side effect he sees in his TRF patients: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6wczdlcBtI
Generally speaking, lesbians are more affected by PCOS than Heterosexual women.[1] PCOS is associated with higher androgen production due to insulin resistance.
Do you know what decreases insulin resistance and changes gut microbiome composition? intermitent fasting.
A review published in Frontiers in Microbiology in 2020 suggested that women with PCOS tend to have less diverse gut bacteria, and the balance of different types of bacteria might also be altered. The causal relationship is obviously not clear.
There are alt-right theories that nutrition also impacts brain development such that global south people can not get as intelligent as white people. Where do you draw the line between your theory and that theory?
Nutrition demonstrably effects brain development, and this adversely effects both economically disadvantaged countries and economically disadvantaged populations in developed countries.
That's not an alt-right theory.
(No doubt, the alt-right has a very horrible “...and, therefore” for it, but that's a different issue.)
First time I see someone talking about low-dose naltrexone on HN. There is a video on youtube about someone whose oral cancer was gone after taking it.
There are no serious claims or documentation of LDN curing cancer and that's not it's actual use.
It's used to treat chronic, systemic inflammation and is one of the only "tools in the toolbox" for some very desperate people in long-term pain for years because you can't use things like corticosteroids which are destructive.
There are some cases where it can reduce inflammation well enough and long enough in some people for the body to self-heal where it could not before as the damage was too severe and dysfunctional.
This is a good site for layperson information or use google scholar for actual research
> There is a video on youtube about someone whose oral cancer was gone after taking it.
I know a guy who says that drinking noni juice cures all sorts of cancers. With your Youtube wisdom and my friends noni expertise, I'm sure the world will soon be cancer free.
You seem to have very low reading comprehension, nowhere did I say low-dose naltrexone cures cancer. There is a youtube video about someone whose cancer was cured using low-dose naltrexone.
Dismissing an unseen Youtube video given no other evidence than that it is sourced from YT seems reasonable, rational even. The prior probability of a randomly selected YT video being trustworthy is probably a lot closer to 0 than 1.
At this point you've edited this comment twice. First it was "autist", then "lol", now "This place is a meme. Prior probablity hahaahaa...". Who knows what it will be in the future.
BIG PROBLEM with git is that it works in terms of editor lines and not in language constructs. It should instead track changes in terms of language constructs. For example, tracking the history of a class individually, an interface, etc... changes could be logged automatically. For this to work it would, of course, require to be adapted for each language.
Furthermore, it could work in architecture terms, such as an MVC files that could be tracked as an individual unit. The architecture for a file system could be defined and enforced in a git file, it could spot missing pieces.
Also, it needs dependency management for these units.
I can see two ways to implement something like this:
1. Completely alter the paradigm for editing software: from editing text to editing the AST (or a projection of it). See Unison [0]. This gives you fine-grained understanding of every aspect of the development flow, but requires rewriting most of the tooling that developers are already using.
2. Layer the smart features on top of the existing text streams. This gives you less control and is more resource intensive, but you don't throw away the entire developer ecosystem.
If we choose #1, we waste millions of man-hours building these tools for every new language.
If we choose to layer our language-specific features on top of text, then why does this need to happen at the Git level instead of at a higher level of abstraction? IntelliJ, for example, can already use the git history to tell you who wrote a given method and when. This kind of functionality could, in principle, be extended to following the history of a method when it's moved or renamed.
Is there any benefit gained by having the VCS itself do the language-aware processing instead of having language-aware tooling layered on top of the VCS?
> It should instead track changes in terms of language constructs.
This does not generalize very well. On top of GIT‘s core data structures and file management facilities you would also need parser plugins for all languages now and additional commands to manage language constructs. This would make it even more difficult to grasp.
I would say version control of text files in general is not an easy problem. GIT‘s complexity arises from the complexity of the problem it solves. Perhaps the user interfaces of subversion or mercurial are easier but I don’t think they lift the burden of understanding version control and why it is necessary from beginners …
That is A problem, but the biggest problem IMO is that it doesn't make it easy to perform the tree operations. Everything has a special syntax, the reflog isn't ergonomic to use if you screw up, the staging area is a bit of unnecessary cruft for most workflows, and the branches-as-pointers model doesn't match how most businesses use a VCS.
Once you understand a DAG and the concept of a hunk, it's easy to say what I want to do, but using the command line tool makes it a pain in the ass.
It also doesn't help that the rest of the user interface is a bunch of complicated behaviors tacked onto marginally related commands.
The underlying model is also weird. You would expect it to be diffs, but instead it's full files. Fortunately you can ignore that.
Git: unnecessarily difficult since it was invented.
It could be something that just sits outside of git and uses the raw git history to figure out what changed in a semantic way. It doesn't have to be part of git.
This sounds like something C# programmers would dream of having or making.
-Another one is not fully understanding the words or concepts being used.
-Another is not having an appropriate example or visualization of what is being explained.