I thought exactly the same things about the illumination, i feel like it's too much "look how cool rtx is" and not enough "this should be scary and dark". In this, and other demos, i also felt like refractions are exaggerated, like floors that seem like mirrors is not really realistic to the end user.
Sometimes it reminds me of when hdr pics came out and everyone was overdoing it.
(But it should be a settings problem more than anything else!)
If one was a coder once, they don't need to keep coding to understand what a coder does.
Plus it's a bit hard to be a manager of different profiles and different stacks and understand what everyone does from a coding point of view (different stack, different frameworks and abstractions etc) especially while time passes and tech changes so much, so quickly.
I do agree that it's important for a coder to keep coding but mostly for the manager itself as it's removes some of the old biases and it's a continuous learning process on something that, technically speaking, they should be passionate about.
Plus it does help to have conversations with other developers and don't sound like a person who only listens to vivaldi at a dnb concert.
tbh it's very hard, in general, to assess someone skills in ~1 hour, with the diverse set of problems we face everyday and people/companies often focus too much on "previous relevant experience" (do you know this?) instead of thought process and depth of understanding (how much have you understood what you have done) which, to me, gives more insights on someone personality and attitude and ability to learn new things and becomes harder to cheat on (you can memorize "cracking the code interview" and be a hero on leetcode and still have no idea about how to write good software, take decisions or work in a team :)
Procedures and ingredients quality are not respected in counterfeit products (for example it's acceptable, in the us, for grated parmesan to have cellulose/wood pulp in it) and they still sell you the stuff at a high price.
i don't think anyone died because of these products but if you take fake parmigiano it's a $2B market.
Prepackaged grated parmesan needs an anti-caking additive no matter where in the world you live. Cellulose isn't bad for you, in moderation. So the issue is not whether your prepackaged parmesan has cellulose added, it's how much was added.
If you don't like it then you should buy solid parmesan and grate it yourself. In the US or anywhere else.
It's also not something unique to Parmesan, all shredded cheese has additives to prevent it turning into a cheese ball again. Kind of the nature of shredded cheese
Congrats on finding one without cellulose. That is also possible in the US.
Powdered cellulose is an Annex II food additive in the EU - E 460(ii) - and is an allowed food additive to any grated or sliced whey cheese, quantum satis (the manufacturer can use as much of it as they need to use, because it is considered harmless) [1]
My statement a few comments above was a brain fart :) The larger the grated pieces, the less anti-caking agents you would need. It completely slipped my mind and I suspect that the cheese linked above would be larger pieces of parmesan. Still, if exposed to the high humidity present in some parts of the US (less common in Italy), the cheese in that package would eventually become a clumpy mess if not fully consumed quickly :)
You have to understand that lots of people seem to enjoy parmesan as essentially a powder. I have no idea why, that is certainly not my preference. However, there is demand for parmesan "powder" and the market therefore supplies it. Powdered cellulose is the only way to make that happen.
"Still, if exposed to the high humidity present in some parts of the US (less common in Italy)"
Italy is basically a massive peninsula and some islands - it's quite humid! The humidity in Parma itself today is 65%, which is the same as Miami, Florida today and more than New Orleans. it's fall in Italy, and in Palermo it's 80% humidity, in Bergamo 84%, Bologna 83% etc.
I'll have to correct you here, while i am sure you can find (as i found) real parmigiano or in general good cheese in the states (by paying a lot of money for it) the law allows for additives to be added to it.
In europe this is illegal, you cannot have additives in parmigiano (solid or grated), and if found normally the product is retired from the market.
In general the FDA in the US is much more liberal in favour of the industry, sacrificing quality and this apply to several products.
(For example i found out that in the US the minimum amount of chocolate that has to be present in a chocolate product is like 10% and in europe is 25% (if i am not wrong) and the amount of max sugar is also different.
Said this, you can eat all the cellulose you feel like eating, but I think it's wrong to 1) charge for it as if it was parmigiano and 2) sell it as an italian product.
ps regarding your humidity comment
"Alaska is one of the most humid states! In fact, Alaska reports an average RH of 77%, with the next highest state, Florida, reporting a 74% average. Despite Florida being hot and balmy, Alaska has high humidity levels because of its milder, lower temperatures."
priority matters though, if you want to go full Apple with UI/UX then you need to lock the UI/UX for years, like Apple does, and refine every little thing to bring a fully ecstatic UX to the user. Or accept that most users won't notice that or wouldn't mind it behaving like that and build new features that will bring useful behaviours to the app (and revenue to the company).
If you have to spend 50 hours to explain why it's a bug, most likely only you care about it.
In some cases it may matter to be THAT precise with UI/UX and it's cool, not saying i don't appreciate quality but you can't have everything.
One thing I'd like to point out is that most of the time it isn't even a matter of priority, lots of dev energy gets wasted in useless refactors and picking "the right library/framework" and building the "next outdated design library", instead of being used to improve things ;)
Apple does many things right but things like Mail.app got thrown to the side for years. There's still many odd utilities here and there that have not seen any love like grapher.
This approach will definitely save someone's life (and probably already is) but there's no golden pill that will, long term, give a healthy, in shape, body to people without effort.
Eating disorders are a thing and often have to do with the mind or genetics, but there are so many people just letting go to cravings and having terrible habits when it comes to eating, don't want to do any sacrifice and just let themselves go for so long than it becomes a serious health issues for them.
I see plenty of parents feeding the kids like they are going to do foie gras out of them...
People eating pastries like it's chewing gum, bagels like it's a snack...
some of my American colleagues have never drunk just plain water...only sodas...and a lot of it.
I really feel like this is just the trick the food (and healthcare) industry was waiting for to allow those people to eat as much as they want and don't get fat (and possibly get ill later), and the fashion industry to push for a "cheap way" to reach beauty standards (which is why this practice has mostly became popular thanks to famous people using it).
Plus there are pretty common side effects (1 out of 10 experiences them) and it fundamentally creates a dependency to a drug, because without changing habits, if a patient stops using the drug, they'll regain the weight in a short time...
Most people think they have a condition but in reality it's just them not trying to solve the problem and complaining about it.
> This approach will definitely save someone's life (and probably already is) but there's no golden pill that will, long term, give a healthy, in shape, body to people without effort.
Why? Is there any rational reason for such pill not to exist? Just because it seems "unfair" to the people who spent more effort to achieve the same?
The whole history of scientific progress is about achieving good things with less effort.
it's not unfair, the whole history of scientific progress is to cure unsolvable things with science. this seems pretty solvable to me ;)
it's pretty much the same as giving everyone anti anxiety pills cause it's less effort than fixing the root causes.
I don't understand how this doesn't fix "the root cause".
The root cause of obesity is a propensity to eat too much. The root cause of alcoholism is a propensity to drink.
It follows some people are lucky and simply don't have this propensity. For those not as lucky, we can get rid of it.
The root cause of obesity IS NOT "eating too much". That's a symptom! Why do some people want to eat more than others? Are they weak? Are they stupid? Fat chance. What's wrong with their hormones and brains that this is the case? This is what Ozempic addresses. You have it backwards here: people claiming that diet and exercise are the answer are actually not looking at the root cause, people developing drugs like Ozempic are looking at the root cause.
1% of people have that root cause. The stuff I have seen in the united states is not root cause it's just bad habits. happy for them to get any pills, injection or whatever they think they need to feel good and better. Lazy people, lazy solution. We'll see long term how that works out, as much as anything diet related the usa has implemented in the past 50 years.
Incorrect, if only 1% of people had it only 1% of people would be obese.
If you're arguing that, in the past 50 years, something magically occurred to make people magically lazier that's a bold argument. The problem here is that you're using individual problems and language to conceptualize a societal problem. It just doesn't work that way.
Either you propose societal solutions and societal explanations, or you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. From where I'm standing, you sound clueless.
it's not magic, processed food is something recent, sugary food/drinks is something recent, bad habits and lazy sedentary life is something recent.
if you don't see this then I don't know how to explain it to you. It's habit related and habit can be fixed, pills are not the best solution in my opinion.
Right, so as you've just admitted, the ROOT CAUSE is not eating too much. The ROOT CAUSE is the societal circumstances that push people to eat more. You're aware of what root cause means, right?
Listen, I understand it's convenient to believe that we can simply be better and fix problems. But look around you. If habits can be "fixed", we wouldn't be in this mess. This phase of sitting around with our thumbs up our asses and going "uh uhhh fatty eat less" are over. We need real solutions, made by people with thinking brains.
in the same society there are people that don't follow the bad habit advertised by society and with the amount of information and alternatives present today, I am sorry, but it's too easy to blame "society" and wait for someone else to do something.
It's up to them.
The solution won't come from anywhere else and yes, we can simply be better.
Says who? You? Why would this be the case? You can't just say things and assume they're true. The solution could, and almost certainly will, come from drugs which curb addiction.
> yes, we can simply be better
Again, says who? What's your evidence for this? Because this has been our approach since forever and guess what - it's not working. That's not my opinion.
You can play blind and deaf all day, I don't care. But eventually you have to take your thumb out of your ass and start using your brain.
>I really feel like this is just the trick the food (and healthcare) industry was waiting for to allow those people to eat as much as they want and don't get fat (and possibly get ill later)
The whole point is you don't want food. You spend significantly, massively less on the food industry.
If anything, it would be better for the food industry for it to be banned.
> because without changing habits, if a patient stops using the drug, they'll regain the weight in a short time...
Not a short time, in whatever the time would normally be they would gain the weight if they continue on their prior habits, or in a less time if they only mildly improve their habits, and a lot longer time if they make significant changes, and not at all if they make dramatic changes.
So far, it has little to nothing to do with the drug. This line of argument always makes no sense to me, because whatever weight was lost with the drug, wasn't gained in that time. So you remove the weight lost, and the weight that would have been gained.
It's like setting yourself back to a starting line in a race. Yes, maybe you still run as fast, and will make it back to where you were, but it has nothing to do with the setting yourself back to the starting line.
It's such a weird line of thinking. It really makes no sense to me.
Since you might still keep running, we shouldn't bother setting you back at the starting line....
One study looked at patients with obesity or overweight without diabetes who stopped taking tirzepatide 10 mg or 15 mg after taking it for 36 weeks. Patients who stopped taking tirzepatide experienced a 14% weight regain after 1 year.
However, there are not enough studies to draw scientific conclusions, but all evidence points to what I said.
As does the discussion in places like reddit by people doing it. If they change their habits, they don't gain weight back. If they only change them somewhat, it just happens more slowly.
quick question, do you do any physical activity? or if your hormone imbalance did not allow you to do it, now that you have a different medicament, have you started doing sport? Not just a walk in the evening, like minimum 3 times a week 1 hour of high intensity workout, possibly supervised?
Yes, I started doing a lot of hiking. Today I walked more than 2000 foot up to a hill and back and still felt fine and had a quick stroll along a river the evening. I shoot many pictures of mushrooms, and a friend told me I caught a rare mushroom (lycoperdon echinatum) and Thursday I am going up again with him because he never saw one.
that's great, but it's not proper training, it's a hike, fantastic activity but (especially growing older) our life is mostly sedentary and it helps a lot to do a proper sport or intense activity at least 3 times a week (i personally workout every day, but sat and sun, for 1 hour with a high intensity sport, not weightlifting).
The older you grow the harder it is for the system to process the amount of stuff we eat (especially high calories, highly processed food that is available nowadays) and doing a high intensity activity (heartrate up, muscular stress etcetc) is, in my opinion, fundamental and often ignored by people.
