I think you may be forgetting the big picture, which is to never have Europe spawning a World War again. In that regard, the fears (rational and irrational) of those with tendencies for isolationism are simply not relevant.
what are those odds looking like in the mid future? How many european governments are currently considered on the "extreme" spectrum?
And what makes you think the Euro implemented in 2002 is the reason for the non-reoccurence of a war ended in 1945?
Studying the root causes of the two world war would certainly enlighten
Bulgaria has already pegged its currency (the lev) to the euro through a currency board since 1997. This means it already lacks independent monetary policy, and joining the euro wouldn’t significantly change that. The exchange rate is fixed, and inflation differentials are already impacting competitiveness.
Moreover, Bulgaria does not directly compete with Germany in the same product categories. Bulgaria is integrated into supply chains, often providing components or assembly work for German companies.
You are only 7M. I’ve got the feeling that it is just not large enough to significantly be distorted by eurozone monetary policy, at least in the way that might affect much larger economies.
> (Github Copilot allows selecting different models, but I didn't check more carefully whether that also includes a local one, anyone knows?).
To my knowledge, it doesn't.
On Emacs there's gptel which integrates quiet nicely different LLM inside Emacs, including a local Ollama.
> gptel is a simple Large Language Model chat client for Emacs, with support for multiple models and backends. It works in the spirit of Emacs, available at any time and uniformly in any buffer.
> looking at VO2 max in relation to all-cause mortality, we see a very clear trend. Simply bringing your VO2 max from ‘low’ (bottom 25th percentile) to ‘below average’ (25th to 50th percentile) is associated with a 50% reduction in all-cause mortality. When you go from ‘low’ to ‘above average’ (50th to 75th percentile) the risk reduction is closer to 70%!
But isn't it one of those things where someone with a higher VO2 is likely doing healthy things that they have lower risk. Rather than a lower risk simply because their VO2 is higher.
There's also value in spending some time in zone 5 [1]: this is where the heart is really trained as a muscle, and where the cardiovascular system is pushed to its limit (the famous vo2max: increasing vo2max is done in zone 5, for ex. with HIIT [2]).
Zone 2 is all about giving the mitochondries a chance to get better at providing a steady energy flow over a long time, mainly by optimizing for burning fat as fuel instead of glucose, avoiding lactate accumulation during the process [3].
In between, in zones 3 & 4, you get a little of both those ends of the spectrum, it's still helpful to a degree, but it's not really optimized: that why it's deemed preferable to spend the bulk of your training time in either your zone 2 or zone 5.
The ideal composition of a training period seems like 90% zone 2 and 10% zone 5, and going for more than 1h of zone 5 per week seems not that interesting. Also, mixing zone 2 and zone 5 in the same training session is not ideal, it's better to stay focused on one thing at at time.
A lot of pop-celebrity-educator types like Attia or Stephen Seiler say that. Then you look at how the professionals train and you see pyramidal distribution almost universally. Something like 85% below first lactate threshold, 12% in "sweet spot" and 3% in "zone 5".
I've spent a lot of time reading a lot about opinions and then looking at logs of professional athletes [1] (in cycling as I am most interested in that). My conclusion is that training comes down to:
1)do a lot of volume, the more the better
2)do some "hard stuff" - if those are hard intervals, longer "sweet spot" intervals or a a mix of those (like 5 minutes at threshold and then 15 seconds sprint, repeat n times) matters little
3)at pro level do some training specific to what you are going to do a lot in racing
1)is by far the most important and the most reliable predictor of overall fitness
[2]https://www.youtube.com/@sportscientist - Stephen Seiler's youtube channel; he has done work on analyzing how pro athletes train but his conclusions are very simplified and it seems made to sell "polarized" training idea. When you look at the details in the data no one trains like that, the final distribution is almost always pyramidal, not polarized
From my experience about jogging (=regular running for your health, without a specific sport goal):
- get good shoes! this is probably the only piece of equipment you need (with a wind/rain jacket). Go to a shop when you can get advice. For me, flat soles is the way to go but I know there is debate on that question. Change them after 1000km at max (I've seen 500 km recommendation)
- follow the advice above zone 2 / zone 5 training. If unsure, slow down !
- avoid pain as much as possible otherwise your body will associate pain and run and you end up giving up (maybe not today, not tomorrow but one day for sure)
- buy a jumping rope and practice (you'll be amazed on the resulting spring effect while running)
- prefer solo session (group sessions are good if you want to talk but the most important thing is to run at your very own pace). you are better with some music or interesting podcasts
- vary the routes as much as possible. Even if you have only one route, start it from time to time on the other direction. There is no better training than on a route you don't know. Always running the same route is part of the reason you may quit.
- start your chronometer at the beginning of the session and try to forget it.
- find a friend and do some bike and run session from time to time (one run, one on the bike for like 20 minutes and then you change). It allows you to make longer run and recover while on the bike.
/!\ Just an opinion here, I'm not a specialist, just a +/- 20y regular runner
For someone who doesn't like running and isn't a runner... I'd advise them to try a different exercise ;-)
Seriously, I have a friend who assumes that exercise == going to the gym... and she hates the gym. But she keeps trying to force that round peg into a square hole!
I've tried asking her, "well, do you like tennis? Dancing? Rock climbing?" But apparently those don't count.
This is a fair and, as far as I can tell, accurate response. There's a huge difference between new runner strategy and optimized runner strategy. Any optimized fitness/habit plan should be just complex enough that you will maintain it, and that's different for everyone.
Another way to look at this: "ideal" has different definitions depending on whether it's maintainable for any given individual, as well as a definition for "what's the best way to do this if you take willpower out of the equation?"
Slightly tangential, but getting an e-bike has got me doing way more miles (by probably an order of magnitude) than I have ever done before - and way more total exercise overall.
Since you can dial in the assist, it basically turns a regular bike into an exercise bike. Or conversely, an exercise bike that actually rides around outside. If I want to fry my legs on a hill, I can drop the assist and really feel the grind. If I want to take it easy on the hill back home though, I can boost the assist so that it takes practically no effort.
It's just this amazing tool that reliably will trick your brain into working out. You take the ebike out because it is so effortless to ride, but inevitably you end up lowering the assist to feel the burn a bit on your rides.
> I like being able to extract the most value out of the lowest time investment
Biking to work using Strava is like this for me.
It gamifies exercise in a very addictive manner. Getting a PR, being quickest on a segment or becoming a local legend.
There is always someone or something to beat.
I had to back off that and instead do other games (ie, wandrer.earth gives you points for "new miles") because I got a bit too competitive and borderline dangerous.
Besides, I got records and fastest times when e.g. wind was at my back or the lights all went my way - so I knew it wasn't just my effort & just happenstance.
I still use Strava - mostly as a personal blog of my efforts & take a picture of wildlife or crazy videos to share with others sometimes.
Ha I had to stop tracking my bike commutes because I was going way too hard for Strava times on them. It got to the point where it was sorta dangerous... Love the app for my fun rides tho!
You sacrifice a segment then go like a mad thing for the one you need to win. And you curse if a dog walker gets in the way, sort of encouraging antisocial behaviour. But if you can get past that stage it’s pretty rewarding to ignore segments and go for longer records (eg 20km, 50km etc).
Yes. That's why I march quickly with a heavy backpack. That should be zone 2.
Then occupationally I try to do sprints uphill, walk down. Get ready for another uphill sprint. I have been lazy on that unfortunately.
There is also a lot of evidence that sprinting is really good. I mean if you look at the bodies of Olympic sprinters vs Olympic runners, what do you want to develop?
> If the diet is (too) high in saturated fat, increased cardio vascular risk.
You may want to take a look at this meta-study [0].
> “A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD.”
The authors of that meta-analysis adjusted for serum cholesterol, which defeats the entire point. Saturated fat intake above a certain threshold is associated with CVD because it causes an uptake in serum cholesterol, eventually leading to atherosclerosis.
Saying saturated fat intake doesn't correlate with CVD when ignoring serum cholesterol is entirely uninteresting, and not what anyone's claiming.
See also this[0] comment on that flawed meta-analysis.
Meta-analyses are not a panacea, that's clear.
As I suspect you know well, two further meta-analysis came to the same conclusion: Chowdhury 2014 [0], De Souza 2015 [1].
More recently, Kang in 2018 [2] and Zhu in 2019 are also stating that they fail to find evidence of a clear association between SFA consumption and risk of CVD.
Obviously, as science is what it is (and that's a good thing), those study are debatable and do have weak spots.
That's terrible, I hope you're recovering to the best possible.
Do you happen to know what was your blood pressure prior to the heart attack, and/or your apob level?
At least you should have it checked now (I assume that's what have been prescribe by your doctors).
It is my understanding that it is more statistically sound to point the cause of a heart attack at your age to genetic/epigenetic factors instead of a potential coronavirus infection with no symptoms.
"It is my understanding that it is more statistically sound to point the cause of a heart attack at your age to genetic/epigenetic factors instead of a potential coronavirus infection with no symptoms."
He's saying that he has an effect 2 months after the vaccine. Is that not also worthy of consideration, or do you include it as an epigenetic factor?
Well, in my mind `epigenetic = biological age * food intake`, where `food intake` is 'is he eating a consistent healthy diet, given that a typical person not eating healthy will surely says that she's eating healthy'. It's (unfortunately) enough to be >30yo, having bad genes around cholesterol handling pathways and eating a standard american diet (even without significant overweight) to be in the danger zone in terms of cardiovascular risks.
ApoB in the golden (and recent) blood test here. OP: given that you have experienced chest pains, and if it's not the case already, go have your ApoB checked and ask for statins if needed: your 60yo you will thank you.
And, in my own and non-important opinion: don't waste your time even thinking about potential link between your condition and covid/vaccine, this is a path that leads nowhere in terms of prevention of futures attacks.
My cholesterol level are OK and I am Italian, so I surely don't follow an average American diet xD My gf and I love cooking and baking and all our food is freshly, with plenty of fruit and veggies, low salt in favour of spices, low sugar and plant based alternatives for butter and such :)
Sorry I should point out I had pains even before the first dose but every doctor or specialist I consulted thought they were muscular pains (right chest and shoulder area). So it's likely a vaccine is not the cause but there are so many factors and cofactors to consider it's very hard to make a diagnosis. Other blood tests in March will hopefully clear some of this out --
Consider the billions of shots being taken. Consider the time frame of 2 months. Consider the fact that it was the second shot. Meaning it could have happened within 2 months of the first shot, and then there's a 4 month window of consideration.
What do you think is the prevalence of something happening to someone in a pool of, let's say, 4 billion people in 4 months.
I'm sure 2 separate people had a potted plant land on their head. Is it worth considering its relation to the vaccine?
I'm not saying it can't be related to vaccines, but as an anecdote it's useless until it's shown in statistics, or proven causality by his doctors.
Thank you, I recovered well and am now able to walk more than one hour each day. I don't know what my pressure was prior to heart attack but now it's kept on the lower side by medications (115/60)
Not really Fukushima, more likely Chernobyl and the disastrous handling of governments trying to hide things instead of taking action, explaining complexities and planning further education. That let a wide open hole for every naysayer for spraying and preaching political and scientific non-sense. Let it rot 20y without addressing the issue and you'll pick anyone on our streets today and be virtually assured that one's either totally afraid or fully ignorant of nuclear power.
Furthermore, Chernobyl isn't something for Europeans that was far far away or a long time ago.
Germany spends (and will continue to do so in the foreseeable future) millions each year to compensate for losses of hunters and farmers due to radioactive contamination which accumulates in wild boars and mushrooms which have to undergo inspection before being sold. Everything above 600Bq needs to be discarded as contaminated waste.
Yes, and it's worth bearing in mind that Chernobyl was far from the worst case scenario. We were very lucky that Chernobyl was located in an isolated area and that the wind didn't blow the radioactive material towards Kyiv or another densely populated area. A Chernobyl-like event that ended up making a major city uninhabitable would be a crisis on another level.
> I can say something like ‘a tiger is just a lion with stripes’ to a 3 year old and they now ‘understand’ what a tiger is almost as well as if they saw a picture of one. They could definitely identify one from a picture now.
Assuming the 3 year old already knew what a lion looks like, and point at 'things with stripes' and 'things without stripes'.
I think that a model that can already recognize separately lions and stripes should be able to tag a tiger's picture as a 'Lion with stripes', no?
Maybe… but this is just one very easy example and also using something very obvious and visual.
I could also say “a Cheetah is like a lion but it’s smaller and has spots and runs a lot faster. And a leopard is like a lion but smaller and can climb trees and has spots.”
I could probably start with a house cat and describe an elephant if I wanted to and I’ll bet the kid would work it out.
The ability to take apart and reassemble knowledge is what I’m talking about here, not just add two simple bits of information together.
> I could also say “a Cheetah is like a lion but it’s smaller and has spots and runs a lot faster. And a leopard is like a lion but smaller and can climb trees and has spots.”
The OpenAI website is unresponsive at the moment, so I can't actually demonstrate this, but you could totally tell GPT-3 that, and it would then make basic inferences. For example, saying "four" when asked how many legs a cheetah has, or guessing a smaller weight for a cheetah than a lion when asked to guess a specific weight for both. Not perfectly, but a lot better than chance, for the basic inferences.
(You wouldn't actually tell it "a Cheetah is like a lion but..." because it already knows what a Cheetah is. Instead you'd say "a Whargib is like a lion but ...", and ask it basic questions about Whargibs.)
It is believed that the solutions neural networks learn may be rather elegant, to a degree. It is perhaps unscientific to say that the neural network is always decomposing and re-composing tokens in a _generic_ and intelligent way; but it's becoming increasingly obvious that it probably is; particularly in the case of the "self-attention" architectures.
> The concepts, therefore, form a simple algebra that behaves similarly to a linear probe.
Because the loss encourages words to be mapped as linearly independent vectors; you can literally do addition/subtraction with concepts and it sort of works.
