Does GLP-1 help someone who eats because of boredom? My ADHD riddled brain seeks constant stimulation, so when there's nothing to do it turns to food even though there's no hunger or cravings. If I'm occupied with something, I can easily skip food and go on an extended fast, hunger suppression has never been a problem. But it's hard to stay occupied all the time, would GLP-1 help in such a case?
Absolutely did for me. Boredom, stress, and general food noise all the time. I never felt sick, just felt like I finally had control over when I wanted to eat. I still felt hungry but never uncontrollably.
I got off of them after 14 month and while it hasn’t been as easy as being on them for sure, my time on them gave me a chance to look at what I was eating and how much I was eating more subjectively. I lost nearly 40 lbs, put ten back on before leveling out.
Critical to add - losing the weight allowed me to become much, much more active without pain so I attribute a lot to that habit of being really active being picked up to my maintenance.
They may curb the initial impulse, or they’ll quickly teach you that you feel a bit unwell (eg low-key nauseous) if you eat too much or badly when you’re on them. Either way, probably the same outcome.
I don't know how useful this is, but what I found helped is simply not buying things you'd want to eat in-between meals. At least for a little while, long enough to break the habit. After a month or so of your brain craving something and not finding anything suitable in the kitchen, you'll lose this impulse.
Yes, it’s a miracle cure. It makes you realise the almond milkers were just lying to you the whole time. It’s not about willpower, it’s about them not having that condition. Skinny people don’t even feel hunger.
One of the worst outcomes from GLP-1 drugs are people getting on them and then saying ridiculous things like this. Just totally confident that they can discount other folks lived experiences.
I know quite a few skinny people who have struggled every single day with food noise, overeating, and self control. They simply got through it with a lot of struggle, habits, and discipline.
Some of these people had to maintain their weight and fitness because their careers required looking conventionally attractive for their jobs. It consumed most of their life doing so. Some of these folks are now on GLP-1s and their lives are immensely better as they don't need to constantly be in a battle of willpower with themselves.
There are a huge number of "skinny" people out there who feel hunger in very likely the same way many obese people do.
Yes, there are outliers in just about any situation. The vast majority of healthy people, though, do not have this food noise impulse. If they did, they'd not be healthy people.
Anecdata: I have a 40-something friend who enjoys eating lots more than I do (and I witness this repeatedly: round after round of bread and chunks of cheese after a full meal, always happy to have desserts that I’ll sometimes forgo, etc.) and who stays slim. Sure, he exercises, but not so much more than I do to account for the calorie delta between us.
He’s just made differently, in a way we can’t currently explain. We sometimes joke about a faecal transplant.
I suspect a persons microbiome has a lot to do with how they process food.
Its strange to think what you want is a less efficient food processing engine. That society has so many calories to burn that we can reduce our ability to reduce caloric intake by 30%, but I would like that. And a fecal transplant might be a good start.
This is an absurd claim. Skinny and fat isn't an indication of whether a person experiences hunger.
If GLP-1 blockers work for people then great, but it does so by making them uninterested in eating, meaning all those years of people being demonized for saying obesity is, in some meaningful part, a lack of will power and self control were indeed right. If it was either of those, and instead obesity is a purely genetic condition, appetite suppression wouldn't help.
Where do morals come into this thread? Obestity isn't a moral question, neither is self-control.
I specifically didn't say people with self control issues specific to diet are bad people for it, or lazy, or whatever you may be reading into it. Everyone has shit they deal with, that's expected not a reason to ostracize a person.
My point remains, if GLP-1 blockers help a person lose weight they haven't been able to lose then great, I hope it leaves them healthier and happier. And also, the fact that a diet suppressant did the trick makes it pretty clear a lack of self control was at play since the fix was finding a way to eat less.
Everyone is explaining what initial valuation is without explaining the point of initial valuation. The point is that existing private investors get to exit with a sizable profit while leaving the risk of future growth to the public market.
Besides a couple thruster firings it's almost all coasting with the engines off after those first ~9 minutes of launch, and the coasting is why you feel weightless!
Mostly that time is spent hanging out in a lower/faster orbit, "catching up," which is needed because the station rarely passes exactly over the launch site at exactly the right time. This extra wiggle room gives them enough launch windows per day.
That's not necessarily true. They can be using it to jumpstart their own desktop app.
I don't see a Muse desktop app, this gives them something they can spin up in a few weeks, not months, with native cloud integration. I'd guess we're going to see a product competing with OpenAi/Anthropic (as far as standalone apps are concerned) by January.
You mean that desktop app is not something I can spin up in days with my tiniest of LLM budgets?
I do not know where people are lost these days. I build ambitious apps with 3x $20 subscriptions. And I live in a village in eastern Himalayas. People are really in a bubble.
LLMs have crushed the idea of "using [another product] to jumpstart" anything. Just build it.
Yes you can build it in a single prompt, but you miss the 93 versions of iterations and thoughts of the developers who've already made the project. If you have the money, why not buy a product/team that already has a year of experience with real users instead of reinventing the wheel?
That is your assumption. I am not talking about one-shot. I mean that lots are people are going through more iterative development cycles than ever in the history of software. Just my own examples (100% agent written)
All these and more, from a single engineer with 3 x $20 subscriptions. While I also run chicken and pig farms. It will take time for people outside tech hubs to understand what LLMs enable.
Not that I don’t think there’s amazing things that can be built easier, but designing and building a product is more than writing the code. Look at where you spent effort for your own examples. There’s a skill there which goes further than just reverse engineering an existing solution, and that skill is obviously of value to Meta. People were going crazy for the price they paid for instagram some years ago I remember.
I don't think the debate is so much about whether to build data centers as much about where to build them. In an ideal setting, the government identifies land suitable for industrial purpose, carves out dedicated zones, provisioned with necessary power and utilities, where industries can go and setup without intruding into somebody's status quo. The data center buildout at this time is happening at such a pace that they've has exhausted most of the existing zoned options, and unwilling to wait for new zones to be planned, are going out purchasing ad-hoc pieces of land and covertly having them rezoned for industrial purposes. This might sometimes might mean industries popping up behind somebody's residence or in an already resource constrained area. If you look deep, it's actually a fight between those who want to bypass urban planning in the interest of speeding up industrial development versus those who insist it is necessary.
It's also a distributed system. To compromise the system you have to compromise multiple nodes which is more difficult. An electronic system can be compromised by a powerful entity if they wield influence over the individuals managing the tech.
Because of the opaque nature of the inputs - and the leverage behind it.
Nobody knows what demand is going to be for AI in a few years, and that's causing this wild volatility.
It doesn't matter how well you understand the supply chain - that helps.
In many cases, it's literally trying to predict a herd: if the herd steers away from AI based on bad news about it not creating ROI, if the media sours, CEO's pullback, that could cause a slowdown in growth and therefore a crash.
Everything is highly leveraged.
An opaque input on Verizon forecasting model would not result in such a wild variation, they have more predictable operations.
I'm not so much surprised about the volatility as I am about all fund houses arriving at the same variation. I would've expected different models to arrive at different predictions and thus smooth out potential big jumps. So I'm finding it hard to understand how every model predicted 25% down instantaneously and simulatneously.
I don't know much about forecasting models and all, are you saying opaque forecasting is some kinda standardized technique and anybody doing opaque forecasting with the same data will likely end up with similar predictions?
They don't arrive at the same valuation. If they did there wouldn't be so much volatility.
They arrive at different conclusions - then they go and buy and sell and their analysts separately report different 'targets' and then other investors do the same.
Then the market has to clear and find a new equilibrium.
During these time, people start top panic and do 'herd stuff' which gives everyone the jitters.
The 'herd' is always 'more correct' than any analyst.
It's like predicting how many people can walk through a tight walkway - if people start to panic, all predictions are off.
But if the bulk of trades is being done by institutions, is the herd enough to move the price this much and this quickly?
On this note it would actually be interesting to see percentage split of purchases/sales between retail and institutions during that 5 minute window. Anywhere such data would be available?
You are getting to the question of all questions that makes this impossible.
There are very different kinds of herds.
You have institutional investors with varying kinds of rules, covenants, leverage. They might be required to have certain kind of balanced portfolio, reflecting certain kinds of risk. They might be required to value companies certain way depending on their bond ratings even if they are not buying bonds. So they will be 'forced' into making certain kinds of moves which may not be specifically oriented around valuation.
Some hedge funds might be more levered, and might have to sell to cover that leverage.
Then you have a lot of family offices - professionals but they don't have access to all the 'inner goings on and research' - they are more risk averse and have their eyes on the main players.
You have massive sovereign wealth funds - some professionally managed like Noway, some on a whim and sometimes politically, sometimes 'on the whim of a guy' like Softbank. Recently someone said that Masayoshi is like a 'riverboat gambler' and I'm inclined to agree.
And retail investors who, in some cases, act like a cultish movement.
We can absolutely have a situations where very smart people using very smart math have a price, but maybe there is a lot more leverage in the system than we thought, and some funds are forced to sell to cover themselves. So - will this spook the herd? If 'everyone else runs' then you want to be the first to run. Obviously. But your 'running early' will help induce the movement.
I guess I should have used the 'Poker' Analogy - you can do the math on the cards that you have, what is on the table, and some knowledge about what other players are. But in the end, so much will depend on what other actors do, and they all have differing levels of risk tolerance, information, leverage, specific conditions and covenants.
When there is leverage in that, you get the big swings.
Usually crashes only happen when there is 'hidden information' that is truly bad, and it happens suddenly. Like Bear Stearns collapse, or 1929 mania etc. otherwise bubbles can 'unwind without the crash' kind of thing.
BSL knows there two trains are in the block, two have entered and none have left. When LZB is running, it overrides BSL and allows both the trains in the block. But with LZB down and BSL taking over, it should have raised alarms everywhere that there two trains in a block.
reply