Small peptide suppliers make them. You order by generic identifier & compound yourself. My identical twin & I are running an exponent: I'm on foundayo, he's on retatrutide. I'm down about 10 lbs. he's down 35.
Real gamble, that. You're injecting something that no regulatory body that said was safe and that that supplier is giving you what they say they are? Just like injecting whatever it is they happen to give you?
If you're doing this sort of thing, usually you batch your orders together (ideally with some friends) and randomly lab test a few vials selected from the large batch you receive. The powder form vials you receive before mixing will last more or less indefinitely in a freezer, so you can order multiple years worth of supply at a time.
The potency and purity are typically pretty good but from time to time vendors will be outed for either outright fraud or a bad batch that is underfilled or low purity. Most of the direct vendors (out of China) will guarantee fill and purity, and also give credit on your next order for lab test costs if you share the tests with them for future marketing purposes.
All sorts of risks involved of course, but you can mitigate them fairly effectively. Your risk tolerance may vary. Some folks will buy single vials from US resellers and trust those seller's lab test reports. Others (smartly, imo) don't trust that and do their own testing directly on the product they receive.
This grey market supply chain is remarkably robust these days. Plenty of suburban Facebook soccer moms organizing group buys.
No, you can know that decisions are stupid before knowing their outcome. In fact, decisions can be stupid even when they result in a neutral or positive outcome.
Are you asking if we're learning about the general population, or about ourselves? We're 100% identical twins with nearly identical blood work across a fairly deep blood panel. We're learning precisely what we need to know to maximize efficacy for us.
I’m not convinced that regulatory capture really saves the day, either.
If we believe all the hype about programming efficiency, then regulatory capture in the US becomes just one more in a list of many steps the current administration has taken to chase software development jobs overseas.
And if there was any doubt, look at the difference in their stock price for the prior year when they were "calling for regulation" vs now that there's an actual chance they get regulation by someone they don't control.
I've got one article near me. There's another group of articles that, I guess, are a bit further off? One of them reads like an ad for a creepy park. Luckily, the actual walking time is more like 24 hours. Yay rural Texas?
This reminds me of my favorite arcane C test: what value is TRUE and FALSE on X bullshit tool chain. My a favorite was 0=TRUE, 2=FALSE. I'd like to shake the hand of the joker who came up with that.
I dunno. I vacillated on that. It's something like 45–50 GWh nameplate currently installed, and ERCOT has 177 GW / 371 GWh of active planned battery projects in the interconnection queue. BESS are used for peaker-like capacity and load balancing, so GW is actually a pretty relevant number here.
Here's my theory about modern architectural design. Let's say you've got two students that have to do a final design: (a) chooses a rococo or neoVictorian (humanist design); and, (b) chooses a spare modern design. Both of them are required to draft facades, elevations, etc. The modern design is literally easier to draft — literally less time. That means any school of architecture that both rewards "good grades" and "project completion under pressure" will naturally select for students who like "modern" (brutalist?). Those students then become professors, and the whole system reinforces.
Regression to the mean, then? It’s not that those other architectural styles aren’t appreciated, but when it comes down to a project being completed on time + on budget, unless one is building for a king with time and money to spare, it seems like of course you’d inevitably end up with the sparer more utilitarian approach. I guess that could be a bit bleak of an outlook. We definitely shouldn’t need rich patrons funding personal passion / vanity projects in order to continue to explore neovictorianism or whatever.
Less "regression to the mean", and more evolutionary architecture. Selection of the fittest applied to schools of architecture, with grades being the selection pressure.
Or they do what they don't like, under the pressure of the moment, in order to pass, and keep their sense of taste in a separate place from passing that one class.
Yes time, simply think of how much time it cost to build a cathedral, generations of the same family worked on them. but also consider materials, all the modern styles are thanks to reemegence of concrete, largescale glass panes and cheaper steel.
It's also that it's really difficult to find anybody who could build rococo or neoVictorian buildings. And if you do, it's a lot more expensive. So the designs are not built, making it impossible for young people to gain experience building it.
That's exactly it. Modern buildings are cheaper, so they get built. Cash rules everything in construction, and nobody wants to build expensive unless they have an idealist client.
If this were true we would be living in huts (and adobe constructions schools of architecture would rule supreme)
Functional design is not brutalist and is modern, and more humanist than rococo, there is nothing more humanist about rococo and schools dont choose the projects grades based on what is easier.
The only real dumping has happened from Japan, which is fighting to defend the yen, and China, which is obviously repositioning though to a way lesser degree than a nation dumping an adversary’s bonds would.
The story is just another way of saying we’re issuing more debt. Central banks aren’t reducing exposure. They just didn’t increase them with our own finances, which makes sense, our finances don’t increase their reserve requirements.
Holdings by France, Taiwan, and India have also decreased year over year. Based on the charts, it could be the start of a reversal, but charts are charts and we’ll just have to see.
Brazil is on a long term downtrend although they may be bottoming out.
Norway just proposed reducing bond holdings in its sovereign fund.
It’s not as clear cut as you’re making it out to be. I think the headline may be overstated, but the article does a reasonable job of making the point.
> it could be the start of a reversal, but charts are charts and we’ll just have to see
This is the correct conclusion. Currently, there is no discernable signal. Given American politics, I'd be shocked if we didn't see folks trying to diversify central-bank holdings.
But as long as America runs a trade imbalance, we'll be dumping dollars abroad, and those dollars will work their ways into their countries' banking systems from which they'll work into their central banks, and unless their governments want to strengthen their currency (unlikely for an exporter), they're going to hold those dollars, and if you're holding dollars as an asset, holding the currency type versus the pays-a-yield type is just giving free money to Washington.
> Norway just proposed reducing bond holdings in its sovereign fund
That was explicitly a portfolio-weighting move. They're reducing buying of Treasuries in favour of higher-yielding agency bonds. Their total exposure to U.S. credit isn't being cut. It was just being re-weighted away from Treasuries at a time when they weren't yielding as much as they are now.
All true and good clarification. There is definitely a phase shift happening that is worth paying attention to, but it’s not yet a crisis, and it may not precipitate one.
Only if the cost of monsanto seed + roundup is less than the cost of regular seed per expected harvested bushel? Otherwise, no one would use the monsanto seed + roundup?
reply