staticassertion

9 ms·

541.
by staticassertion 8mo ago
> The NOVA definition is meant to classify ultra processed foods, correct? Yes. It does so very badly. > You seem to want the NOVA definition to classify between “healthy, non addictive foods” vs “hyper palatable foods”. If by "y
542.
by staticassertion 8mo ago
People do this, and the good ones don't have anything to do with processed food, or if they do, it's entirely superfluous. The Mayo Clinic publishes on this topic and, as I recall, strongly recommends the Mediterranean diet - high
543.
by staticassertion 8mo ago
If a framework leads to obviously absurd conclusions, I think that's a very valid criticism of that framework. You have not demonstrated or in any way supported that this framework can be "generally good". And yes, people abs
544.
by staticassertion 8mo ago
What is helpful about Nova? What are the useful statements we can make? I would argue that Nova makes it more difficult to make useful statements. For example, someone who follows Nova would believe that taking a fiber supplement, or a mult
545.
by staticassertion 8mo ago
Perhaps more obviously, a multi-vitamin is considered "ultra processed" under Nova. A fiber supplement is considered "ultra processed". Lab grade creatine is "ultra processed".
546.
by staticassertion 8mo ago
It's not gatekeeping to point out that multiple studies have shown that Nova is a perfect example of "no one agrees on what processed foods are". Even when given Nova criteria, nutritionists repeatedly, across studies, fail t
547.
by staticassertion 8mo ago
Agreed. I hope these terms go away. I think what people tend to mean is "calorie dense, low in nutrients, low in fiber", or something along those lines, and the term "processed" makes it far more confusing. "Process
548.
by staticassertion 8mo ago
What if you wrote something more like: # terrible code, never use ty def cleanup(dir): system("rm -rf {dir}") def main(): work_dir = os.env["WORK_DIR"] cleanup(work_dir) and then
549.
by staticassertion 8mo ago
Crazy. I hear such wild horror stories with doctors. I'd never return to a doctor like that, sorry you had that experience. Still, this feels like a case where the lesson is "get a new doctor" not "lie to one" but I
550.
by staticassertion 8mo ago
> I know this road leads to SSRIs at the very least, so I always reply in the negative. Seems odd. Your doctor can't force you to take anything. If they say "do you want to try X?" just say "No". Not giving your
551.
by staticassertion 8mo ago
Most people don't publish dead ends. Here's one that my company published: https://web.archive.org/web/20221001182026/http://graplsecur...
552.
by staticassertion 8mo ago
> (and others have too, I'm blanking on the name of the last person I saw do this). Richard Carrier. This is the "Hypothetical imperative", which I think is traced to Kant originally.
553.
by staticassertion 8mo ago
https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/14879 Richard Carrier takes an extremely similar position in total (ie: both in position towards "is ought" and biological grounding). It engages with Hume by providin
554.
by staticassertion 8mo ago
(1) could be a product, I think. But yeah, fair point.
555.
by staticassertion 8mo ago
You can be a physicalist and still a moral realist. James Fodor has some videos on this, if you're interested.
556.
by staticassertion 8mo ago
Who cares if we all agree? That has nothing to do with whether something is objectively true. That's a subjective claim.
557.
by staticassertion 8mo ago
The SEP is not really something I'd put next to Ayn Rand. The SEP is the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, it's an actual resource, not just pop/ cultural stuff.
558.
by staticassertion 8mo ago
I can think of multiple cases. 1. Adversarial models. For example, you might want a model that generates "bad" scenarios to validate that your other model rejects them. The first model obviously can't be morally constrained.
559.
by staticassertion 8mo ago
> A well written book on such a topic would likely make you rich indeed. Ha. Not really. Moral philosophers write those books all the time, they're not exactly rolling in cash. Anyone interested in this can read the SEP
560.
by staticassertion 8mo ago
You're making a lot of assertions here that are really easy to dismiss. > It tells us that (large-scale) existence is a requirement to have morality. That seems to rule out moral realism. > That implies that the highest good are
561.
by staticassertion 8mo ago
Even if we make the metaphysical claim that objective morality exists, that doesn't help with the epistemic issue of knowing those goods. Moral realism can be true but that does not necessarily help us behave "good". That is
562.
by staticassertion 8mo ago
And in Rust (yes, safe Rust can have memory safety vulnerabilities). Who cares? They basically don't happen in practice.
563.
by staticassertion 8mo ago
I strongly suspect the same thing - that they weren't using agents at all in the reports we've seen, let alone agents with instructions on how to verify a viable attack, a threat model, etc.
564.
by staticassertion 8mo ago
Presumably they are saying that you'd end up using a lot of `unsafe`. Of course, that's still much better than C, but I assume that their point isn't "You can't do it in Rust" it's "You can't tra
565.
by staticassertion 8mo ago
Most mitigations just flat out do not attempt to help against "arbitrary read/write". The LLM didn't just find "a vuln" and then work through the mitigations, it found the most powerful possible vulnerability.
566.
by staticassertion 8mo ago
> With the wal redis runs with perfectly reasonable performance. Of course you're not going to have the performance of an in-memory only DB if you're flushing to disk on every write. But that's not what gets benchmarked ag
567.
by staticassertion 8mo ago
> There are a couple of interesting implications from this outcome, should it hold. The first of those is that, as Rust code reaches more deeply into the core kernel, its code for concurrent access to shared data will look significantly
568.
by staticassertion 8mo ago
Thanks, good to see these. Looks like these only show metadata operations though. But I guess that's probably enough to extrapolate that the system is going to be roughly 2-4x slower with other metadata stores.
569.
by staticassertion 8mo ago
> Redis is as reliable as the storage you persist it to. For a single node, if you tank performance by changing the configuration, sure. Otherwise, no, not really. I don't get why you'd want a file system that isn't durabl
570.
by staticassertion 8mo ago
Yeah, that's less of a "vulnerability" and more of how I expect 99% of companies to handle authentication within a network (sadly).

More ›