Unlurker

Hair Loss Was Just the Start. Ozempic Users Are Also Reporting Nail Trouble (gizmodo.com)

i've visited many subreddits, telegram and discord groups i see this common pattern: People import it from China from suppliers and do not know how to properly dose it. Many are using it in knee jerk fashion with no proper dosing protocol. Why they do it? it's because it's cheaper this way and they have to answer or explaining the use to no one. Others have this strange idea, "if i am using GLPs, exercise and dieting is no longer needed". When long term experienced GLP users say, you still need a dieting and workout protocol, https://www.reddit.com/r/tirzepatidecompound/comments/1omfgxd/everyone_should_read_this_guide_on_losing_fat/ GLPs are very useful but they are not needed by vast majority of people who use it. And key questions 1. Do you really need GLPs? how did you figure this out? 2. How much do you need? 3. What's your dieting and workout strategy? Very few GLP users actually run through these questions. People should stop pushing it as a “miracle” and instead see it as a “tool” used in specific cases.

Those people often also fail to ask "is this stuff even made right?!"

I'm bald already so woohooooo

Could these be signs of malnutrition? I see a lot of people who take them but don't also adjust their diet or exercise to make sure they're getting solid nutrition and start looking sickly.

I feel like waaay more than people think depends on nutrition. You literally are what you eat. Like for example, sometimes my skin oils get messed up somehow to where everything starts sticking to it, and then I eat some food and it's fixed. I have no idea what this is or how to make it stop happening between every meal, but it doesn't seem related to whether I touch the food while eating.

Very large studies already exist. They’re safe. Fearmongering about side effects is actually harmful at this point, because skepticism could keep someone from getting safe, effective treatment.

Not only that but the weight loss is often a side effect of fixing other issues, for me I’ve been taking a low dose for autoimmune related ME/CFS for about 4 years now.

Reporting on these drugs is so bad. Most of the benefits AND downsides they keep reporting are the same for any major rapid weight loss. Be it hair shedding or sleep apnea resolving. They keep acting like these are novel drug specific side effects rather than weight-loss related side effects.

I lost 170 lbs natty (100lbs the first year) and my hair and nails only got better. If your generative follices are dying off you are not losing weight healthily.

At this point it might legit be impossible for a side effect to be discovered that outweighs the immense health benefits of losing weight. It feels like people want there to be some horrible side effect to these drugs. Idk if it’s some moral objection to weight loss without discipline, or just general mistrust of big pharma.

Recently I've talked to someone who said she is worried about those drugs as they will create 2 tier society because only people with money will get thin. This also increases already bad fat phobia in our society according to her. She has a PhD in biotechnology and works in a lab. She is also quite thin (always was). It's crab mentality disguised as moral position. It's especially obvious when the same people advocate for free access to drugs, alcohol or gambling. You should have freedom you do anything as long as it doesn't improve your life or move you to in social hierarchy.

Who are these mythical people that are - Concerned about fatphobia - Worried Ozempic might create a two tier society - Believe we should have unrestricted access to gambling and drugs This sounds like a goomba to me.

It's absolutely the moral thing. Even on HN there are an endless number of people who treat the use of GLP-1s as a failure that must be publicly shamed.

> It feels like people want there to be some horrible side effect to these drugs. Being able to lose weight is, in many minds, associated with self-discipline. A route to the same goal that elides self-discipline is consequently viewed as a cheat, a shortcut. It's a product if the cultural pervasiveness of the Protestant work ethic and its relation to the health and wellness domains. That fine, in my opinion, if one is Protestant, but why carry the baggage for someone else's religion if you're not one, ya know?

Culture and religion are intertwined even if separate. Western civilization is "culturally Christian" even in secular countries like France. Many places in the US are thus "culturally Protestant" even if most of their current-day population don't follow that religion.

I'm a doxastic voluntarist, as in, we think ourselves to be less able to change our beliefs than we actually are. The idea that weight loss by means other than self-discipline seems, at least to me, quite easy to choose to not believe in.

if you're losing it as a weight loss drug and that's a side effect of the rapid weight loss that otherwise wouldn't occur it's a side effect of the drug in any practical sense, or are you trying to establish the 'guns don't kill people' for pharmaceuticals? It's a side effect of the treatment regimen that many people in all likelihood aren't even aware of so it's good to report it like this

Idk, i think its important to distinguish between side effects that would also happen via diet and exercise vs side effects that do not happen when losing weight via other means.

People losing hair through "exercise" are using supplements.

Diet and exercise have not caused any of that ever. It sounds more like malnutrition and starvation. I'll concede it may still be better than being fat, though.

If you’re drunk and bump your head into a lantern, would you say that haematomas are a side-effect of alcohol consumption?

FDA trials follow this approach. If something bad happens it’s logged as an adverse event; if they croak it’s a serious adverse event (SAE). So if you have a treatment for moles, and a patient (trial participant) has a mole on their back treated and then falls down the stairs or is run over by a trolley the agency wants you to do an analysis to see if the treatment might have had something to do with getting run over or not taking the lift. Note: this is not an exaggeration. I have written phase I and phase II clinical trial protocols earlier in my career.

If you shoot someone in the face, generally speaking that person will die. Not everyone who takes GLP-1s actually lose weight. A decent fraction of people are non-responders. Those people also tend to not lose their hair or have their sleep apnea and knee problems go away. Your analogy isn't as clever as you might think.

it feels like you are being deliberately obtuse so I may be wasting my time, but I'll attempt to assume the best and try one more time. This is very basic correlation vs causation stuff. The side effect is related to rapid weightless of any kind. Weightloss is a "side effect" of the drug. Hairloss is a side effect of rapid weight loss. There is a chain of effects there but it's not X causes Z, it's X might cause Y, which causes Z. This distinction matters less for negatives - still good to tell people but for positives it is disingenuous. If you don't lose weight, your sleep apnea doesn't go away. Your joint pain doesn't get better. Your blood pressure doesn't go down - because the drug doesn't cause those things, the weight loss does.

no listed side effect on every drug, or effect for that matter applies to all people. Anti-Depressants don't work for a fairly large amount of users, that doesn't mean we don't list those effects.

NTSB Preliminary Report: Prime Air 767 Runway Overrun [pdf] (ntsb.gov)

I would have thought the terrain warning would have finally been the thing that would break his fixation, but I guess not. Just wild.

Yikes. > According to Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) Out and FDR data, flight 7598 was about 105 ft above ground level (agl) at a groundspeed of 177 kts as it crossed the threshold of runway 30. The accident airplane touched down about 3,750 ft past the threshold at a groundspeed of 160 kts. Runway is 9360 ft long, so touchdown 40% down the runway. > winds were from 190° at 19 kts with gusts to 22 kts So, that's strong crosswind from slightly behind - not great. > 1:42 [1 min 42 sec before end of recording]: The captain called for flaps to be set to 20 degrees, and the FO cautioned they were too fast. The FO made additional comments regarding the airplane’s excessive speed throughout the remainder of the recording. There was not a consistent verbal response to the comments about speed. > 00:31 Sounds similar to the airplane touching down. > 00:15 The captain called for a go-around. > 00:10 Sounds similar to the airplane departing the paved surface. Looks like they landed way too long and fast, without deploying speed brakes and thrust reverser. Should have gone around. Then there was a go-around attempt that came way too late and was aborted. > The landing gear weight-on-wheels (WOW) parameter intermittently switched between “air” to “ground” for about 7 seconds. The WOW parameter switched to ground for the remainder of the recorded data when the airplane had about 2,730 ft of runway remaining. The FDR data showed the speed brakes remained stowed and the thrust reversers did not deploy during the landing and subsequent landing rollout. > Wheel brakes were manually applied at a groundspeed of 146 kts. The brake pedals for wheel braking were subsequently released about 8 seconds later at a groundspeed of 120 kts and the throttle resolver angle for both engines increased to go-around thrust values; the airplane had about 930 ft of runway remaining. > About 4 seconds later, the throttle resolver angles for both engines reduced to idle values at a groundspeed of 117 kts, when wheel brakes were reapplied; the airplane had about 415 ft of runway remaining.

> without deploying speed brakes and thrust reverser. I don't think they were able to, since their aircraft never really touched down firmly enough to satisfy the weight-on-wheels interlock system. The aircraft won't allow the crew to reverse thrust until it settles into a "ground state" which we have today because some past guys managed to crash airplanes that way. Also, these guys commanded go-around power when they should have been hitting the brakes, so there's no way the flight systems were going to open the reverser.

Indeed, by the time the WOW settled into "ground", they had 2730 ft of runway left. :-/

While this is generally true and having read this report I do not believe it to contain any new material information related to the probable cause, it continues to paint the picture of the captain making a pretty big series of mistakes. It really sucks that the FO could not intervene further as he clearly identified the problem and articulated the solution. I certainly doubt there will be a satisfying ending to this one.

> It really sucks that the FO could not intervene further as he clearly identified the problem and articulated the solution. First officer could have easily intervened, all they needed to do was call for a go-around. If the captain wouldn't initiate a go-around(AFAIU typical airline policy from my understanding is that if either pilot calls for a go-around then they must initiate a go-around) after being called for by the FO they should have initiated one themselves. The events from the CVR show only the captain ever called for a go-around after it was too late.

I found the timeline of events from the flight data recorder to be fairly suggestive of a likely conclusion. Though that's as a lay-person; I am not a pilot but would love to hear if the seemingly obvious issue is the likely root cause.

This one is blindingly obvious. Appalling airmanship, just like it reads. Touching down 2/3rds of mile down the runway at around 25 knots over Vref. That was never going to go well.

Things That Apparently Cause Cancer (breakthroughjournal.org)

I hoped to see a systematic explanation of what the correlations show. As long as we don't have a viable explanation, there is something interesting there to discover. It can be that the statistical analysis is fundamentally flawed. Pointing out a flaw that tricked several serious researchers is progress. If it was because of some other factor (let's assume there are many more elderly people living around those neighborhoods, can't think of a better example now).

Yawn. Anybody that has looked into the data knows that nuclear is acceptably safe, particularly compared to fossil fuels. The problem with nuclear is cost, not safety, and thus far it appears intractable in the real world rather than the fantasy world that the likes of BTI inhabit, whereas the problems and limitations of renewable energy are actually being solved.

The main outcome of the original papers is RR (relative risk) and the main number discussed in this article is "people living near a landmark" which is obviously nonsensical. You'd need to compute your "Costco risk index" using epidemiological risk compared with a baseline, and there's not one place here where they claim to do it. As written, this does not appear to be a serious effort.

Every time I come across an article about cancer, I'm reminded of that website that catalogued all the things that The Daily Mail said either caused or prevented cancer. https://web.archive.org/web/20200221175201/http://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com/ Too bad it's down, but here's an archive of it.

Is this whole article (the article in this Hacker News post, to be clear) an example of "Correlation is not causation" ?

Did I miss it, or do the authors not bother to explain how the original methodology is wrong? Do we just take their word for it?

They didn't! They mentioned receiving "eight lines of code" and, at the end of the article, write: > It is especially telling that no matter what landmark we applied to the methodology, we have yet to get a negative result. There is, in fact, a real chance that you simply cannot get a negative result from this method. My guess: The code is not shareable. Maybe its method is laughably disprovable?

No, but how do I know that the authors used the same methodology? The most they say about it is "we developed our own methodology by guessing what they did, and we changed stuff around until the results from our methodology matched their results", which is very unconvincing to me.

The fact that they had to guess what the original author did is already an issue in itself. What we see here is that: 1. the original author did not sufficiently document their methodology and 2. when a best effort at reproducing the results is applied and we look deeper, we then discover that the results are wacky.

When someone comes along and proclaims 2+2=5, just because someone is right that they're incorrect doesn't mean their own assertion that 2+2=3 is any more correct, or that their reasoning for believing the original person was wrong has any validity. Being accidentally correct is only barely better than being wrong, and for many uses (such as when the reasoning is extrapolated and used elsewhere) is no better at all.

he was a construction engineer, not a policymaker.

Doesn't matter; his paycheck depended on him not understanding these things.

Updates to Full Disk Access in macOS (developer.apple.com)

That seems like a massive hole in the model that would make it very hard to lock down multi-process/privsep programs like sshd.

Sandboxing something like that is challenging, yes. But probably not for this reason you can always disclaim responsibility for your process.

It really isn't; the program just needs to be able to declare what it expects it should be able to do, and what it expects its children should be able to do. The latter doesn't need to be a subset of the former.

This is really hard to do in general

Folks like to cite how capability OSes are a great thing, and I certainly appreciate the concept, and, no, MacOS, is not a capability OS. However, it feels like one to the User. Having to get constantly prompted to grant permissions they don't even necessarily understand to random programs. There's been chatter about how system like iOS are not "document based", they're app based. Many apps do not present their data as "files", users don't know where their data resides, just that the app knows and that's their window. I don't know where an application on MacOS can "save their files" if they don't have "Full Disk Access". I don't know if they get some directory "for free" that they can use much like iOS does. Then, of course, there's the Apple Document model where data auto saves to Somewhere. You have versioned files you can work with. But until you actually "save" the file to "the disk", its living in some unannounced space. My TextEdit app has dozens of "Untitled-XX" files that are...somewhere. And its great! There's a peace of just having "stacks of stuff" that you can leave "unmanaged". "Where would you like to save your work?" "Oh, great, cognitive load just exploded as need to think about the minutia of data organization, when, mostly I just "don't want to lose this". But, the constant prompting is exhausting, to me. Again, I have to "think about it". I need to question everything, when I really just want to Get Stuff Done. And, in time, we become blind to these prompts. "ok, Ok, OK!! GO ALREADY! JUST WORK!!". Exhausting.

Sandboxed Mac apps have access to their own container which includes directories like Documents/ and a temporary directory and more where they can save anything just like on iOS.

Apple Pass Designer (developer.apple.com)

This is exactly the sort of software that was hard to prioritise before LLMs, and trivial to build with LLMs. There's nothing interesting going on here, and I don't mean that as a criticism. There's a clear schema, no particularly clever UX needed, you can build almost all of this out of standard UI components, and the problem is well defined. The only challenge is the actual time input for coding, and that's mostly gone today.

Apple is a multi-trillion dollar corporation. They spent billions on a doomed car project which never saw the light of day. They release unfinished software on an unsustainable schedule. Their software quality has been declining for over a decade. Their design is lacklustre now and issues go unaddressed indefinitely. They are shoving ads everywhere. The last thing they need is more things to get distracted with. They don’t need LLMs, they need to care and focus on making good products.

Oh it's absolutely ironic, but I've also grown tired of how HN has degraded over the last 3-5 years. I know the complaint has been banded for decades now, but the platform has gotten really insufferable after COVID. Gotta get your kicks somewhere ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

:-)

I don't use the app, I just use the website. Then visit: https://www.amazon.com/wholefoodsapp/prime-code The web was smart. URLs were smart. We've lost a lot moving to crappy user interfaces people have to dig through. I'm have hopes this will get better soon. Edit: Isn't there trivial fix with scanning a QR in the store that either opens the site or deep-links into the app? This is like 15 minutes of store manager time + one Claude prompt away for the mobile app, I'd think.

Could have you sign in with a Passkey >:D jk

I believe Apple has been forced to make some concessions. In any case, their chunk of the market never came close to Microsoft's. Also, Microsoft aggressively went after the domains of other companies, like trying to take over the Web (with some success). Apple is protecting their own market. You do have to be careful about cooking the goose that lays the golden eggs, though. I don't feel like people are actually "playing the tape through," and thinking about the long-term ramifications of these policies.

Now would be a great time to describe some of the long-term ramifications of policies like the DMA/DSA, if you've thought of any. I'm not seeing anything damning, at least in real life.