Culinary turmeric is about ~3% curcuminoids by weight (and only 60-70% of that is curcumin specifically). Curcumin also has low oral bioavailability, typically offset by taking a large dose (1000mg) and combining with piperine - even ignoring the piperine, that 1g of curcumin amounts of 66g of turmeric.
The average Indian household does not use 60g of turmeric per person per day. More like 1.5-2g per person per day, or ~30mg of curcumin, and without much to improve absorption.
Curcumin can, in fact, interact with anticoagulants and affect iron absorption at high supplemental doses, which is not a concern at culinary amounts.
There are reasons to be skeptical of the clinical evidence for curcumin supplementation, but "the heterogenous population of India isn't experiencing widespread miracle cures from culinary turmeric" is not one of them.
(And yes, garlic extract is also a thing, also extremely concentrated compared to eating whole garlics or seasoning with garlic powder, and has antiplatelet/anticoagulant activity that one should be aware of before taking such supplements)
"EPA may impede recovery from repeated concussions"
The more pertinent advice would be to avoid getting concussed all the time, but if you're a NFL player, reconsider EPA-heavy supplements (DHA is not implicated).
The framing leads many people to pick blue for its altruistic framing. Enough, in fact, that 50% quorum is honestly not difficult. A lot of red-advocates seem to have a False Consensus Effect going where they're convinced way more people than in reality will interpret this "dilemma" as "do you step in the human grinder in hopes of jamming it", and act accordingly.
A 70% or 90% requirement, or just explicitly framing it as "do you step into the human grinder" would make it vastly easier to aim for 100% red, but we're dealing with the literal words of the "everyone lives button" here.
Clams. Clams and oysters and such. Sessile bivalves are the plants of the animal kingdom, the "genetically engineered brainless cow" of nature. They're also environmentally friendly even when farmed, and more healthy than any animal meat while addressing the same nutritional needs and more. They're almost comically ethical and healthy (and seafood dishes are great imo), they just don't produce bacon and burgers specifically.
When the algorithm is for estimating consumer surplus, the line between coordination and independent cost-optimization disappears.
Why would you try to one-down on price if an “objective statistical AI algorithm” tells you you’d be leaving money on the table without gaining market share to compensate? All it takes is for the market to be sufficiently concentrated at that point.
“Listen to the economists about the economy, not us” sounds reasonable on its own, but the names LeCun lists are all in the lower/modest AI capabilities camp (and there are economists modeling under the assumption of higher capabilities), so it looks like a thinly veiled proxy for more unresolvable bickering over future AI capabilities predictions.
Mildly amusing that "◶NASAFORCE technologists" sounds like a natural enough string in context that it becomes a garden path sentence leading away from that interpretation.
Having looked at https://doublespeed.ai/ out of morbid curiosity, I have to say a simple screenshot would have sent the message more effectively. Well, that and the tagline "a16z funded this".
Being oblivious to the cultural norms and tastes of your environs is, quite literally, being taste-less in that place/context.
reply