The question is what average; some people apparently view "in the US" as implying US population-level averages (which it does not explicitly imply), whereas authors report the average within adopting households, which for this study's data source, all happen to be in the US

If the claim was just that grocery spending is down 5.3% across the country they wouldnt have said average, the title would just be "Ozempic reduced grocery spending by 5.3% in the US"

It seems like we will need either legislation or litigation, if we want things to improve.

> the worst cases from places like yours get exported to SF, NYC and other hubs, for them to deal with?

Source? (I genuinely know nothing about this. But would appreciate hard data.)

Not GP and I don't know anything about this either, but I found this:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2017/dec/...

Anecdotally, I used to take the Greyhound a lot and everyone on them is either a student or somewhat homeless, e.g. they just lined up another friend's couch to sleep on for a little while.

You had me until you said that "all of it is fleeting and ultimately meaningless - relationships, work, accomplishments. (and many, many more)"

My dear friend. These are the only types of meaning that matters, and its fleeting nature is why we need to appreciate and savor them.

> These are the only types of meaning that matters

They may or may not be the only types of meaning that matter. Regardless, the fleeting nature of those moments ultimately make them meaningless and most people are not happy about it.

> and its fleeting nature is why we need to appreciate and savor them.

We can appreciate those moments. We can savor those moments. But we can't be happy about the fleeting nature of it. For most people, the fleeting nature of those moments are a source of sadness. It's why smart people invented religion or other means of rationalization to bring permanence and meaning to the impermanent and meaningless.

Smart people tend to realize this and hence are sadden by it. Some accept it. Some use religion/rationalization as a form of escapism. But the truth is the truth.

This is the reason the higher-ups in finance who rely on Brenda might continue to rely on Brenda, rather than relying on AI. She offers them accountability.

> If you want restrictions on gambling, on advertising it, on participating in it, on making money from it, you want to restrict individual liberty.

No.

An organization's liberty to advertise is not individual liberty.

Let individuals gamble. Do not let organizations advertise gambling services. Organizational liberty is not individual liberty.

I think you're pointing in the right direction, but I would rephrase as,

what's the likelihood that the solution exists in the github repo in a way that the machine can recognize as relevant to your prompt?

If many versions of the solution exist, due to the problem's common occurrence, and if you can evaluate the LLM's output, then you're good to go.

I would call it a constructive contrarian claim, quite distinct from trolling.

Or it would take a strong base of reviews to establish a moat and the premium pricing that enables.

That seems doubtful given my impression of the number of fake reviews out there for even totally worthless "brands".

OK so you believe "Elon was right" and people should "ignore the comments" Hmm very interesting.