I think the issue is that about half the conversations in my life really shouldn't happen. They should have Googled it or asked an AI about it, as that is how I would solve the same problem.
It wouldn't surprise me if "let me Google that for you" is an unstated part of many conversations.
The big issue here is that a lot of company IP is proprietary. You can't Google 90% of it. And internal documentation has never been particularlly good, in my experience. It's a great leverage point to prevent people from saying "just google it" if I'm dealing with abrasive people, at least.
It is, which I'd argue has a time and a place.
Maybe it's more specific to how I cut my teeth in the industry but as programmer whenever I had to ask a question of e.g the ops team, I'd make sure it was clear I'd made an effort to figure out my problem. Here's how I understand the issue, here's what I tried yadda yadda.
Now I'm the 40-year-old ops guy fielding those questions. I'll write up an LLM question emphasizing what they should be focused on, I'll verify the response is in sync with my thoughts, and shoot it to them.
It seems less passive aggressive than LMGTFY and sometimes I learn something from the response.
Instead of spending this time, it is faster, simpler, and more effective to phrase these questions in the form "have you checked the docs and what did they say?"
I remember reading about someone using AI to turn a simple summary like "task XYZ completed with updates ABC" into a few paragraphs of email. The recipient then fed the reply into their AI to summarize it back into the original points. Truly, a compression/expansion machine.
I have a couple boogie boards, and they're very handy for making notes or single-session scribbles, but their major drawback is the "all or nothing" reset.
I don't think I realized how often I need to erase or update a small section of a list or diagram without erasing the entire thing until using these.
Speaking as someone with familial hyperlipidemia / hypercholesterolemia and based on many years of conversations with multiple lipidologists…
Heterozygous FH will typically put someone at a total cholesterol roughly around 500mg/dl, and homozygous will get them closer to the 1000mg/dl mark. Dietary factors for most people will affect their lipids up to +/- 40mg/dl, and medication is generally required for anything beyond that.
For the gentleman with cholesterol nodules, that’s a not-unheard of symptom of homozygous FH and the associated cholesterol levels. I’m sure his diet is exacerbating it, however I would be genuinely surprised if that were the primary cause of his count being > 1000mg/dl. (With homo-FH and an extremely restricted diet, he’d still be unlikely to get below 900mg/dl)
Anecdotal, but if you follow carnivore diet groups on Facebook/IG etc you'll frequently see posts from people with TC over 500mg/dl. For example, the carnivorecringe IG account posted someone's labs in December who had a TC of 669 and an LDL of 558.
It's quite possible that it's a combination of diet and genetics, but people can quite easily get to incredibly harmful LDL levels with diet alone.
Edit: here's a case study of someone getting to TC of 488.7mg/dL. I think you'll struggle to get higher quality data than case studies because these kinds of diets are (thankfully) fairly uncommon and no ethics board is going to sign off on an intervention study that's likely to raise blood lipids by this kind of level.
Edit: misread your comment, apologies… I’m not sure about inducing it in people based on diet, as that seems to go against any desirable outcome, but this is a link to another FH case presenting cholesterol nodules:
Tree nuts are another common allergen, along with milk, eggs, fish, shellfish, wheat, and soy[1]
Presumably peanuts and tree nuts are more commonly singled out due to the severity of the potential reaction, as well as the likelihood of accidental exposure (ground or powdered nuts tend to spread easily and unintentionally compared to the other allergens)
The linked CDC article could be better on this: Tree nuts, peanuts (legumes), and seeds (sesame, etc.) can be actual allergens. I've never heard of a single case of milk or wheat allergy in an "allergic reaction" standpoint.
There are smaller ISPs around the US that may or may not be more consumer-friendly, but they tend to be very limited in terms of their regions and availability. Even in urban areas, the choice tends to be between the standard duopoly of either DSL or cable, and the dominant providers tend to aggressively undercut on price or lobby & litigate until the competitors go out of business.
There's an element of control when you're in a personal vehicle that's lacking when you're on transit with the general public, and fatalities aren't necessarily the only risk factor to be considered.
e.g. I'm less likely to be mugged or assaulted in a personal vehicle compared to public transit but I'm also more likely to have my vehicle broken into or stolen. Public transit is also _very_ different during typical commute times, compared to off hours.
I think this is a critical aspect: the current statistics on who takes which mode of transportation are hopelessly distorted. The current system is broken every which way. For the San Francisco Bay Area you don't take one or the other because you like it. You take one because the other is even more messed up. You can't even "like" one if it's right under your door. Parking is (deliberately) terrible. Car windows broken entirely expected to happen sooner or later (pretty deliberately also really). Transit shows up or not. And is slow. And might break down right under you. And is a war zone. The potholes are massive enough they affect the busses just fine, etc, etc. Back to the point at hand: looking at how many trips are taken in one or the other tells you nothing about people's preferences. The preference would be NEITHER.
