• 0 Posts
  • 71 Comments
Joined 2 年前
cake
Cake day: 2023年7月15日

help-circle


  • Says they can hold for 48 hours for DHS to take them into custody. He was released Thursday evening but I dont see when he was arrested. If it was Tuesday evening then the only reason he was released was because DHS didn’t take him into custody which implies they realized they couldn’t and didn’t even attempt to get him released sooner or punishing him with a 48 hour imprisonment was the whole point. What’s to stop them from imprisoning any citizen for 2 days for whatever reason.






  • Not necessarily that it’s producing none or not enough

    If your body is producing “enough” then you don’t have diabetes, type 1 or 2. That’s where you are incorrect.

    Type 1/2 terminology came about before any understanding of the pathology. “Diabetes mellitus” specifically refers to glucosuria. Its a symptom of insulin deficiency - absolute (typical type 1) or relative (typical type 2). It’s like calling pneumonia “cough type 1” and lung cancer “cough type 2”.

    When you say “not necessarily… not enough [insulin]” You managed to get wrong what diabetes is entirely - it is necessarily “not enough” insulin again whether type 1 or 2.

    Regarding your question about autoimmune destruction of the pancreas- if it is happening but there is enough insulin to maintain glycemic control, then again it is not diabetes type 1 or 2. I’m not sure if there’s uniform widely accepted terminology for it but something like “pre-type 1” is reasonable for layman terms . You have to be careful though because there’s cases of folks who had an autoimmune response but it abated and they ended up not developing (type 1) diabetes.

    Its better to think of diabetes as beta cell function (and insulin) +/- and autoantibodies +/-. That leads to 4 combinations, typical type 1 is -,+ and typical type 2 is +,- but the other combinations are like 10+ % of cases (mostly being +,+ as in many “typical” type 2s have some autoantibodies but still produce insulin).








  • The author did a poor job of explaining that. He’s referencing the thought experiment of a businessman instructing a super effective AI to make paperclips. Given a terse enough objective and an effective enough AI, one can imagine a scenario in which the businessman and the whole world in fact are turned into paperclips. This is obviously not the businessman’s goal, but it was the instruction he gave the AI. The implication of the thought experiment is that AI needs guardrails, perhaps even ethics, or else it can unintentionally result in a doomsday scenario.