I was concerned about this too. Gemini informed me that the researchers "found that even when comparing people who had lost the same amount of weight, the rate of regain was significantly faster in the drug group (GLP-1s) than in the diet group (approximately 0.3 kg/month faster)."
Also, both groups contained those who didn't lose weight. They did not omit dieters who failed to lose weight or those who weren't "super responders."
Contrast this with taking the headline as fact without further scrutinizing it, which happens often. Or, look at the other posts here that are assuming that the cohort was restricted to only those who lost weight.
In an informal conversational context such as a forum, we don't expect every commentator to spend 20 minutes reading through the research. Yet we now have tools that allow us to do just that in less than a minute. It was not long ago that we'd be justified to feel skeptical of these tools, but they've gotten to the point where we'd be justified to believe them in many contexts. I believed it in this case, and this was the right time spent/scrutinization tradeoff for me. You're free to prove the claim wrong. If it was wrong, then I'd agree that it would be good to see where it was wrong.
Probably many people are using the tools and then "covering" before posting. That would be posting it as "fact". That's not what I did, as I made the reader aware of the source of the information and allowed them to judge it for what it was worth. I would argue that it's actually more transparent and authentic to admit from where exactly you're getting the information. It's not like the stakes are that high: the information is public, and anyone can check it. Hacker News understandably might be comparably late to this norm, as its users have a better understanding of the tech and things like how often they hallucinate. But I believe this is the way the wind is blowing.
I'm not sure exactly what you're asking. What I meant was that, for example, before you might've needed to track down where to find the underlying research paper, then read through the paper to find the relevant section. That might've taken 20 minutes for a task like this one. Now you can set an LLM on it, and get a concise answer in less than a minute.
It matches my intuition. Long term change requires skill acquisition. What foods contain more calories than people realize? What foods are more satiating? What kind of portion sizes for each food will keep me from eating a surplus? How much snacking is too much? How does the amount of oil in the foods I eat change the equation? What does the non-drug-augmented sensation of stomach fullness tell me about when I should stop eating? Can I eat more slowly and stop at the right time? The list goes on.
How does this work with respect to using a remote? I know something like a Roku remote would work display-wise, but you usually program it to use the signal that the your brand of TV responds to. That way you can use the Roku/whatever remote to turn on the actual TV and control audio. Speaking of, how does audio work for this set up?
HDMI standards allow plugged in devices to control the power state of the TV. e.g. my Apple TV will turn the TV on when I press a button on the aTV remote and will turn the TV off when I turn the Apple TV off.
Audio is a separate challenge, I'm not sure what you'd do there. Do computer monitors have eARC outputs? None of the ones I have do. Again if you had an Apple TV you could pair it with a HomePod (or pair of them) to avoid the issue but that's a niche solution.
Yeah it's a good way to introduce the idea. But I don't think someone would really grasp it until they understand why both calibration and "discrimination" are necessary in determining if a prediction market is accurate.
While Polymarket does offer holding rewards interest, it looks like it doesn't for this particular market.
That doesn't mean there aren't other explanations. It could mean that No holders expect to incur an opportunity cost greater than the risk free rate. Combine that with how there's low liquidity (there's less than $300 on the book buying Yes, and at 2 cents or less), and so we could just be seeing the effect of random fish temporarily distorting the price. It could also mean that the risk of a smart contract failing is making it not worth the hassle for a market maker to come in at such a slim margin and low volume.
They're offering interest on roughly a dozen hand-picked markets, according to their documentation. (I wasn't aware of that, so I stand corrected on the general assertion that they never do.)
> That doesn't mean there aren't other explanations.
Why do you need other explanations, when the observed probability can be precisely and fully explained by opportunity cost?
I don't have to "need" other explanations in order for them to exist. The current price does happen to accurately reflect what the risk free rate would imply. But look at the graph history: it hovered around 1% for a large chunk of December.
Advocates for clear, plain English recommend using the second person and not to shy away from imperatives. [0] It makes it easier to use the active voice as well as use less words. As a reader of this article, I don't take issue because I understand that the author isn't actually commanding me personally to do these things. It's just a sentence structure that conveys the information in a more readable way.
> The app really does enhance the experience, order exactly what you want without human error, roll up to the drive-thru, give them the code, and they begin making the order at that point.
They're particularly good at getting orders right compared to some other restaurants, so the additional value here to me is negligible. It's actually negative value to me, since if I can do a transaction without having to sign up, that's what I prefer. The value is entirely in the other direction: McDonald's wants to monetize their customer's identity information.
It's really location dependent. The one near me missed opening time by more than 30 minutes one day last week. I don't have more data because I only would splurge for a fast food breakfast when I need it.
It hadn't occurred to me until now that the pelican could overcome the short legs issue by not sitting on the seat and instead put its legs inside the frame of the bike. That's probably closer to how a real pelican would ride a bike, even if it wasn't deliberate.
Also, both groups contained those who didn't lose weight. They did not omit dieters who failed to lose weight or those who weren't "super responders."