Majority of the "AI inside" software and solutions. It's in a bubble and everyone is throwing crap to a wall hoping it sticks.
"AI" is the new "blockchain". It's a solution looking for a solid problem to tackle, with some niche applications
I mean, at least Ai has SOME useful applications, the blockchain was just wasting energy for some numbers.
Blockchain also has some useful applications. Most (but not all) of them are also possible with technology and such that existed when bitcoin was first created, at far lower cost for a minor tradeoff in accuracy. On top of that, almost none of them are related to speculative markets.
It's a way to do distributed transaction logs in a non-refutable and independantly verifiable way. That's useful and important, but it was a solution in search of a problem. Even for the highest security, most at risk transactions, the existing international fincancial systems are "good enough" to ensure reliability of transaction logs.
In the end, blockchain and now AI are just falling victim to con men trying to milk as much money as they can from things before people build a working understanding of them. They'll just keep moving onto the next big thing as it comes.
I just wish people had long enough memories to see the cycle for terms like these. Some new word catches vogue, companies fall over themselves trying to find ways to implement them for shareholders and consumers who have no idea what they actually represent. As that fades, a new term arises.. it's sad.
And virtual reality gets a free revival every other technology, while we're at it.
I'm predicting VR coming back into the limelight, try again, shortly after everyone loses interest in AI.
Also, I'm still pissed that flying cars aren't in the limelight more. I was promised daily updates, and I'm not seeing them. That's the biggest proof that the media is completely disconnected.
Good point.
I'm willing to accept a reality where the science magazines are constantly excited about every development in helicopter technology.
Blockchain also has problems its solving I recon the whole not bullshit was a psyop by thr us government cos finances that they couldn't have absolute control over would allow the people to bs free. I recon monero is the best as of present especially since its actually anonymous payments.
I am so over hearing about AI. It's getting to the point that I can assume anyone dropping the term at work is an idiot that hasn't actually used or utilised it.
It's this LLM phase. It's super cool and a big jump in AI, but it's honestly not that good. It's a handy tool and one you need to heavily scrutinise beyond basic tasks. Businesses that jumped on it are now seeing the negative effects of thinking it was magic from the future that does everything. The truth is, it's stupid and people need to learn about it, understand it, and be trained in how to use it before it can be effective. It is a tool, not a solution—at least for now anyways.
The truth is, it’s stupid and people need to learn about it, understand it, and be trained in how to use it before it can be effective.
So, like a hammer. A very expensive, environment-destroying hammer.
That's actually a pretty good analogy.
I think more like discovering making fire or something. 90% of all the energy burnt is people worshipping it as it blazes away, never actually fulfilling any practical use except being marvelous to be around.
But once the forest is all chopped down, people are forced to understand fire and realise a couple small logs in a contained place was all they needed to have it be incredibly effective.
Oh, but that's too hard. It's magic right now. All hail the AI bonfire!
Massive energy consumption. Huge datacenters and not enough green energy. Now they want to build small nuclear plants. Without talking about the waste problem.
Their waste is less destructive than coal plant though. Perhaps this could be a silver lining to finally get nuclear back in action and get closer to dropping coal once and for all.
So AI uses energy, and it’s how we are choosing to provide that energy is destructive to the environment? So AI isn’t itself destructive.
Ah yeah, just choose a different energy souce. Simples.
Have you seen the growth in % of renewable (incl, nuc biofuel and waste) electricity generation over the past 30 years. (36% i in 1990 , dropped to about 33% in late 2000s up to 38% recently) this is global, IEA figures.
There have been two years since 1990 when renewable electricity output has grown faster than total electricity demand. 2008/9 recession and 2020 covid. The only way renewables will come close to meeting current electricity consumption is actually to start reducing those demands.
If we start transerffing gas( domestic heating), and petrol( low-capacity road transportation) onto the electricitry grid then the scale and speed of renewables needs to ramp up inconcievably quickly - it has grown fast over the past decade, but it hasn't been cheap nor has it been fast enough to keep up with current demands.
TBH I don't know where AI lines up next to EVs in scale of potential extra demand, probably lower but still an added demand (unless it can substitute for other stuff and improve efficiency somehow).
Electricity source is not really a choice, it is resource and tech constrained many sources are needed; the cheapest fuels will continue to be in the mix used so long as demand keeps increasing so fast.
Maybe, If you ran all AI in peooles houses in cold countries in winter, it'd substitute for heating - that'd be one way it could reduce its impact. Or maybe it can get its act together and spark widespread, frequent, deep, long lasting recessions in economic activity.
Maybe renewables is not the solution to our energy needs if it can’t scale up like we thought it could. Conservation of energy is not the answer. We as a society must find new, cleaner, sources of energy. Maybe AI can help us do it.
Tbf the energy issues are getting better, or at least there are some more efficient models being created. Back in April there was a version of Llama that only needed 8gb to almost match GPT4
I equate an AI to an intern. It's useful for some stuff but if I'm going to attach my name to it I'm going to review it and probably change a lot about it.
There's one good use case for me: produce a bigload of trialcontent in no time for load testing new stuff. "Make 2000 yada yada with column x and z ...". Keeps testing fun and varied while lots of testdata and that it's all nonsense doesn't matter.
I've found that testing code or formulas with LLM is a 50/50 now. Very often replying "use function blabla() and such snd so" very detailed instructions while this suggested function just doesn't exist at all in certain language asked for... it's still something I'ld try if I'm very stuck tho, never know.
Very often replying "use function blabla() and such snd so" very detailed instructions while this suggested function just doesn't exist at all in certain language asked fo
I've noticed this a lot too—especially for M. But even though it makes up a function, it sometimes inspires a more optimised idea/method that can be more flexible for future datasets.
But most times it starts to massacre things and disregard prompted parameters or even producing an identical suggestion immediately after being told not to, why not to, and reconfirming original parameters of the query.
Some times punching in the same prompts five times for five iterations produces completely different results, but one may be on the right track and I can code the rest. It helps to set it's personality first, so it's sharing ideas it's seen out there, rather than trying to please.
At the least, it's a big time saver. Gone are the days where I get a few days spare to work on solving a complex problem through trial and discovery, so it's an excellent tool for reducing testing time and speeding up the route to an optimised method.
notice how all of those crypto features were quietly removed from platforms after people realised they were paying millions for some numbers, i think that will happen with Ai
I just got a notification on my phone telling me that I can chat with my PDF documents. Why the fuck would I want to do that? Do these companies realize that literally no one is asking for this shit? I also saw an ad for a computer mouse that had AI inside it. Whatever that means.
I just got a notification on my phone telling me that I can chat with my PDF documents
I belive you got that notification but I honestly have no idea what it even means.
It's from the Adobe Acrobat app. Basically you can ask it to give you a summary of whatever document you're reading.
Don’t knock it too quickly. I thought like you but one evening I was a little tipsy and started chatting with a PDF document. Let’s just say things got a heated and now we’re engaged.
Oddly enough, that's one of the few functions I've found the LLMs useful for. Looking through big pdfs for specific information, lots of times "ctrl+f" doesn't do the trick because the exact term I'm looking for doesn't appear. Worse sometimes it's a phrase that could be in there under many synonyms. Using the LLM to find the actual info is pretty nice, it just isn't "AI".
My research was literally on AI back in college. Most AI solutions are just basic algorithms and don't use real AI solutions. There's a huge difference.
It's even better than that. A lot of companies are taking NVIDIA's pre-built workflows, running their data through them and selling the results as their own AI. "We build proprietary RAG AI!"
I can't wait to get a Smart AI refrigerator that tells me I have a bunch of food that isn't really in there even when I didn't ask it to.
Watched a bit of a video of a guy that went to Computex and asked any vendor with AI plastered somewhere what they were doing with it. Most spouted some meaningless word salad and a few literally shrugged.
Essential oils. Homeopathy. Chiropractic. Reiki. Juice cleanses. Perineum sunning. Internet accelerator software. Iridology. Faith healing. Organic food. Oil pulling. Gold plated digital audio cables.
Osteopaths (who have a Doctorate of Osteopathy and are often referred to as DOs) go to medical school and receive training that's almost exactly the same as an MD.
the difference (so i'm told) is that DOs are trained to take a more holistic, full-body approach to diagnostics and treatment rather than only focusing on one set of symptoms/treatment. They also do their residencies and internships alongside MDs.
Yes, I've heard some people say that they trust DOs more because they're more deliberately trained to look at a larger picture of a person's health. I don't have my own opinion since I've never met with a DO.
My PCP is a DO. It works for me as my body is still relatively young. (late 30's) I also don't have many issues that would require more intensive/specialized treatment that I don't already have a specialist for.
I was not familiar with this term and had to look it up. From my brief search, it also seems like snake oil, and I don't know why someone would not go to a real physical therapist instead.
Not saying anything about the source, but https://www.webmd.com/pain-management/osteopathic-medicine
I absolutely had a PT after a car accident that used spinal manipulation and it seemed to help. She also had me using elastic bands for stretching and hydrotherapy, so there's that
Fair, I do have a number of MD DO consultants. The initial look I had was not within the DO licensing.
DO are real doctors. Rarer than MDs because there are less schools but totally real docs. My Mom with 30 years nursing experience says their training is basically identical, but DOs are generally nicer.
It depends on the country. Everywhere but the US, I believe, osteopaths are witch doctors on the same level as chiropractors. In the US, they were originally like that, but their professional organization basically pushed it into being a real medical degree.
Now they go to the same length schooling as MD's, and take the same exams as far as I know.
The core of the whole discipline, osteopathy, is a pseudoscience, though. While they are usually competent doctors they still have that core of pseudoscience. They like to market themselves as more "holistic", but that's usually a good dogwhistle term to let you know information not supported by science is going to follow. They bring up that they are the same as MDs, but with additional training in osteopathy, but that can't be true because the schooling is the same length, so to fit in the pseudoscience, they get less science.
The real reason why we have DO's is that we don't have capacity in our country to educate enough MDs, so we have this weird parallel system.
A chiropractor 💯 fixed my throwing arm that I had been dealing with for over 10 years. Made me an absolute believer. That said, I’ve been to two different chiropractors and they were wildly different in everything they did. Dr Lopeig in Great Falls, Virginia is an absolute wizard.
I sometimes come across influencers pushing chrio "treatments" on pets or newborns, saying it makes them "breathe better" or be "more energetic"
It's infuriating
I've told this story before, but newborn chiropractors are a thing, and many new parents will take their BABIES to get their neck and back snapped around. It's frankly fucking disgusting.
I used to see a lot of threads on reddit about people who got injuries from cheap chiropractors.
Problem is, people go to chiropractor when they don't have access to real doctor, problem either the money or/and most doctors in your city/state can't/refuse do anything about your problem, desperation is one hell of a stimulus
The thing is, placebos can actually be pretty effective. Hell, they're effective even if you know they're a placebo. And the more elaborate and similar to what you think would be involved in curing you, the more effective. So people going to chiropractors might actually be getting real results even if the things they're doing are junk.
I can somewhat understand this. I have IBS, and most people with a bowel issue will tell you that IBS is basically your doctor saying ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Instead of getting help from your doctor, you go online and you hear about people finding relief through taking weird supplements, or eating only rice, or taking pre and probiotics of varying types. None of it has any proof, but it's better to try something than to struggle - and sometimes you're lucky or you find some short-lived relief.
The difference is that there often isn't evidence for these things working, whereas there is plenty of evidence out there that says that chiropractors are doing legitimately dangerous practices to your body. The difference is that someone is trying to make a profit from this lack of knowledge.
I’ve had loads of advice like that for IBS, but no amount of FODMAP or probiotics actually makes a difference, because my IBS is stress-triggered. My doctor helped by advising me to avoid stressful situations, which is hard when you move to another country.
It may be that your gut health is constantly poor when stress triggers things. I used to become ill from cold exposure for several years - tyramine from foods leaked through the small intestine to the bloodstream (which is bad) for about three days after each exposure. See https://lemmy.world/comment/10672140
This was basically my experience but with tinnitus.
It's a symptom of a larger problem but if there is no clear correlation then you're kind of on your own
"Only rice" is an elimination diet for allergies that I should have tried decades ago, but dumbass mainstream medicine never recommended.
I found out there are slow allergies mediated by immunoglobulin G that you can't detect while eating, so I did a blood test. Found some strong positives (milks, eggs), and then through elimination found out false negatives that I also can't eat (peanut, soy), and, thanks to the doctor whom I went out of my way to see about IgG, some that are typically harmful to those with IBS that I also need to avoid (gluten, sunflower oil, rapeseed oil). Supplemental protective agents Aloe barbadensis, xyloglucan, and butyrate also help. Getting really healthy now - no more IBS if I don't eat mistakes.
The mainstream doctors say that's all nonsense and that I'm a hypochondriac who perceives having gotten better for no reason.
My previous successful departure from the mainstream was making my gallbladder go from "full of stones" to "empty except a thin layer of sediment on the bottom" as seen by ultrasound. Now that there's proof, the doctors can't dismiss that. https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-good-diet-considerations-for-Gallstone-sufferers/answers/107344862
Holland and Barrett sell supplements. Some people do need to take a vitamin d tablet a day. I do but I've got a prescription for a vitamin d and calcium tablet because I've been low for years.
Be careful with vitamin D though. That is one of the very very few vitamins that you can actually take too much of because it's fat soluble, not water soluble, so excessive vitamin D will build up in your fat cells rather than just getting peed out. It's called vitamin D toxicity (VDT) and it can have some unpleasant neurological effects among other things.
So it's probably a good idea to get your levels checked anyways just to make sure you're taking the right amount if you need it.
Funny, every primary care provider in my country recommends you take Vitamin D, usually pretty huge amounts
Could be because we get barely any sunshine between like October and February. I'm talking 6 hour days, and even those mostly cloudy.
I take vitamin D about 5 months out of the year. Stupid fall back daylight saving time is part of it. Makes me furious my already battered mental health has to get worse from changing the clocks.
Hi-resolution audio, especially for streaming. The general idea is that listening to digital audio files that have a greater bit depth and sample rate than CD (24-bit/192Khz vs 16-bit/44.1 KHz) translates to better-sounding audio, but in practice that isn't the case.
For a detailed breakdown as to why, there's a great explanation here. But in summary, the format for CDs was so chosen because it covers enough depth and range to cover the full spectrum of human hearing.
So while "hi-res" audio does contain a lot more information (which, incidentally, means it uses up significantly more data/storage space and costs more money), our ears aren't capable of hearing it in the first place. Certain people may try to argue otherwise based on their own subjective experience, but to that I say "the placebo effect is a helluva drug."
Up to a certain point, yes. >192k AAC / OGG / Opus sounds just as good as FLAC in a blind test, though. Even with good equipment.
Yeah, I'm thinking of circa 2000 MP3s. 128k was the good stuff and lower was still common.
Back when a 4 minute song was like 1.5MB so you could fit more music on your 256MB mp3 player because you could not afford an iPod.
Oh yeah. 128k rips from back then were rough. MP3 has gotten somewhat better since then, to be fair. V0/V1 VBR is still perfectly fine to listen to; it's just not as efficient as the newer codecs.
which, incidentally, means they use up significantly more data/storage space and cost more money
All of this is very true, but this is the only issue I really disagree with here.
I am in an era where a good quality rip of a movie can be almost 50 gigabytes by itself. That means for every terabyte of storage, I can store just 20 of movies of this size.
Don't even get my started on television series and how big those can balloon to with the same kind of encoding.
An entire collection of FLACs, thousands of albums worth, is still less than 500 gigabytes total, in other words half a terabyte. (My personal collection anyway)
I mean, the average size of one of my FLAC albums is around 200-300 megabytes. Even with the larger "hi-res" FLAC files you're still not getting as obscenely big as movie and television files.
Sure, it takes up more space than an MP3 or a FLAC properly encoded to CD standards (my preferred choice, for the reasons outlined above), but realistically, the amount of space it takes up compared to those is negligible when compared to other types of media.
Storage and energy to operate storage has become incredibly cheap, especially when you're dealing with smaller files like this.
This is true, especially if you are storing files locally. However, even compared to "CD quality" FLAC, a 24/192 album is still going to be around three times larger (around 1GB per album) to download. If everyone switched over to streaming hi-res audio tomorrow, there would be a noticeable jump in worldwide Internet traffic.
I'm personally not ok with the idea of bandwidth usage jumping up over 3x (and even more compared to lossy streaming) for no discernable benefit.
I’m personally not ok with the idea of bandwidth usage jumping tenfold for no discernable benefit.
An extremely reasonable position to take! Because even if the increase in energy usage is negligible locally, when widespread, those small chunks of energy use add up into a much larger chunk of energy use. Especially when including transferring that over an endless number of networks.
I always talk about this in regards to automobiles and manual roll-up/down windows versus automatic windows. Sure, it's an extremely small amount of energy to use for automatic windows on a car, but when you add up the energy used on every cars automatic windows through the life of each and every car with automatic windows and suddenly it's no longer a small number. Very wasteful, imho.
50GB for the simple dual layer discs. You can theoretically reach 100GB with triple layer disks. The largest BDRip I have is 90GB for the Super Mario Bros. Movie.
Edit: UHD Blu-ray only supports dual and triple layer disks, not quad. Quad layer discs do exist though, with up to 128GB of capacity.
I've always kinda wondered about this. I'm not an audio guy and really can't tell the difference between most of the standards. That said, I definitely remember tons and tons 'experts' telling me that no one can tell the difference between 720p and 1080p TV at typical distance to your couch. And I absolutely could and many of the people I know could. I can also tell the difference between 1080 and 4k, at the same distances.
So I'm curious if there's just a natural variance in an individual's ability to hear and audiophiles just have a better than average range that does exceed CD quality?
Similar to this, I can tell the difference between 30fps and 60fps, but not 60 to 120, yet some people swear they can. Which I believe, I just know that I can't. Seems like these guidelines are probably more averages, rather than hard biological limits.
It's a fair question. Human hearing ability is a spectrum like anything else, however when it comes to discerning the difference in audio quality, the vast, vast majority of people cannot reliably tell the difference between high-bitrate lossy and lossless when they do a double blinded test. And that includes audiophiles with equipment worth thousands of dollars.
Of that tiny minority who can consistently distinguish between the two, they generally can only tell by listening very closely for the very particular characteristics of the encoder format, which takes a highly trained ear and a lot of practice.
The blind aspect is important because side-by-side comparisons (be they different audio formats, or 60fps vs 120fps video) are highly unreliable because people will generally subconsciously prefer the one they know is supposed to be better.
I think this is the case where certain people simply can't see it here the difference.
I collect video game and movie soundtracks and the main difference I can hear between a 320kbps VS a FLAC that's in the 1000kbps range is not straight up "clarity" in the sense that something like an instrument is "clearer" but rather the spacing and the ability to discern the difference where instruments come from is much better in a Hi-Res file with some decent wired headphones (my pair is $200). All this likey doesn't matter much though when most users stream via Spotify which sounds worse than my 320kbps locally and people are using Bluetooth headphones at lower bitrates since they don't have better codec compatibility like aptX and LDAC.
i think hi res is for professional work. If you're going to process, modify, mix, distort the audio in a studio, you probably want the higher bit depth or rate to start with, in case you amplify or distort something and end up with an unintended artefact that is human audible. But the output sound can be down rated back to human levels before final broadcast.
O couse if a marketing person finds out there is a such a thing as "professional quality". . . See also "military spec", "aerospace grade"
There are two main factors that are important for screen resolution - screen size and view distance. If you have a small TV and watch it from a regular viewing distance, it's pretty unlikely that you could tell the difference between 720p and 1080p, but if you have a large TV and you sit relatively close then the difference will be obvious.
Similarly for audio - if you listen to sound with good quality headphones then you can hear it better, and there's definitely a factor of frequency response that some humans have better than others, but that's not really a big factor. Even if you have great hearing and you can hear frequencies as high as 22khz (which is extremely rare), then it's not like you'll get a lot of extra pleasure out of music just because you can hear a couple extra extremely high pitch sounds which others can't. And even if you can hear 22khz, then CD audio can still replicate that. I don't believe that anyone has ever been able to hear 48KHz, let alone 96KHz.
There are people who can tell the difference between 128kbps MP3 and CD audio, but I do not believe there is anyone who can tell the difference between CD audio and 192KHz hi-res audio.
(BTW, you should probably be able to tell the difference between 60Hz and 120Hz on a computer from using the menues and moving windows around, etc. - if you can't, it's likely that your computer isn't configured correctly. Just to let you know!)
It's for all the pets at homes hearing the same audio, now with original insects and birds outside and mice in the walls.
True. There's something to be said for pleasuring any passing bats who might be in the vicinity.
A lot of it will depend on your output device; cheap headphones will wreck audio quality.
I remember the bad old days when .mp3 files for streaming were often 128kbps (or less!); I could absolutely hear audio artifacts on those, and it got significantly worse with lower bitrates. 320kbps though seems to be both fairly small, and I can't personally tell the difference between that and any lossless formats.
Right you are, but don't start telling everyone so I can't silently download my lossless albums from Tidal, Deezer and Qobuz anymore.
Blue light filter on glasses. When I got my glasses, the lady said they come with blue light filter for free, and I said, “I don’t want that, my job requires that I see colors accurately, so I can’t have any sort of color filter.” She said don’t worry, it doesn’t filter any colors. Ok, then what the fuck is it exactly?
I have a couple from the hip actually, because America has grifting baked into it's soul. In no particular order:
As more of these come to me, I'll try to expand the list.
Update: I can't believe I forgot chiros! They turned themselves into a religion at one point to try to dodge medical licensure laws.
I would say that a lot of stuff being peddled through tiktok and Instagram are scams. Those anti-5g dongles come to mind.
Anti-5g dongles? That's new for me, but I consume a lot of these grifts secondhand through a few podcasts I listen to. I might be behind.
Sounds like the bones of a good scam are there though, assuming the anti-5G conspiracy still gets traction and clicks.
Edit: Do you know if someone like bigclive got one? He takes those sorts of devices apart a lot to explain them and I'd love to see what's inside. I just don't want to pay the money for one to fund the grift.
There is a good few videos on them, it has died down significantly since the whole 5g panic went away. Some of them were just some clear USB keys, some were just stickers. Mr. Whosetheboss did a video on them.
Idk about prevagen but my opthomologist definitely said any generic of preservation is very good, and artificial tears with flax seed oil will definitely relieve dry, itchy "sandy eye" feel. Idk if he really believes that or not but I thought I'd give some drops a try. Last time I tried artificial tears, it burned like soap so I hope it's not a waste of money.
Oh I looked it up, there may (study funded by the industry) be a basis for that. Medical News Today
Any product peddled by a megachurch (see the Baker bucket for a great example)
Some megachurches have sold freeze-dried prepper food. It's not a grift per se, because it's perfectly edible freeze dried food, but it's overpriced for what you're getting.
You're right, but I was thinking of the buckets that are basically terrible quality slop that's borderline inedible.
I might still call it a grift because they're asking for payment as "donations" to skirt paying taxes on them. That, and like you said, it's not a great value for what you get. Maybe not pure snake oil, but there's definitely still enough dishonesty involved imo that I'd be comfortable calling it a grift.
Anti virus software. To protect your computer let's constantly run this software with root privileges!
I remember mcAffee webadvisor came preinstalled with a crappy asus vivobook i got when i was younger, i could not delete it, i had to manually remove the files from the programfiles folder but it reinstalled itself every time it updated, the laptop bricked itself recently anyway so it doesn't matter.
Shampoo and conditioner with vitamins in it.
Your hair is dead. It can't metabolize anything.
I don't know anything about how it works, but I assumed it was absorbed by the skin on your head not the actual hair.
I still doubt that putting vitamin whatever on your head everyday will actually make a difference
Yeah but you gotta remember "vitamins" is just a dumbed down term to refer to fats and compounds. It's not actually like food or anything nourishing for the hair. Like a lot of haircare stuff has vitamin e in it, which is supposed to help protect hair from hot blow drying damage and also make it shiny. A lot of the stuff is also moisturizers for your scalp.
PH numbers in any hair washing/conditioning product that gets rinsed out.
You end up with the PH of the water, people.
Vitamin and mineral supplements. You only need supplementation if you have a specific deficiency, and deficiencies are not extremely common. Most people who take supplements do not need them and are just peeing out all the extra vitamins they're putting in their bodies.
If you think you have a deficiency, explain why to a doctor. A blood test to know for sure is simple. A doctor will know what kind of supplementation would best serve you, and there may be an underlying reason that can be treated to fix it. Also eat some god damn vegetables you fat little piggy
Vitamins yeah that's no good.
Things like fruit, honey, or flowers must be good though right?
I mean, my wife's honey pomegranate and hybiscus body scrub must be amazing with all that fruity yummy stuff.
Any "quick fix/all-in-one" fitness or nutrition solutions. While there are minute optimizations for elite athletes, 99.99% of the population can adhere to the general consensus of nutrition and health science.
I'm speaking from experience, because I have fallen for stuff over the years that promised fast results and optimal methods with minimal effort. Fact is, unless you're training for the Olympics or you have very specific heath conditions, those basic bullet points will cover the vast majority if general health and fitness.
If you want to get really strong, you might want protein and creatine supplements to speed up your progress, but even that's not necessary and they only speed things up a little.
I agree with almost everything you said, except I wouldn't advocate for people including stretching as a regular part of exercise. Despite what people tend to think, there isn't really evidence to support broad general benefits of stretching. Obviously, if you are a gymnast or another type of athlete with specific needs for range of motion beyond what is "normal", go for it. It may not hurt, but it is likely a waste of time, and if you are constrained in the amount of time you can spend on exercise, you should spend that time doing things with well established benefits, like weightlifting.
The other thing I want to add on (again cause I agree with what you said) to the diet part is that people probably shouldn't trust products like Athletic Greens to "count" as their daily vegetables, despite their marketing. I haven't been able to find good research on it that wasn't funded by them. Also, just more generally, I'm skeptical of the purported benefits of juice and smoothies. Again, it's hard to find good studies on it, but much of the benefit of fruit and veggies is in the fiber and resulting delayed digestion, so it stands to reason that the processing removes some of the benefit.
one of those all-in-one $2,000+ fancy machines that mounts on your wall.
Actually about $4000 to start, plus the cost of the weight plates, bars (I prefer Ivanko), Iron Grip dumbbell sets, and so on.
In almost all cases, it's cheaper to have a gym membership at a decent hardcore gym.
There are a lot of things you simply can't do with bodyweight alone. And you can't do it with just a couple kettlebells and adjustable dumbbells either. Having a lot of strength and muscle mass when you're young is a very strong predictor of health in old age, since past the age of about 40, people just start losing mass and strength; the more you have before that, the better off you are.
I said $2,000+ to encompass even more expensive machines/setups.
I never said bodyweight or a kettlebell set could provide exercises for every possible movement or strength vector.
I said that the vast majority of people don't need anything more than those to build a healthy level of fitness. And given that the average cost of a gym membership in the US is around $50 per month, after a few months, their used kettle bells or simple dumbell set has already paid for itself.
And weights last basically forever unless they are severely damaged, so zero maintenance cost.
Nothing wrong with going more hardcore if that's your thing, but that's not at all necessary to build a solid base of strength and general fitness.
Definitely this one, the products are sometimes placed right next to legitimate ones and worse:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/marketplace-homeopathic-products-1.6254025
Hidden camera reveals some pharmacists recommend homeopathic products to treat kids' cold and flu
The problem is thinking anything cures the cold or flu. Once you have either, you have it until it runs its course. The only way to cure either would be to completely eliminate them or how they function in the body with medicine that doesn't currently exist.
There are a number of antiviral medicines, some of which work against influenza A and B. I'm pretty sure these are prescription medications in Canada.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
This is a common misconception of the placebo effect. The placebo effect is a measurement issue, not an actual benefit.
Tests are corrupted by using the reposnes and judgement of humans. People will say they had some sort of benefit because of expectations, poor recollection and politeness. It doesn’t mean a benefit was gained. A placebo group allows researchers to quantify how much the placebo effect has on the data they gathered, they can then see if the experiment they did had any effect. Placebo is literally our definition of zero effect.
Anyone telling you placebo is a good thing is wrong, misinformed or deliberately misleading you. In many countries it is illegal for doctors to prescribe ‘placebo treatments’. They will still recommend such things to their patients - not because they work but because they get the patient out the door and less likely to come bother them again.
Anything sold by Gwyneth Paltrow in her online shop, which I will not name here so as not to promote it. In the best case, goods sold there will be harmless and entirely useless. In the worst case, they will cause serious harm.
Cleanses. You don't need a cleanse if you have a liver and kidneys, and if you don't you need dialysis.
Software/game DRM/anticheat (as a service/product) that involves code obfuscation and/or kernel driver.
Not "snakeoil" per say; employers will care about your history of education: but as an aspiring computer engineer currently in CC looking to move to a university, I've learned exactly 0 useful things at community college. Outside of the piece of paper you get at the end, it's all useless busywork, testing how much bullshit you can put up with. Everything useful I've learned in life has been for free, provided kindly by passionate communities. Hopefully this changes in university.
I think the value employers place in modern education in the United States is snakeoil, however.
Full Self-Driving: For sure next year... maybe.
"Artificial Intelligence": CEO's create a copy of themselves in a computer, creating an expert bullshitter program.
Customer Service: Most pre-recorded phone loops are actually built to try to frustrate people into giving up and not getting their issue resolved. Further, they record calls not because they care about your experience, but so they can collate tons of data to further exploit you and their workers. CEOs have purposefully insulated themselves from ever directly having to deal with a customer and hide behind "well we didn't tell employees to break the law!" while demanding employees hit numbers that... aren't... possibe... without... breaking... the... law.
If it's from a corporation and the PR says its to "benefit consumers" it's fucking Snake Oil, by default.
Tesla driver here.
When I first heard the announcement that they were going vision-only, I thought ah shit they're boned.
I replied on maybe a Reddit thread (?) that there was no way it'll work up north in any kind of snowy conditions, and people called me an idiot etc
Fast forward a few years later, when I got to experience it first hand. Anytime I drive the car at night, warnings pop up on the screen like "front left camera is blocked or blinded" Cue Surprised Pikachu. In the snow, sometimes it can't even detect a road.
I tried the free trial of FSD and, while it's a neat gimmick, I think I was able to make maybe one or two short trips (2km) without needing to disengage it.
It was really bad
Full Self-Driving
Any idea that comes out of that prick's mouth is snake oil if we're going to be truthful about it.
I just had the one month trial, it worked pretty well, but it's too tentative. Like supervising a teenage driver.