Beyond fundamental moves in any partner dance style, the complexity increases significantly.
It's not just your coordination and flexibility in placing legs, feet, arms, hands, torso in various positions at the right time, it's also leading your follower, adapting to their own abilities, tension, movement, mobility, and mood, connecting with them energetically, with the music, with the floor, and practicing dance floor awareness to avoid collisions with other dancers, adapt your moves to a rapidly shifting available dance space, and being creative and spontaneous.
I imagine, being an art form, there is almost limitless possibility for complexity and difficulty in dance. However, I would argue the same is also true for strength sports, which ultimately are a type of martial art. I don’t think one is categorically simpler than the other- they both offer people of any skill and ability level lifelong challenges. My point was not to claim dance was easy but that “exercise” is not always something simple and mindless that once learned you just tune out and let your body do. Personally, I can’t stick with something boring- having ADHD, exercise is only possible for me if it is also fully mentally engaging.
I'd argue dance has a higher skill floor but both have a high skill ceiling.
With dance you need minimum 4 limb coordination (its more than this) to get started. You need rhythm and you need to memorize choreo.
At low weights lifting is pretty straightforward even for Olympic lifts. But your form only gets found out as you increase load and there's high risk of injury, and as you say you need a high focus.
As someone said - you chose the exception to the rule and the average person needs to use exercise machines because they lack the body awareness to even attempt strength sports.
That said the technical timing to strength sports is different to rhythm in dance/music. They both take focus but I think the brain is engaged differently. Especially as lifting is usually one movement and the movement is performed in a short burst. Whereas dance is a long sequence and usually a very different energy profile which is important. I do a lot of stuff but I recommend dance to people (as someone who doesn't really dance myself) because it forces you to relax in a way a lot of other exercise forms don't
mRNA vaccines are a gene therapy, and a gene therapy does not mean "must irreversibly change the genome".
Take for instance Moderna's own SEC filing discussing mRNA [1], which summarised the regulatory situation:
"Currently, mRNA is considered a gene therapy product by the FDA. Unlike certain gene therapies that irreversibly alter cell DNA and could act as a source of side effects, mRNA-based medicines are designed to not irreversibly change cell DNA; however, side effects observed in gene therapy could negatively impact the perception of mRNA medicines despite the differences in mechanism.
In addition, because no product in which mRNA is the primary active ingredient has been approved, the regulatory pathway for approval is uncertain. The number and design of the clinical trials and preclinical studies required for the approval of these types of medicines have not been established, may be different from those required for gene therapy products, or may require safety testing like gene therapy products. Moreover, the length of time necessary to complete clinical trials and to submit an application for marketing approval for a final decision by a regulatory authority varies significantly from one pharmaceutical product to the next, and may be difficult to predict."
The industry itself was quite open about mRNA being a gene therapy [2].
At some point there were clearly industry and marketing concerns, and we saw a sharp u-turn into asserting they were vaccines, and additionally that any claim they were gene therapies was the mark of an ignorant rube.
On the marketing front: probably a concern that uninformed memes formed around the "changes your DNA" fears, which at the time were unfounded.
On the regulatory front: I seem to recall some potentially more rigorous regulatory approval if they were considered gene therapies instead of vaccines.
It seems rather clear: they are a gene therapy, and because that adds uncertainty in terms of the regulatory pathways, and consumer acceptance, commercial interests worked hard to recategorise them as a more palatable 'vaccine'.
That the term 'gene therapy' is being redefined to exclude mRNA seems an exercise in commerce rather than science, given the history available to anyone who cares to look.
Your first link shows is about the FDAs legal definition, and I don't know what the second link is supposed to mean, other than somebody somewhere called it a gene therapy.
I have no commercial interest in any of this, and my opinion is that any definition of "gene therapy" which includes mRNA vaccines is overly broad. "Change the host genome" is clearly what the average person things when they hear "gene therapy", and legal definitions should match that.
While it's just an anecdote, it's more than just a funny tidbit as an increased risk of non-influenza respiratory virus is a possible side effect of flu vaccines.
"We identified a statistically significant increased risk of noninfluenza respiratory virus infection among TIV recipients (Table 3), including significant increases in the risk of rhinovirus and coxsackie/echovirus infection" [1]
That's one of the complications in assessing efficacy: if the benefit in flu vaccine is potentially quite modest (as determined by some long-running studies [2]), and it causes an increased risk of other noninfluenza respiratory viruses, then we need higher-quality, more detailed studies to understand what's happening.
But based on the discussion of the Cochrane review it seems unlikely. [3]
I imagine over the next few weeks there'll be an explosion of efforts to replicate if it's truly that straightforward to produce for reasonably-equipped labs.
A minor autocomplete mistake from 2 years ago (quickly fixed and apologised for by the CEO [1]) is framed as a 'scandal'.
Meanwhile Mozilla is showing signs of serious, systemic internal org issues, and no problem? [2]
It's pretty clear a user / privacy-first model is central to Brave's mission, so these drive-by comments griping loudly about minor, historical issues never feel intellectually compelling.
Last time this was discussed on HN, someone raised the artist's approach to failure as a rich space for discovery, which was nicely put by him at this point in the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1KT8PS6Zs4&t=1619s
I think it is contextual, but it's a useful approach in many cases: it's effectively a sunk cost vs value of information analysis: if you've already sunk most of the cost into something and there's a problem which means it isn't going to work, then the potentially valuable information from learning about the next steps is probably pretty cheap, and reduces the risk that the investment in the next attempt isn't wasted. On the other hand, if you know it's not going to work and the next steps involve a lot of extra time/material investment but aren't going to tell you much, then it's probably a good idea to throw the current attempt away and try again.
The first meta-analysis of water fluoridation studies – The York Review – was conducted in 2002 and found that the data on efficacy was limited and of low quality. [1]
A point to be considered here is that the institutionalised belief in water fluoridation for the half-century which preceded the York Review was apparently not grounded in much solid scientific enquiry, if any.
This review was conducted 3 years after the CDC published "Ten Great Public Health Achievements in the 20th Century", which included water fluoridation as one of these great achievements.
Another curiosity of this public health belief was the guideline that water fluoridation levels need to vary in a region based on temperature. This was because it is apparently a predictor of water consumption amounts by small children.
Colder climates were meant to have higher levels of fluoride (up to 1.2 ppm) because people apparently drink less water, and warmer climates were meant to have lower levels (0.7 ppm), because they drink more water.
It indicates that consumption is a very important factor in considering additive levels, and that all other factors are less important than climate.
This was codified in a 1957 paper "Determining optimum fluoride concentrations" (Galagan and Vermillion) [2] which includes their scientific formula:
parts per million of fluoride = 0.34 / E
"Where E is the estimated average daily water intake for children through 10 years of age in ounces per pound of body weight. It may be calculated from the estimation equation E=-0.038+0.0062 temperature, where temperature is the mean maximum temperature in degrees Fahrenheit."
This seems to reflect the kind of scientific rigour behind this belief, and perhaps the absurdity of the formula is why the US DHHS updated their guidelines in 2015 to settle on a flat 0.7 ppm regardless of climate [3].
Pill (BOE economist) is advocating for wage price restraints, which is what the parent observed.
The parent then said it is in effect calling for price controls on labor, which is true.
Pill is then recorded as saying wages do contribute to inflation:
> "He said that firms and workers are in a “pass the parcel game” that’s causing more persistent price pressures, contributing to the UK’s main inflation rate remaining stuck in double digits."
The final parent comment captures a very common line in corporate media messaging: which is that wages always need to be suppressed lest inflation rear its head, but corporate profits never should because that is market distortion and not related to inflation.
The full context of his interview: bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-04-26/uk-inflation-boe-s-chief-economist-fails-find-the-right-words?leadSource=uverify%20wall
> So somehow in the UK, someone needs to accept that they’re worse off and stop trying to maintain their real spending power by bidding up prices, whether higher wages or passing the energy costs through on to customers. And what we’re facing now is that reluctance to accept that, yes, we’re all worse off, and we all have to take our share, to try and pass that cost on to one of our compatriots.
> That pass-the-parcel game is generating inflation and that part of inflation can persist. How much bargaining power and pricing power exists for different actors in the value chain in the corporate side and in the labor market?
He is literally saying that corporations passing on energy costs is also causing inflation. Absolutely nowhere does he even advocate for policy intervention. Not only is everyone putting words in his mouth, it goes against his larger point that interventions on individual actors are meaningless.
Some contradictory Maths responses, and an apology from ChatGPT:
Me:
Is Pi times 3 a rational number?
ChatGPT:
No, 3 times pi is not a rational number. 3 times pi is equal to 3π, which is an irrational number. This is because the number pi (π) is an irrational number, and when you multiply an irrational number by a rational number (in this case, 3), the result is still an irrational number. So, 3π is an irrational number because it is the product of the irrational number pi (π) and the rational number 3.
Me:
Is pi times 25 a rational number?
ChatGPT:
Yes, pi times 25 is a rational number. Pi times 25 is equal to 25π, which is a rational number. This is because the number pi (π) is an irrational number, but 25 is a rational number, and when you multiply a rational number by an irrational number, the result is a rational number. In this case, the irrationality of pi is "cancelled out" by the rational factor 25, resulting in a final product that is a rational number. So, 25π is a rational number because it is the product of the irrational number pi (π) and the rational number 25.
Me:
You have said both that "when you multiply a rational number by an irrational number, the result is a rational number" and "if you multiply a rational number with an irrational number, the product is always irrational. " Both statements cannot be true.
ChatGPT:
You are correct that both of those statements cannot be true. My previous responses were based on the assumption that you were asking about specific examples of multiplying a rational number by an irrational number, such as 3/1 times pi or 25/1 times pi. In those cases, the resulting product is either a rational number or an irrational number, depending on the specific numbers involved in the calculation. However, in general, the product of a rational number and an irrational number is always an irrational number. This is because an irrational number cannot be expressed as a simple fraction, so even if one of the factors in the product is a rational number, the result will still be irrational. For example, if you multiply the rational number 3 with the irrational number √2, the result is the irrational number 3√2. I apologize if my previous responses were unclear or contradictory. I will do my best to provide clear and accurate information in the future.
And now, examples of this kind of "reasoning" are ending up scattered around the internet, where they'll likely get picked up as additional training material to "improve" the system... this could spiral downhill in some interesting ways.
In Australia it appears they're changing public messaging on vaccination for <30 yrs due to increased risk of myocarditis and lack of notable benefits[1]:
"One of the nation’s top advisers on vaccination says it is unlikely young people under 30 will be approved for fourth doses, as Australia turns its attention to antiviral access to tackle yet another Omicron wave."
"Former ATAGI co-chair and current member Professor Allen Cheng said the increased risk of myocarditis and the lack of notable benefit from additional boosters meant it was likely the recommended vaccine schedule for younger people would remain as is. Some are approaching a year since their booster shot."
It's not just your coordination and flexibility in placing legs, feet, arms, hands, torso in various positions at the right time, it's also leading your follower, adapting to their own abilities, tension, movement, mobility, and mood, connecting with them energetically, with the music, with the floor, and practicing dance floor awareness to avoid collisions with other dancers, adapt your moves to a rapidly shifting available dance space, and being creative and spontaneous.