Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | flexagoon's commentslogin

"Liquids are safe because water exists"

FDA is a money sink. People basically bribe to get their own self tests approved much like the airlines have their own FAA inspectors that approve their own self tests under duress and bribes. It's all a scam and everyone here knows this even if they won't admit it.

Nullify the FDA, FAA and at least half of the other orgs. Give at least half of those budgets to the people. Make aircraft smart enough to evade all obstacles. Make it technically damn near impossible to collide with anything. Make aircraft coordinate themselves. All doable. Force retire all FDA and FAA and give them a balloon, a golden wrist-watch and send them away.

Give people an app to paste in all the things they take or plan to take in terms of foods, supplements, drugs, their allergies. Let the best AI figure out what will happen.


For the first one, I assume you mean a systematic review, not a peer review? I guess you're talking about this one:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10180699/

It has a Mechanism section which explains that when collagen is digested, one of the products of that is Gly-Pro-Hyp, which is what has the effects. I don't think that conflicts anything in this post?


I assume they're referring to the brief bit in the post that indicates that oral ingestion leads to a breakdown that makes oral supplements of amino acids pointless. They say it very briefly and they don't really outright assert it, it's just a sort of implied aside.

Here is the exact quote:

    > You’re not going to be taking these things orally... These mail-order peptides are injectable items.
Every single YouTube video and blog post I have read about peptites is exclusively about injectable supplements.

That's not the exact quote lol you cut out the exact part I was referring to.

> because unless a really substantial amount of engineering has gone into it, any given peptide is going get the same treatment from your digestive system as a chicken breast does, i.e. a complete teardown

> Every single YouTube video and blog post I have read about peptites is exclusively about injectable supplements.

Collagen peptides, ghk-cu, and many other peptide supplements are often taken orally.


> Collagen peptides, ghk-cu, and many other peptide supplements are often taken orally.

And with very rare exceptions, it's as useful as watching someone workout when you want to gain muscle. Every meat we eat is awash in peptides, and to keep our body from getting hijacked by the signaling for, say a chicken, our body has to break down almost all peptides ingested orally.

There are a few exceptions, notably there's one that is produced by our own bile acid, that can be taken orally, and then SNAC, which was developed by Novo Nordisk over thirty years and has extremely limited capabilities and is fully patented and cannot be made by your fly by night distributers. SNAC achieves a whopping 1% bioavailability of the peptide, and it's ability to work depends on the size of the peptide, specifically the only commercially available use for this is Rybelsus.

Oral peptides are snake oil for the most part.


> And with very rare exceptions, it's as useful as watching someone workout when you want to gain muscle.

Who cares? I never made broad claims about their efficacy, the author did.

> Oral peptides are snake oil for the most part.

The author's claim is not nuanced by "for the most part", that's why I quoted it directly.

Besides, I was merely clarifying what the other poster was likely referring to.


Sweeping statements in biochemistry must be made with caution. It is well known that there are some small peptides that are absorbed following oral administration.

...BPC-157 itself is said to be among this class. As are certain milk tripeptides: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactotripeptides

Interestingly enough, those two, as well as Gly-Pro-Hyp, are proline/hydroxyproline-rich, which might suggest that proline-rich small peptides are resistant to degradation in the gut.

Anyway, in general oral proteins and peptides are broken down prior to systemic absorption, but not always...


> It is well known that there are some small peptides that are absorbed following oral administration. ...BPC-157 itself is said to be among this class

Do you know of any studies that suggest BPC-157 absorption from gut?


https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jor.21107

Among others. If you read the paper, it's actually apparent that there's little difference between i.p. and oral administration in terms of efficacy -- both were roughly equally effective in improving MCL ligament healing.

Admittedly the paper's in rats -- as are 99% of the others -- as there's no incentive for anybody to run human trials.


You should note that your study is not controlled.

There are two groups, those with oral administration those with sub-q administration. There is not group without administration.

This means you can't say that oral vs injected is "equally effective" because you can't assert that BPC 157 is effective at all. You can't tease out the effect size because you don't know if any or all of the MCL ligament healing was done via normal pathways


You just read the abstract and didn't read the full paper.

There were control groups.

> Methods:

> [administration] as follows: (i) BPC 157 10 mg or 10 ng/kg or saline 5.0 ml/kg (controls), intraperitoneally, or (ii) BPC 157 in neutral cream (1.0 mg dissolved in distilled water/g commercial neutral cream) or commercial neutral cream (controls), as a thin layer, locally, at the site of injury, administered once daily with the first application 30 min after surgery and the final application 24 h before sacrifice; (iii) BPC 157 0.16 mg/ml or nothing (controls) in the drinking water (12 ml/day/rat) until sacrifice.

There was a big difference vs. the control groups.


> This means you can't say that oral vs injected is "equally effective" because you can't assert that BPC 157 is effective at all

Is that true? It seems that you can say that they were equally effective without quantifying an effect. It could be the case that both are equal in that neither has an effect, which this would validate. Then you can just point to other studies to claim effectiveness of injected.


I'm in agreement. It's the article that made the sweeping statement.

Not OC, but I tried OpenCode with Gemini, Claude and Kimi, and all of them were completely unable to solve any non-trivial problems which are not easily solved with some existing algorithm.

I understand how people use those tools if all they do is build CRUD endpoints and UIs for those endpoints (which is admittedly what most programmers probably do for their job). But for anything that requires any sort of problem solving skills, I don't understand how people use them. I feel like I live in a completely different world from some of the people who push agentic coding.


Idk, at least in Apple's case it all refers to a voice assistant and some of the features integrated with it.

If they were like MS, they would add Siri into everything and then call it "Siri Cloud", "Siri Messages", etc (if they were even more like MS, iMessage would be "Siri 365 Communication Suite")


It also refers to various "smart" suggestions that have nothing to do with the voice assistant: https://support.apple.com/guide/iphone/turn-siri-suggestions...

Nowadays Apple would brand such features as "Apple Intelligence", but since they already existed long before, they are "Siri".

Though I agree that it's not quite as badly ubiquitous as Copilot.


These are all non talky talky: Siri Suggestions, Siri Knowledge (Safari / Spotlight Intelligence), Siri Shortcuts (Automation, not voice), Siri Intelligence (On-device ML features), Siri Widget/Watch face… you get the idea. There was a time when “Siri” was the catch all for Smart/ML.

> (if they were even more like MS, iMessage would be "Siri 365 Communication Suite")

Siri 365 Communication Suite .NET Enterprise Edition With Copilot


Thanks for the stroke. Where do I send the hospital bill?

In Microsoft's case it refers to an LLM system with some features integrated.

In what way is Linux kernel "developed in the US"?

Most Linux kernel development is done by people affiliated with US companies, often by employees on company time. Linus moved to the US a long time ago, and the Linux Foundation is based in the US.

Invoices have strict requirements and having the model accidentally hallucinate and make an incorrect invoice could put you in legal trouble. Besides, why would you pay for tokens instead of using a free tool?

"Richest 0.1%" is not some ultra wealthy billionaire class. Making $90k/year in the US already puts you in the 0.1% of richest people worldwide by income. I assume a fair share of the audience here makes this much.

https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/how-rich-am-i

Don't know what the data is for net worth, but given that the vast majority of people worldwide barely live paycheck to paycheck, I assume even a small amount of savings puts you in a very high percentile.


The license also says:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

If the copyright attribution for the original code is missing, that violates the license. MIT is not a "no rights reserved" license like 0BSD or Unlicense.


Yes, so it explicitly requires source attribution

> Finding a specific file by name across the system

> Linux: find / -name "config.txt"

This is not how you find a file across the entire system, you use plocate for that. find would take ages to do what plocate does instantly


Yes and no, with `find` I know I'm getting "live" results from the filesystem, whereas plocate (and s/locate) merely searches through a database updated god knows when, assuming it's even installed and the bulk of the files indexed.

No. "Slower" is not the same as "different functionality".

In fact, "find" is guaranteed to be more correct. And more widely available.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: