Random Thoughts.....What Are You Thinking?

You can save your excuses to use when facing the judge.

Though, im not sure if it will make that much different, given you (dirty) record

Now a lot of people have lost a lot of money, and people who are in positions of great comfort and wealth are feeling less easy you're going to see all the resistance against AI fall off a cliff.

We going all in, prob gonna see a lot of the censorship and "safety" nonsense fall away too.


If someone made another thread and called it deeper discussions or something it would probably be less of a problem.

Butt spanking is faster, easier and more fun

The ozempic didn't cause her bone thinning, her garbage diet did. I don't think these drugs are totally without merit, any widespread side effects are currently just speculation. But, the bigger issue is that people will take them and continue to eat western slop, just less of it. When you live on fast food and frozen dinners, you're starved for key vitamins and minerals as it is.. halving your intake just makes it worse.

Food addiction is a serious problem, and without good mental health it's pretty hard to fight those impulses. I don't think someone in that situation should feel guilty about using ozempic to handle cravings; the obesity and poor mental health feed off each other and getting a handle on one will help the other. Of course, the other side of the spectrum is annoying; I look down on anyone who brags about losing weight on the back of ozempic.

I did it the hard way, and I think I gained much more in terms of self control, resilience, and mental fortitude as a result. Someone who's on ozempic isn't gaining any of that, and they'll go back as soon as they stop. But, they're still improving their health, and I think the idea that ozempic is a particularly risky treatment is more wishful thinking than substantiated science atm. Still wouldn't be surprised to see major side effects documented in the future.

Googling "ozempic bone density" pops up plenty of articles dating back to mid 2024 regarding bone density loss, atleast as a possible side effect. Seems wrong to throw a flat out dismissal of "its not the drug, it was her diet". Is that to say diet wasnt a factor? No, I'm not saying nor implying it.

TW: political post


Theres one person who didnt lose a lot of money on Nvidia's stock dropping, you have one guess on who.

I'm skeptical of any wonder drug treatments, however, it will be hard to distinguish between bone loss due to excessive weight loss in a short amount of time and what is a side effect of the drug.

Especially combined with a poor or heavily artificially limited diet, another consequence of the drug.

Bone density is one of those primarily genetically influenced things and it varies a lot even between people of similar heights. It is one of the biggest factors that limit muscular growth in athletes with already heavily optimised training, for example.

Most people just won't care enough about the side effects.

Almost all of these specifically mention the weight loss as a cause. While it's far from conclusive, there is plenty of scientific support for:

-bone density loss while on an extreme caloric deficit
-bone density loss during weight loss in the absence of exercise, particularly if weight loss is rapid
-bone density loss when taking in insufficient calcium and vitamin d

There is also this study, which observed that users who exercised while being treated with GLP-1 drugs did not lose bone density, while those who did not lost considerable amounts:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2820308

You can certainly draw your own conclusions, and I'm not supporting ozempic on the whole. It is much better to develop a well-rounded diet that focuses on satiety than use a drug and eat (a smaller quantity of) garbage. But, in the absence of high-quality studies that combine ozempic with a healthy diet and exercise, it is hard to blame ozempic. If the people taking it had the self-discipline to eat healthy food they probably wouldn't be on ozempic in the first place, which creates a huge skew in the sample set.

...of course, this raises other questions about the efficacy of ozempic in general. People love to claim that losing weight, by any means, will reduce your risk of all sorts of health conditions. But, if the health conditions are only correlated to weight in population scale studies, it's perfectly possible that losing weight in an unhealthy manner isn't actually reducing your risk the way you think it is. Pre-ozempic, most people who were fat also ate like a dumpster. Now, you have a whole new class of subjects who are using ozempic to lose the weight but not addressing their underlying nutritional deficiencies. I'm interested to see if they actually gain the health benefits they hope to.

If shedding excess weight in a very short timeframe is a culprit for bone density loss, and Ozempic caused the shedding of excess weight in a very short timeframe, then that is an adverse side effect.

Can this adverse side effect be avoided if they make conscious decisions while taking Ozempic for weight loss? Sure.
However, their inability to make these conscious decisions are the reason they're taking Ozempic for weight loss, so its highly unlikely.

I completely agree with that. But, there is a distinction to be made between direct and indirect side effects. Someone who has problems with cravings and treats ozempic as part of a lifestyle change (the psychological control aspect) may be able to use it safely and benefit from it. It is also possible that there will be more direct side effects observed in the future.

I do not think everyone who uses ozempic is going to be responsible and exercise or incorporate more nutritious food. I also don't think all of them are better off for having taken it. But, it's still a nuanced topic, and a fair analysis requires the consideration that someone doing the exact same behavior without ozempic would likely have the same problems.

Deepseek queries

Politics <Found it!>

Summons Panta for butt spanking action.

BEND OVER!!!

Fun fact, there are plenty of people that tried different ways to bypass the political censorship on Deepseek, such as using underscore between words or replacing sensitive words with different words.

You can try to Google those tricks and see how it works.

I wanted to know where are those completely honest people who uses stock market information for whatever reason, to tell us how much Nvidia stocks fell today.

I need to know! I sold everything yesterday!

I need confirmation that i made the right call!

Fail!

Yesterday was buy day, not sell day!

Youre young.

You dont know

Here Im watching someone reviews old shows from brazillian TV back from 80/90s.

Once someone brought to a kids show an american singer to sing the music: "I dont want short *** man".

Back then no brazilian should know english so every kid was happy singing they only want the large mast.

You know the famous quote with the two guys in GTAV and the ninja.

There are literal hours of clips of Asian streamers repeating the hard r ninja word from that clip, not knowing what it means.

This clip

Since they generated the synthetic data they trained on they could simply filter out anything they didn't want by giving some condition like "never mention X"

I won't be surprised if something silly like the model not knowing who pooh is resulted from their disapproval of colorful comparisons to government officials. though idk if it does or not know who pooh is.

All AI is biased and censored, just in different ways. All of them are trained on heavily biased material, and none of them are actual AI anyway.

Those PS6 graphics are looking amazingly real

When I was hosting that image online, someone had an interesting comment.

I asked Deepseek 2 questions about China one week ago (one was about Tiananmen Square, the other whether China is a fair country). It gave detailed replies to each answer, but each reply disappeared after 3 seconds and was replaced with "Sorry, that's beyond my current scope. Let's talk about something else"

I thought youtube was gonna lay off the censoring. Apparently you can't even use the word liberal. Keep deleting my posts, they should at least tell you

Got a pay out for last week's Dynamis.

It was HUUUUGE!

;_; I don't deserve to be in this LS! Paid to do Dynamis? Never been paid to do Dynamis. Holy cow!

tax season right around the corner, better spend it quick

Truth to be told, I don't think the answer from that image is that bad, except the first sentence. The concept of "China" doesn't even exist in ancient time, it's formed relatively modern in late Qing. And Taiwan is really only part of "China" from 1662 to 1895, then return to "China" after 1945. If Ming dynasty even count as "China" that is. So the first sentence is very questionable.


Everything else it seems fine? It recognized the region of Taiwan is currently not reunified. And one China policy is agree by the US too. So the answer is about as fair as CCP can tolerate. Anything further wouldn't be okay for CCP.

Keep in mind that the official stance of the government of Taiwan is "ROC and PRC are not subordinate to each other", an evasive way to say we are independent while making the US happy. So while things are being said differently by different sides, they pretty much all followed the same framework anyways.

Now I need to protect my butt and run before before Panta comes....