> For example, over 8 weeks of resistance training in young men, creatine supplementation resulted in a faster increase in satellite cell number, myonuclei per muscle fiber, and muscle fiber size.
The question was asked whether creatine increases muscle nuclei or just water volume, and I provided a study (well, a meta-study which is referring to a specific study) which showed that creatine supplementation increased the muscle nuclei compared to no supplementation. The specific study referred to is titled "Creatine supplementation augments the increase in satellite cell and myonuclei number in human skeletal muscle induced by strength training"
the interesting claim about the study in the OP is that creatine increases muscle mass in non-trained/sedentary individuals. i haven't seen that claim previously (backed by a study) and took the question from user "15155" to be about that specifically. the claim that it increases muscle mass when combined with resistance training seems to be long-settled though
good question, and DXA won't tell you the answer there (they used DXA in the study) So not an especially convincing study in that case, since creatine leads to increased water retention.
Automated kill chains and domestic surveillance are happening regardless of what one corporation wants. These technologies will never be inaccessible to the government or government contractors who already have zero issues navigating red tape.
The point of regulation is to kill competitors and prevent private individuals from having unfettered access.
Jamming them is easy, replaying them so as to trick unacquainted receivers is easy, but "faking" a network of signals so as to precisely control present a specific location is not easy or feasible.
"Overpowering" (as to jam) inherently means detectable, these signals are arriving below the noise floor anyway. And if you aren't overpowering, the original signals will leak through. Also, depending on the sophistication of the receiver, your ability to present an implausibly different location may not exist at all (AGPS.)
Yes, a motivated actor can move a naive receiver somewhere different than where it thinks it is by some small amount - ideally outside of the CEP of whatever weapons system is targeting, but that's much different than precisely controlling the location to be somewhere else arbitrarily.
Yes, it's called expert epistemology, it's the basis of your entire life. Or do you do your own safety checks of every airplane you get on? Do you do your own research rather than trusting doctors? Do you think climate change doesn't exist because the reason we think it exists is because experts say it does, despite the fact that it snows sometimes?
A valid appeal to authority is normally accompanied by a specific expert's name or working group rather than some abstract "scientists." Also, these appeals to authority normally cite an expert in a field that has an existence exceeding 3 years.
Saying people spent "their lives" on fledgling technology is intellectually dishonest.. Are these "scientists" 22 years old? I'm sure you'll snipe back: "ALICE!!!" I couldn't care less about these completely irrelevant approaches.
The other issue is the venue these appeals are being made in. The people who work on this technology are actually here, commenting. This is like walking into a medical symposium and citing "doctors say" as if it were a valid way to shut down discussion amongst the people who wrote the textbooks.
It is a fact that among experts there is no consensus on saying '(super)intelligence is broadly safe and easy to control'. There might even be a consensus forming on the opposite claim.
Regardless, why would there be no scientific consensus if the question was easy and clear cut? I think the easiest reason is that these are hard questions to answer.
> it's not necessarily legal to use information to dox if that can be construed as harassment.
This is an incorrect understanding of the issue, these individuals are protected using a unique and unusual statute. In a mass broadcast scenario, without identifying their profession in context, there's arguably no crime here. There's certainly no crime to broadcast that you've seen their license plates with no association with their names (the statute doesn't cover that.)
> Even if you crowd sourced the identification of somebody involved in a potentially criminal act, you can only share that with the police and not the wider public.
What are you talking about? This is most certainly legally false in the United States. If you are incorrect about someone you might be found against for libel, but there's no crime here. This is basic First Amendment activity. Have you never watched the news or read a newspaper? Allegations are part and parcel.
These are also entirely the wrong analogies. Both of these are highly individualized scenarios that are not akin to Flock. "Public Flock" is more like a public traffic cam that anyone can view, and these already exist without issue.
I'm trying to distinguish the collection of information from the use. Collection is legal - however there is no point to collecting it if you can't actually use it for anything.
I'm well aware of these cases (and have commented about the specific statute in question in the past here.) The originally-purported analogy of a "public Flock" that you can "actually use" is completely different than what the statute protects. "Hey! Look! Here's an ICE agent's home address" is a lot different than "here's a list of vehicles who traveled down this street on a given date and time."
To preface: this statute is very arguably prior restraint and unconstitutional, which is likely why you only see those cases (non-affluent, non-connected defendants.) Furthermore, you'll notice that it requires "intent to threaten, intimidate, or incite the commission of a crime of violence."
I hate to get specific into this one very questionable statute, but no general/broad restrictions exist with regards to disseminating the video data or license plate information contained within. License plate data doesn't fall into the statute's definition of "restricted personal information," and the operator of a hypothetical service that doesn't single out these "protected" individuals amongst the rest of the population cannot be possibly construed as having malicious intent. This is an extremely unusual statute, few others like it exist.
A "public Flock" would let any interested party query the entire database of observed license plates. Collection isn't individualized to any one person, use and intent resides with the individual consuming the service.
The original posters premise was the way to make government dragnet surveillance banned was to do a public one. In general it's a good principle however I'm not sure in this case.
I can see how a public flock, which is just a queryable database, would be ok under the current rules. But would it make the government want to regulate? They could just continue to go after data use where legal asymmetry already exists.
You could frame almost any use as some sort of stalking/harassment.
Even in this case if they shut it down, government carve outs would apply.
What's even crazier is that those brokers typically won't sell to members of the general public; there exists basically no reasonable ability to obtain most case law in most states.
LLMs have been making so many mistakes that the big firms have slowed or even paused their LLM spend. And that was before CA passed a law relating legal AI use.
reply