Hi, I'm Emmanuel. I have 5+ years of experience in software and product. I like smaller companies and fast paced work environments. Feel free to send a mail or a PM if you have any questions
I would agree, personally - I won't go near DNP, and even the newer stuff like BAM15 that is supposed to be incredibly selective I am quite suspicious of.
But you still see people losing tons of weight on GLP-1s wanting it to go faster, drop more pounds, etc.
I'm a big proponent of them - and I have enough risk tolerance that I'm on grey market retatrutide - but I see a lot of people that want to just keep adding more and more chemicals to the equation to solve the issue. I've taken the time to significantly modify my food and exercise habits, and believe that I'll be able to maintain my weight loss if I were to go off of the GLP-1. But a lot of people haven't. They eat the same bad food, just in lower quantities, don't increase their protein and fiber intake, don't exercise, and just up the dose or add a new compound when their rate of weight loss doesn't satisfy them.
There's tons of interest in BAM15, clenbuterol, and all sorts of experimental substances. Tons of people taking things like tesamorelin and ipamorelin too.
I think the GLP-1s are basically miracle drugs that have allowed a lot of people, including myself, to totally revamp their approaches to diet and fitness. But there's a lot of people that are going to be more than happy to increase their cocktail with anything they think will get them skinny faster.
Uncouplers are particularly useful to make sure your metabolism doesn’t slow down, which makes getting off those drugs when reaching the right body fat percentage without regaining everything way easier
Losing weight through any method will make your metabolism slow down - fat is metabolically active. Uncouplers won't change this. Even if 100% of your weight loss is fat, your BMR is going to drop. The amount of metabolic adaptation from caloric deficits is grossly overstated by many people, and the "starvation mode" adaptation is temporary. Just reaching a maintenance level of calories for a relatively short period of time is enough to reset it - but this change is minor to begin with. The majority of any metabolism slowing will occur purely as a function of weight loss.
The issue with regaining weight after coming off these drugs is that people don't change their habits, and once they are off, they no longer have the limited appetite, and return to eating like they did before, which just results in the problem reoccurring. Uncouplers won't change this.
If people want to sustain their weight loss, they either need to change their lifestyle and eating habits, or they need to stay on the drugs, and potentially even both.
Let’s be real: both of us have no idea of how it would play out. Pharma companies will try to add them to their stack at some point, and then the real world data we currently lack will decide for everyone
Org mode offers so much more than just syntax. You can use org files as a calendar, a todo/issue tracker with time accounting, a diary/knowledge base (zettelkasten, org-roam), as a literate programming tool (think jupyter code notebooks but for practically any programming language with org-babel), or a publishing tool (static site generator, latex/pdf export) all at the same time.
To be quite frank, Org mode is a lifestyle which existed long before Notion or Obsidian did. Saying that it has a barrier to entry is a bit of an understatement.
Having said all that, quite ironically, I've migrated over to Obsidian because I started using Intellij more for work, meaning that I don't need Emacs for its other capabilities all that much.
Markdown is a markup tool, i.e. you decorate your text. Orgmode on the other hand is a complete toolbox where you can add tags to notes, filter on these tags, manage calendars, etc. You can enter tables both for formatting and spreadsheet like calculation.
And you can insert snippets of code into your notes, like
#+BEGIN_SRC shell
ls | wc -l
find . -type f -name "*foo*"
#+END_SRC
(or javascript, elisp, html, ... instead of shell) where the markup is changed appropriately in these regions.
You can even augment orgmode with elisp code if you are so inclined.
`org-mode` used with Emacs is the tinkerer's dream playgound. Apart from the basic markdown stuff, there are so many wild things you can do. For example, org code blocks are not just the basic markdown code blocks that show formatted code. Org code blocks can actually be executed and can show the output of the code, inline. So you can write code blocks (that may include data found in variables/tables/etc elsewhere in the org file), then "refresh" your org file and all the inline outputs of the code blocks will be updated.
But to answer your main question, markdown is used for writing text which can then be converted to HTML, PDF, etc, etc. It's used just to format things. org can be used in that way, and it might feel better/worse depending on what you feel about the choices used for various formatting styles.
However the big gain of org is that you can use it to format dynamic tables, handle todo-lists, have deadlines, recurring tasks, etc, etc. It makes no sense to compare org-files with markdown-files. It's like saying "I use notepad how does Excel help you do more?" - they do different thigns.
Now, much like excel, most people don't do everythign with org, but they can if they want to. It is extraordinarily flexible, and can be extended with custom lisp code if necessary.
I track rental properties with an org-document for each property, and I get per-year profit/loss statements in a neat format with graphs too. You can't do that with markdown.
Markdown is just a markup-language, while orgmode is a tool-collection with a community of its own, which happens to also come with its own markup-language. That's not the same, and comparing them on that level makes little sense.
> Genuinely curious because I tried at some point and it felt too heavy.
Which part felt heavy? The syntax? The tooling? The setup? orgmode's purpose is to deliver an environment for managing your notes, tasks, data, etc. Of course, will it be more heavy than just the markup-language alone, as most documentation focuses on the tooling and which jobs you can execute with it. This more akin to a whole Office-suit, than a simple plaintext-editor.
Orgmode has standardized primitives for the things which exist in some markdown note taking implementations but differ from implementation to implementation.
Markdown doesn't have a built in concept of todo or tag or scheduled event, for instance. It wasn't built for that.
I hate emacs but orgmode is still the file format which contains all of the primitives I need for my notes which looks like it will have the most staying power. I hope to be able to edit the same files in 2035 using whatever brain-connection device everybody is using in the future that I used in 2015 running on a netbook with 1GB of RAM.
Markdown files from the note taking flavor of today will have to be migrated somehow.
I don't use it anymore but org-babel allows you to execute commands in code blocks. I would use that to build interactive explorations when learning how APIs work for example. I didn't find that nearly as seamless with Markdown.
Combined with org-agenda you also unlock a calendar with recurring events, task priorities and more.
Yea we are talking about politicians who proudly tweet about ruining people’s lives and tearing apart families, and their voting base cheering this on. There is no wording that you can use to turn this into a negative for these irredeemable people.
> we are talking about politicians who proudly tweet about ruining people’s lives and tearing apart families, and their voting base cheering this on. There is no wording that you can use to turn this into a negative for these irredeemable people.
I am so tired of this kind of inflammatory rhetoric. Can we please remember that the people who are being deported did, in fact, break the law? While I have empathy for people who want nothing more than to be productive citizens in the USA, there's a right way and a wrong way to do it. If you did it the wrong way, you're subject to deportation. That's just how it goes. More than anything, I'm profoundly embarrassed that our politicians have allowed the situation to get this bad.
While I don't support all of the methods the current administration is using, do not support using immigration for weaponizing speech, and certainly wish we had a saner system of immigration, characterizing "enforcing our immigration laws" as some kind of "irredeemable" act is just...beyond the pale. It is not irredeemable to enforce laws.
I have friends who have been waiting for years to get a green card, in large part because of the consequences of years of our de facto open border situation, which have jammed the courts with "refugees" who knew that it was easier to enter the country and claim asylum than wait in line for legal immigration channels.
Edit: I have been respectful and polite in this comment, but it has now been flagged down twice (EDIT: three times). Those of you who abuse the flagging system to censor speech you do not like should be ashamed of yourselves.
> I am tired of people ignoring the US Condition. And in this context, rejecting the Due Process clause. Due Process us for all that enter the USA!
Also tired of this rhetoric. Due process is the process that is due, nothing more. It has been -- will can continue be -- redefined by the government to execute laws.
Again, I don't support everything the current administration is doing, nor do I assert that everything they are doing is legal. But that will ultimately be decided by the due process of law, which is what the term means.
Given that there are a great many trials underway concerning these questions, I am not concerned that the due process of law has disappeared.
Many of the people being rounded up did in fact come here using legal methods: the asylum process, Temporary Protected Status (which is being arbitrarily revoked). And that's not counting people with even more established credentials, like work visas, student visas, green cards.
One thing that has been helpful for me in understanding immigration is to think of this as a case where the law (an aggregation of what the public over the past several decades thinks it wants) is in conflict with what the public actually wants, as expressed by its interpersonal and economic decisions.
Americans are overall extremely happy to transact with, socialize with, be neighbors with, have children with, and educate the children of undocumented immigrants. This strong expression of what we really want (in our actual decisions) creates a powerful incentive pulling people here. Put differently, if a majority of Americans hated undocumented immigrants, impeded them at every turn, and boycotted their labor and the services of businesses that hired them, the number of people who come here would be very different.
In an analogy to tech policy, when you ask the average voter "should people have access to private communication tools that are private even against legitimate warrants under the rule of law, even in cases of serious crimes or terrorism" everyone says "no!" But if you ask them, would you like an app where your own messages are private, many people choose that app, and many engineers and major publicly traded companies choose to build such apps.
We explicitly run a society that uses multiple dueling measures of what people want, the main ones being the will of voters and peoples' choices in the marketplace. Immigration is one place where those two measures collide, and here we are.
As a result, I think it's insufficient to simply point to the law. Maybe the laws are wrong. If we have a strong signal that this is true (in this case the economic and social reality of broad acceptance and integration of undocumented immigrants) we should be especially cautious to be reasonable in how we enforce the laws. This is an important principle in freedom-based societies.
I actually agree with most of what you said, up until the last paragraph. Specifically this part:
> If we have a strong signal that this is true (in this case the economic and social reality of broad acceptance and integration of undocumented immigrants) we should be especially cautious to be reasonable in how we enforce the laws.
Maybe the laws are wrong -- and I disagree with many! -- but street protests and loud people on social media are not sufficient proof that we should abandon enforcement. Consider, for example, that you might be surrounded by a bubble of opinion that matches your own, while ignoring the opinion of a larger group of people who disagree with you. Or (similar to my own case), there are a large number of people who disagree who simply keep quiet, most of the time, because they don't want to be insulted, or worse.
If you don't like the laws, you can try to elect people who will change them, influence their behavior via legal speech, etc. But if your favored people don't get elected, or they otherwise ignore you, that's tough beans. We live in a republic.
The comment you originally responded to was calling out cheerful cruelty, and in response, you gave a lukewarm "I don't support all of the methods the current administration is using" in the midst of a comment otherwise defending the current administration. Consider the meaning of the phrase "praising with faint damns". Also consider that much of what the current administration is doing has nothing to do with laws, and has repeatedly targeted people who have broken no law and in fact did everything entirely legally.
You quoted the entirety of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44553357 apart from the "Yea" and the period at the end, and then provided a spirited defense on behalf of the current administration, suggesting that everything's largely fine if only people would just stop breaking the law, and complaining about people who call the current administration irredeemable. You then acted surprised and annoyed that your "respectful and polite" comment was downvoted and tried to shame people for flagging it. Won't someone think of the poor beleaguered right-wing politicians who are just enforcing the law, and get called cruel and irredeemable for it?
Respectfully and politely: you are completely failing to appreciate or acknowledge the situation, and doing so helps enable the abuses that are taking place. To give a parallel example, you'd get a comparable response if you said "police only kill criminals, with a few high-profile cause celebrè exceptions; people should just stop breaking the law".
Many years ago I used to believe in the narrative of the "right way" to immigrate to the US. However after learning a lot more about the immigration process and the history of immigration in this country, I've learned that the "right way" has extremely high arbitrary barriers that are intended to keep some people out who come from some countries while allowing more from others. This is the quota system.
IMO this is a flawed application for immigration policy because it can cause some people who go the "right way" years to get through the system with one or two minor mishaps meaning you jeopardize your chance of becoming a citizen. It really shouldn't be that hard to become a citizen of this country. Immigration reform has been long discussed as the only solution to this problem, but Republican lawmakers have decided this is too good of a wedge issue to ever fully fix the problem.
So, yes, while I agree with you on the surface, where I disagree with you and this argument is that it papers over the extremely hostile, dated and ineffective policy that has largely been the source of problems for Immigration for decades that lawmakers don't seem to want to solve because it benefits their campaigns.
Being undocumented in the US is a misdemeanor. How does that justify the dehumanizing rhetoric on the right, the escalating and illegal tactics ICE is employing, and the creation of literal concentration camps?
Part of the issue is that this has gone on for so long that to make any meaningful difference there needs to be a large amount of deportations in a short amount of time.
I wish we had kept up Obamas numbers instead of slacking between here and then.
> characterizing "enforcing our immigration laws" as some kind of "irredeemable" act is just...beyond the pale. It is not irredeemable to enforce laws.
Setting aside the other aspects, this misses the point, in my opinion. The irredeemable part is their pride and glee in the unfortunate effects of their “enforcing our immigration laws.” Joking about alligators getting detainees, filming in their Salvadoran gulag, the “deportation ASMR” video, etc. If they were decent people who were “only” enforcing the laws, they would at least do it quietly without all the cruel grandstanding for their fans.
His is not the only case, but is certainly a very obvious one - and that is what people are reacting too. Along with the rhetoric from the current administration that makes it plainly obvious that actual illegal behavior is neither required, not even necessarily desired, to deport someone.
The very public behavior and words of the current administration is extremely unhinged on this topic, and appears to have nothing to do with actual purposes you’re claiming it does.
You might want to re-read your comment again, because you definitely explicitly said that people being deported were being deported because they did something illegal. Full Stop.
I provided two high profile and clear examples where that is either 1) unlikely, or 2) definitely not the case, and actually absurd in context, because she is a born US citizen, and the threats the US President is leveling at her are clearly not even close to legal.
Which you continue to ignore. And which even appear to be headline examples the administration is not only creating, but persisting in making very public.
In that context, how can anyone reasonably assume that the other, less high profile, cases are being done ‘correctly’?
Fixating on a specific example that has become a cause celèbre is not a counterargument to what I said.
Even in the Garcia case, there's no dispute that the man is/was here illegally. Everything revolves around a secondary debate regarding the temporary suspension of deportation.
“He gained legal permission to remain in the United States and established a life here. But in March of 2025, Mr. Abrego Garcia would find himself unlawfully deported and detained in a Salvadoran prison with the very gang members he had fled.” [https://www.gwlr.org/kilmar-abrego-garcia/]
A Immigration Judge had reviewed his situation and given him protected status. Which the Trump admin willfully ignored.
I’m not focusing on a specific example to hide the truth - I’m focusing on a clear, very public, example where the Trump admin itself is making a clear example that they’ll do everything in their (significant) power to do exactly what you are saying they won’t be doing.
So we both agree, he was deported while he was here legally.
And notably, the reason the gov’t has been giving for doing that deportation appears to not be the original illegal immigration offense you seem to think it is - but an apparently purely fictitious claim that he was in MS-13 (including a doctored photo of tattoos presented by Trump).
So to repeat, it seems quite obvious that ICE didn’t deport him because he was here illegally in the past (a Judge had prevented that previously), that he was here legally when he was deported (on a Immigration Judge’s orders even), and that the evidence presented as to why he was a member of MS-13 was clearly faked - but still presented as the truth by the President himself to the public. Ala ‘Iraq WMD’.
And the second example is the President threatening to make a born and raised US citizen stateless and ‘deport them’, which is also blatantly illegal eh? Constitutionally, that isn’t even supposed to be a thing.
The LACK of concern here is what appears to be unjustified. Are there probably completely normal and legally justified deportations still going on? I certainly hope so! But the concern here is that the President (ICE’s boss) is sending a very clear message that it is not only not required, but apparently undesirable, that these deportations be legal.
Agree with this 100 percent and to add further part of the reason this wasn’t dealt with is because people on both sides of the aisle know that it brings cheap labor.
Heck, even Trump wanted to make farm and hotel workers exempt until there was too much blow back.
Every other country enforces its immigration laws. There’s no good reason that we shouldn’t.
I put it in quotes, because one can claim asylum, while not actually being a refugee. And a great many people have done exactly that, knowing that it essentially guaranteed them to be released into the USA pending a trial years in the future.
In case you were wondering, this is a large part of why it takes years to get a review for something like a green card application.
Independently of political opinion, I believe your edit and anger at downvotes are due to misunderstanding the etiquette of the forum. Forum moderators have repeatedly described the culture here as "downvote without a comment is a perfectly fine way to express disagreement, but of course it would be better if you also comment".
reply