They are making 78% of margin on those chips - I would think that that leaves a lot of bargaining power to TSMC. They would loose much less than Nvidia.
Nvidia may be working with Samsung, but they don't have any alternative for now.
So my understanding is, that TSMC currently has the monopoly on producing Nvidia chips, and Nvidia obviously has the monopoly on selling those chips.
And somehow, Nvidia is extracting 99% of profits from that situation, while TSMC is getting close to nothing. My understanding of game theory is that it should be way closer to an even split.
Could you elaborate on why the prices are defined by AMD margins ? I'm obviously missing something, but can't see what.
The way that could play out is that Nvidia wouldn't buy directly from them, but somebody else purchases cheaper from TSMC and then Nvidia buys from them.
So TSMC would have to increase prices for everyone, but then for some it would be too expensive and so they would lose those customers.
Nvidia engineers work shoulder to shoulder with TSMC to squeeze everything from the architecture even before the fab is build. TSMC makes custom job for their best customers.
For old established process it's possible to send design and get functioning chips without a huge R&D hassle and loss of performance.
The author conflates sugar/honey etc (pure carbs - glucose, fructose) and artificial sweeteners like stevia and erythritol which don't have any effect on your blood glucose and really are completely different. I fully agree with the premise of minimizing sugar consumption but I don't think encouraging people to avoid certain artificial sweeteners like stevia etc is helpful - and in fact it's hurting because certain products with these non blood glucose contributing substitutes help people avoid sugar.
Note that although artificial sweeteners like stevia and erythritol don't raise the blood glucose at all and have GI index of zero or near zero - some artificial sweeteners actually do raise blood glucose, like maltitol etc, and these sweeteners are unfortunately often found in sugar-free candy. You can try a web search for "GI index artificial sweeteners" to see a list of sweeteners that have low GI score.
Something else to keep in mind is that over consumption of very carb heavy products like bread or pasta will have the exact same effect on your blood glucose as just eating sugar.
I can't remember where I read it. But there apparently is a link between something tasting sweet and your bodies insulin response. The study seemed to suggest that our upper intestines have similar cells as our tongue and can actually taste food. The result is that eating sweet tasting things that are not sweet cause a insulin serge, which the body then registers was not needed due to the lack of actual glucose increase. The bodies intenral feedback loop is adjusted for this and over time you end up getting little to no response to eating sweet tasting stuff regardless if it had glucose in it or not.
You also have to step back and ask your self why so many people who avoid sugar but use artificial sweeteners are having problems with diabetes.
That study shows lowering sugar and replacing it with alternatives helps loose weight. My post says using those alternatives cause diabetes in the long run -- nothing about weight loss or weight gain.
> You also have to step back and ask your self why so many people who avoid sugar but use artificial sweeteners are having problems with diabetes.
That is a very weak argument as the products with artificial sweeteners are made for people with diabetes... Nevertheless, a source for the first part of your argument would be very helpful.
Things being made for people never means is also a weak argument. Last I checked artificial sweeteners are not distributed by any medical organization and the recommendation for those with some types of diabetes is to stay away from sugar -- not to use something else -- but stay away. I was really not using that as a proof of anything though, it was more of something to think about as it is known we have a diabetes epidemic on hand despite all of our efforts.
That being said I wish I could find the original paper I read. I have found other studies that suggest the same thing simply by searching for "artificial sweeteners cause insulin resistance". The paper I am referring to seems to go into the why of the subject a bit more than anything I have found. If I had more time -- I don't -- I would look more. Should I ever find it I will try and send it your way although replies might be locked by that time :p
The article is specifically talking about added sugars, and their net effect.
> Big Sugar has paid researchers to conduct misleading — if not false — studies about the health effects of added sweeteners.
The core issue is not the type of sugar, but the nature of it being basically everywhere in packaged foods.
The author also mentions that it's not worth trying to quantify the amount of sugar:
> Don’t agonize over the sugar content of every single thing you eat.
I find the best rule of thumb is to "eat around the outside" -- most American supermarkets push produce, meat, dairy, etc., to the outer walls of the market, and design stores to make you criss-cross the packaged goods aisles in the center. If you focus shopping on fresh foods, you generally will eat better (with a slightly more expensive grocery bill).
When you say "slightly more expensive grocery bill", what are you comparing it to? I find that it's generally cheaper if you buy fresh meat and produce and make meals yourself, whether you compare it to eating at restaurants (a lot more expensive) or prepared/boxed meals in supermarkets (slightly more expensive than the same amount of food in fresh grocery).
I suppose if you compare it to junk food, like eating chips and cookies for subsistence, I can see how fresh meat and produce can be slightly more expensive. (Or you may be considering time it takes to prepare meals from fresh ingredients as an expense?)
In fact, one of my first realizations when I began to cook meals myself, after college, was that eating healthy was surprisingly cheap. You can consistently eat healthy and get all your nutritions for under $5 a meal.
The article mentions getting protein via the forms of bean and rice, eggs, whey protein powder. No wonder you/the author can stay under $2/meal :)
As for myself, I still like to enjoy meat like beef, chicken, pork. Meat is typically the most expensive part of grocery. Even enjoying good quality meat like the ones above, one can easily stay under $5/meal!
You don't have to stay under $2 for every meal as long they average out to that value. It's possible to eat high quality meat while hitting that number - you just can't eat it for every meal.
In general I agree - if you're happy eating just fresh food like meat and veggies I'm happy for you - but I cannot, for practicality reasons. I just tend to keep my processed food very low carb - for some examples: I eat a lot of Quest bars (usually 5g net carbs), Lily's has some great stevia sweetened chocolate (http://lilyssweets.com/), and Fat Snax cookies are amazing (https://fatsnax.com/products/cookies).
I couldn’t read the article, so I will only go off what I imagine the article might say (like pretty much every other nytimes article).
The problem with making food taste more sugary, with or without artificial sweeteners, is that as a society we are growing too accustomed to hyper-stimulating foods. Why can’t people just live with the fact that every food doesn’t need to be loaded with sugar and instead open their palates to the notes that come from natural flavors?
It’s like people want their hair to be blown back every time the fork goes in their mouth.
> instead open their palates to the notes that come from natural flavors
Presumably because people are eating things that, underneath the sugar, are pretty much tasteless.
Consider the American Chinese staple of "sweet and sour pork." What does it taste like, without the sweet and sour sauce? Well... it's deep-fried boiled pork. Would you eat plain deep-fried boiled pork? Even as a side-dish?
If we take away the artificial flavors, a large number of (usually cheaper!) dishes simply cease to exist. Palatable food—especially palatable fast food—would get a lot more expensive. What of the people who work all day, end up too tired to cook, and yet don't end up with enough money for healthy food?
(If the answer is "we don't want those people to be in that situation in the first place", then try solving that problem—if you manage it, I have a feeling it would largely solve America's obesity epidemic as a byproduct.)
5 years ago I went on a diet where the only thing I did was to look at all the ingredients and nutritional values in everything and if they wern't there I didn't buy it (most burger places will supply it if you ask).
It is APPALLING what gets added to everything in order to be just-a-bit-better-tasting than the competition. Your brain doesn't know why brandA is better than brandB. And it's not just sugar, salt and fat are also adjusted.
But you don't NEED those flavors. You have to wean your body off the flavor. Foods have subtle and delicate flavors that get masked by the assault.
You can't hear the sounds of a bird chirping or a trickling stream if you are next to a rock concert.
You're quite right. I have a friend who moved to the US from a small european village. He commented that the food here is very intense -- all of the flavors are exaggerated and nothing tastes real. Too much salt, too much sugar, too much artificial... everything. Even the beef, he said, is intense in its flavor (a consequence of corn fed vs grass-fed cattle?) but ironically, the chicken is quite bland.
It is my own observation that supermarket/farm vegetables are often bland compared to "backyard" varieties. Most people have no idea how flavorful a simple tomato can be until they've had an "ugly" heirloom tomato left on the vine until ripe.
There was an article a few years back in Chemical & Engineering News (C&E News) about food chemistry and how much time and energy, engineering and planning is put into every aspect of processed foods - flavor, texture, dynamics, consistency, etc, etc. Makes sense, from a business perspective. The science of how to design food that makes my brain really really want it. Meanwhile, back to my broccoli.
> on't have any effect on your blood glucose and really are completely different
Source for this? My understanding is that the link between non-caloric artificial sweeteners (NAS) and diabetes is growing increasingly clear. For instance:
First one: an interesting study - but it only applies to mice. Currently we just don't know if this applies to humans.
Second one: I haven't read the whole study but they categorize fruit juice which is chock full of sugar along side artificially sweetened drinks - which is a red flag to me. Also, I don't think people who swap sugary drinks for diet drinks and changes no other aspect of their diet will have a better outcome in regards to type 2 diabetes. It doesn't mean that diet sodas contribute or cause type 2 diabetes.
They’re not all one category; some artificial sweeteners cause an insulin response and some do not. This would make sense as to why it can lead to diabetes; your body is constantly getting signals to release insulin to break down sugar, but then there’s no sugar. Eventually your body “learns” to not produce as much insulin in the presence of all sweeteners, and that’s diabetes in a nutshell.
I’d be interested to see if these studies hold with sweeteners like Stevia that don’t produce an insulin response.
Stevia is not artificial, its an extract from a plant like sugar is from cane or sweet potato. I think its always a good idea to don't encourage people to eat processed stuff, even fructose can have bad side effects, but when eaten the whole plant its not bad, the body process sucrose differently when eating a cane for example.
I think the author is also concerned with the psychology of “all food must be sweet”. I personally found that if I simply replaced sugared food with non-sugar sweeteners, I still ended up eating too much. It wasn’t until I made a conscious effort to cut down on sweetened foods that I started having success.
Under the scientific consensus (as presented in the book reviewed here: http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/04/25/book-review-the-hungry-...), I believe the logic is that "chronic exposure" to the sensory experience of sweetness itself does something to the brain involving the body's leptin set-point.
It's definitely something that needs to be proven experimental to apply to these artificial sweeteners as well (and there's already research saying that e.g. artificial sweeteners don't cause the brain to mask tiredness from exercise in the way real sugar does.)
I second the fact that this is crackpot-level science - you can basically only change the acidity of your urine with dietary modifications - not your blood. Btw changing the PH value of your body thing is endorsed by various charlatans for all kinds of stuff - from curing the flu to cancer.
I'm not really equipped to review, but it does make some interesting points that while the body strongly maintains blood PH of between 7.35 and 7.45 the mechanisms of doing this can cause more stress on other systems in the body depending on your diet. It's also interesting that we used to have pre agriculture a 10:1 rather than a 1:3 K:Na balance.
Anyway, the article is an interesting read - maybe supply some counter evidence that Alkaline diets have zero supporting evidence.
The K:Na balance is very interesting, especially because pre-agriculture societies usually have very low levels of hypertension, and this is probably the cause. Na+ and K+ balance does have something to do with acid-base regulation, because of urinary excretion of HCO3- and H+, but the benefits of a low sodium diet seem to be related to hypertension and not to acid-base regulation.
I haven't read the study, and I don't want to claim that Alkaline diets have zero supporting evidence. I just wanted to argue against the claim that your pH is "too acidic" or "too alkaline" or whatever. Any potential benefits of an alkaline diet are surely independent of the pH variation they induce, because the variation will be close to 0 in any case, if your body's working properly. The stress hypothesis is interesting (I'm not saying it's even remotely correct! only that it's an interesting twist on the crackpot claims I've heard elsewhere), but you'll never be able to gauge how stressed your regulation mechanisms are just by measuring the blood's pH. You'll have to find some upstream biomarker that measures "stress" directly.
My very cursory analysis, after skimming the article follows. First, the article in general is quite misleading. It's written in a language that a layman would understand, but in a way that causes such layman to misunderstand some crucial points. I don't know if this is on purpose, or if the author is just honestly trying to address a complex topic and failing.
- Part 1. Background
> Life on earth depends on appropriate pH levels in and around living organisms and cells.
I take issue with this sentence. This is obviously true, as life must carefully control the concentrations of some substances inside and outside the cell. However, this makes it seem like pH is uniquely special. This is not true: pH is merely a measure of the concentration of hydrogen ions in a solution. If this is meant to address the layman, as it's supposed to, such clarification is important. In fact, I think many of the myths around pH would be better addressed by making the pH concept taboo, and talking instead of "the concentration of H+ ions in solution".
> As a comparison, in the past 100 years with increasing industrialization, the pH of the ocean has dropped from 8.2 to 8.1 because of increasing CO2 deposition.
This is very important for the bisphere as a whole, but useless to understand the impact of pH changes in the body. I don't understand the reason for this section.
> This results in a diet that may induce metabolic acidosis which is mismatched to the genetically determined nutritional requirements
No. This is not true. Such diet may wreck your kidneys due to hypertension, and the kidney damage will give you metabolic acidosis. The diet itself will not give you metabolic acidosis, as long as your lungs and kidneys are fine. This is written in a very misleading way.
> With aging, there is a gradual loss of renal acid-base regulatory function and a resultant increase in diet-induced metabolic acidosis while on the modern diet
Now we're talking. I don' know if this is exactly true, but at least it makes sense.
- Part 2. The Role of pH in Various Cells, Organs, and Membranes
None of the mechanisms described here have anything to do with the systemic blood pH. The author doesn't say it, and he should. This section adds confusion and very little understanding
- 3. Chronic Acidosis and Bone Disease
This section is a little confusing. Many studies, little understanding.
The interesting part is this:
> There is evidence that in healthy humans the increased sodium in the diet can predict the degree of hyperchloremic metabolic acidosis when consuming a net acid producing diet
The study this is taken from has does have some regressions that advance this point, but the correlation is so weak I'm not sure we should take the results at face value.
- 4. Alkaline Diets and Musce
> Conditions such as chronic renal failure that result in chronic metabolic acidosis result in accelerated breakdown in skeletal muscle [40]. Correction of acidosis may preserve muscle mass in conditions where muscle wasting is common such as diabetic ketosis, trauma, sepsis, chronic obstructive lung disease, and renal failure
While you can manipulate the pH f patines with no functioning kidneys by giving them tablets with NaHCO3 (an alkali), you should never, ever extrapolate this to the diet of healthy people. Even in patients with kidney failure, doctors don't try to correct the pH with diet alone.
- 5. Alkaline Supplementation and Growth Hormone
> It has long been known that severe forms of metabolic acidosis in children, such as renal tubular acidosis,
No, no, no... Again, don't extrapolate from serious kidney diseases to healthy subjects.
- 7. Alkalinity and Chemotherapy
Some drugs work better with low pH and some work better with high pH. Again, you won't change the pH with diet, so this is useless to a discussion of Alkaline diet
> It has been suggested that inducing metabolic alkalosis may be useful in enhancing some treatment regimes by using sodium bicarbonate, carbicab, and furosemide
As you can see, even when you cant to induce alkalosis, you sue actual drugs, and not dietary changes (one of these drugs, furosemide, works by manipulation kidney function, it's not merely an alkali concentrate).
The discussion and conclusion say that the evidence is weak for lots of things. The only stroong part is the K/Na ratio. If the Alkali diet does this, then its benefits have nothing to do with blood alkalinization per se.
Anecdotal for sure, but I've been using Bluetooth headphones with my phone for couple of years now. Wouldn't go back. The connection almost never drop and there's no interference. There's no delay because the phone syncs all audio with the bluetooth headphones. I don't see noticable drop in iPhone's battery either. The only annoying thing I've noticed is that sometimes my headphones have run out of battery, but it's not a big deal for me at least.
Awesome! Thank you so much for this :) I've been experimenting with using Echo for home automation (mainly TV/Logitech Harmony related stuff) and this is really, really cool for that. A tangent: Siri on the AppleTV 4th gen was pretty cool until I got Echo - now having to have that remote and press a button seems archaic. Apple and Google will definitely release something similar soon.
Thank you. I experienced the same feelings. It's interesting how eliminating the extra button press makes the technology not 20% more useful, but maybe 10x more useful (IMO).
There are constraints. For example, the Alexa service can't do dictation, so building certain types of applications doesn't make sense.
But, after experiencing the Echo, it's hard to imagine a future without this type of computing - where you speak a sentence and it maps to a function carried out on a server. It's a very natural and fun way to get things done.
Nah. Maker, hacker, geek, sure. But nerd is still nerd. I may well go so far as to say that geek was "introduced" so as to allow people to be interested in computers (or more correctly, web/game design) without being boxed in with "the nerds" in the computer lab.
Or it may be that it is cool to "nerd out" about fashion, sports, or anything not historically associated with the term nerd.
Not only is the computer lab cooler than being into books or playing an instrument these days, but "nerds" themselves are much "cooler" in that they enforce all sort of arbitrary social rules. When I got in to computers it was enough to be interested in technology. It's more the rule than the exception these days to hear "nerds" talk derogatory about things people are interested in that don't make enough money, other highly technical industries or whichever technology isn't "cool" enough.
My girlfriend had that experience with her high school friend group. Nearly all of them went to the same college for Computer Science but she chose Electrical Engineering to study computer hardware. They poked fun of her major and talked down to her for not learning to program until her second semester in college. It wasn't as "cool" as CS to them. She still gets the occasional derogatory remark when she sees them because they chose jobs in SV after college but she went to graduate school.
Not really. "Nerd/geek" have expanded to include basically anyone who enjoys pop culture or has a technical skill--obviously those guys are cool, right? But the original subjects--socially awkward kids who enjoy the wrong things too much--are still left out in the cold.
Ye olde definition implies physically attractive people can't be nerds, and unattractive people can't not be nerds.
That's only useful for making an us vs them label. It's a good thing that anyone can nerd out on Dickens.
I've heard before that it's a question of degree (“prove just how much you like Dickens!”), which is kind of an uncool way to discourage intellectual curiosity. Not everyone was forged in the pale glow of monitors in their parents' basement, some have to work at it later.
Ye olde definition implies physically attractive people can't be nerds, and unattractive people can't not be nerds.
An alternate interpretation is that 'nerd culture' has become an ugly perverted commodity of its former self to the point where the requisite "hot girl" is put in front of eyeballs with no authenticity and offers semi-humorous-because-she-doesn't-quite-get-it-but-still-tries-her-best one liners while simultaneously manifesting this new proto manic pixie dream nerd girl persona-having no real purpose or reason for being there other than to rope in the casual viewer looking for something, anything, anything but another TCP/IP joke.
Physically attractive people can be nerds. Nerds can be physically attractive. But let's not fool ourselves on those tropes that still exist and get trotted out there making everyone look like damn fools: The hot girl who tries to be nerdy with a front as transparent as saran-wrap, and the incapable, slightly awkward-looking but you can't figure out why nerdy guys who pine after her because she totally understood how heavy the ending to Empire Strikes Back was and enjoyed it.
I don't think it's so much attractive in the physically attractive sense as attractive in the sense of taking care of your appearance. Nerd carries the implication that someone is so obsessed with their passion that they neglect other "unnecessary" aspects of life, the most visually obvious being their appearance, hygiene a close second.
Being "attractive" is usually more than just good looks, it takes a lot of time and commitment. Even the most naturally attractive people can be pretty unattractive if they entirely stop caring about their looks. Hell, just keeping long hair looking somewhat presentable takes a few hours a week (as I found out when I decided to grow my hair out back in highschool, didn't expect that). Add in time to go to the gym, buy groceries, cook and eat properly, find/buy well fitting clothes, etc and it adds up. If you're nerd-level passionate about something, that's all time you could be spending on your passion of choice instead.
I think his point was that demonstrating intelligence or interest in an activity bred by education used to be a normal character trait. Now, given the socially normed common denominator of minimal brain exertion, it's considered odd.
It's funny because the people I know of personally that has ended up on the cover of vogue was quite awkward in elementary/high school. Being a head taller and skinnier than everyone else wasn't exactly a recipe for being popular in the '90s.
They may be set up for both but if you probe an inch deeper I suspect you'll find they prefer and drive for one service much more. Which is why it's misleading to suggest that "they all drive for both".
I was in Chicago all last week and I asked this question of my drivers as well. Every driver prefers to drive Lyft because they make more money per ride, but they end up driving Uber most of the time because there's virtually no downtime. They can pick up the next person within close proximity and almost as soon as they've dropped off the last person.
the "cash back" is nice, but I'm more talking about finding the right house (more important I think!)
With redfin you can (and, are required) to do your own discovery: finding the house you think are potential candidates and touring them. Redfin has an associate go with you to the houses you are interested in to show you around/answer questions.
For me, it took about 4 house tours before I figured out the house type I was aiming for. After that, then next 10 or so tours was just trying to find a house that offered the best bang for the buck (based on what I was looking for)
Ultimately, if you have the time available to do this kind of footwork, Redfin offers you "choice" that you won't get from an agent. However if you are time constrained or not willing to put in 40 hours over a few months to find your perfect house, then a traditional agent will be better.
Also keep in mind that I'm in the Seattle area, which is Redfin (and Zillow's) hometown, and as per the original article, maybe in other regions redfin's listings may not be as comprehensive?
Communism != socialism. There's much more socialism in the nordic countries then USA for example but they are wealthy, unrestricted internet AND have great socialized healthcare. As with most things it's about finding the right balance rather then choosing one or the other.
Yes, it is so. No, nordic countries aren't the example for leftists I mentioned.
Actually there's this conjecture that if communist revolution didn't happen in Russia it would now be more like 300 million strong Sweden, not 145 million Nigeria in snow.
