One human brain, about 20W. One GPU, over 500W. And that GPU cannot do everything the brain can do. And you won't be using the same GPU in 20 years, you will have gone through many generations in that time, with all the previous generations going to waste. Get real, Sam.
It's not really different than losing weight by any other method in that respect.
There is always the risk of regaining weight unless you continue to do whatever caused you to lose weight (e.g. restricting calories) to some extent.
I guess a "cure" would be good but since we don't have one having to periodically go back on glp drugs if you gain weight is no different from periodically having to go on a diet if you gain weight.
On the other hand most people tend to naturally gain weight pretty slowly (e.g. a pound a year) so having to go on glp drugs for a period every few years wouldn't even be that bad, especially if they're available in pill form.
It is mixed. It can be a cure for some people. Last time I looked my impression it seemed like about half the people has only moderate rebound or less.
You have a lot of results that look like this, with an average bounce rebound of 2/3s of the loss.
However, detailed analysis usually shows a bimodal distribution, with people who maintain or even lose more, and those that go back or even gain relative to baseline.
Treating the symptoms can be helpful in the long term if symptoms are a contributing cause to the disease. I used to ride my bike 150+ miles a week, but after not being able to do so for a bit due to other reasons I gained some weight. At the level of riding I was doing, an extra 20-30 lb of weight makes riding far less pleasurable, particularly when it comes to going uphill or on dirt paths.
Just finding 10-12 hours in which to exercise every week is challenging on its own. It's much more difficult when the exercise itself becomes harder and less rewarding.
This is the state of Volvo innovation in 2025, a legible font. Geely has not been good for Volvo.
For a giant tablet with no buttons that never belonged on a dashboard. It is common knowledge that buttons are better for drivers. For a company supposedly focused on safety, they make their cars more dangerous for drivers by installing touchscreens and removing buttons.
I'm not sure what the takeaway is here? If I read that correctly, they only found one study and just reported their results? Is that because there are literally no studies on this worldwide? I find that very hard to believe.
A systematic review like this can be helpful, in that it identifies where there are gaps in the literature, and prevents hype - if some studies show evidence of effect, and others do not, even if there are only a few published studies then we know somthing new about the totality of the literature on the subject.
That said, this particular systematic review has a couple of issues (e.g. I can't find the precise inclusion / exclusion criteria, nor can I find that it has been pre-registered on Prospero or another database).
I have written a few systematic reviews where there is very little data already availabe, and we use them to explain to funders why we need to do further research on a given topic.
I know there's value to recording the selection process and all that but it's a little funny to have a review that ends up only including one study: at that point just give me a link, not a paper.
reply