The symptom of what? Bad genes? Because plenty of people have genetically high cholesterol that doesn’t do anything for you besides cause you to have a high risk of cardiovascular disease later in life from years of elevated cholesterol.
> Somehow that trait was evolutionary helpful (groupwise, not necessarily for a single being)?
There’s plenty of people that have degenerative diseases with no perceivable benefit that are “evolutionary” favored due to genetics just working out that way. What does Huntington’s disease provide? Its a dominant gene, doesn’t typically effect people until they’re 30 or 40 past their prime child years.
> In general just lowering _any_ cholesterol without understanding _all_ the cons and pros won't cut it.
Pros: it significantly decreases long term of risk of cardiovascular disease later in life
Cons: the medications have to be taken daily forever, I guess.
This is just an argument from nature. If you have very high cholesterol, there’s no good reason to not lower it to sub-problematic levels.
Overall populations don't have flawed genes... Before jumping on statins and such it's important fixing underlying cause and even then try to get actual data my having imagine to get soft plaque.. not cacb score which is only relevant in later stages
High cholesterol could be from high glucose/insulin damaging arteries
Or could also be from weight loss
Simplest fixes are
- eat low carb
- don't eat all day intermittent fasting
- walk after eating to lower spike
- eat olives which protects lining of veins and arteries
- avoid seed oils
- pick antiinflammatory foods and supplements
- take l-arginine and similar supplements, sunlight, green veggies, no mouth wash, exercise to increase nitrogen oxide production... Breath through nose as well
- exercise to increase good cholesterol
- sleep well and keep cortisol low (stress)
Cholesterol is needed for hormones, brain, everything... I believe statin are linked to Alzheimer
Mine are due to be replaced, and I’ll definitely keep my eye on this. But, if that wasn’t the case, I wouldn’t be running to replace windows before end of life.
You’re not wrong to say we have to be careful about considering sources, but I think you’re being down-voted because this smacks of the “both sides are the same framing” which some people use to sound objective while ignoring the significant truth gradient between the two parties. The charts in that article are consistent with mainstream economic consensus and all cite authoritative sources so it doesn’t seem like this concern is relevant here.
I’m doing “well” by most standards, and I won’t insult others by denying that. But it’s definitely more of a slog and it’s impacted our spending choices.
I simply can’t justify restaurant spending right now, for example. No way I’m buying a new car with 7% interest rates.
And there was major hubris from the makers. They were arguing that because it was all totally above board Apple wouldn’t be able to block the service without impairing iMessage entirely.
What do you mean by above board? What they claimed is that there is no way of telling Beeper Mini clients from an old iPhone, therefore Apple wouldn't be able to block one without blocking the other.
Clearly Apple managed to find a way, and who knows if there will be some more cat and mouse happening here. In theory though, I don't see why it wouldn't be possible to have a service that's indistinguishable from an old iPhone.
Newer devices can use device attestation, but old iPhones don't have secure enclave.
Blood flow is the most likely explanation there. The simple act of activating those muscles forces blood flow, which can often be restricted in a healing area. Same reason we apply warmth to an area and encourage light massage.
A lot of “injuries” we have can be fixed with exercise.
This is why a lot of what PT’s do is teach you simple exercises to work ALL of your muscles, including those that might not get activated in our day to day existence, leading to problems.
Lawyer here. Not legal advice. Really not that much by way of law to consider. If everyone agrees that an E-signature is good, then, generally speaking, an e-signature is good. I’d suggest it’s more on the people actually drafting the documents being signed than the software layer facilitating.
Lawyer here as well, but from Europe. Here the same is true, unless the government is involved.
Documents from/to any agency, including anything that has any tax relevance, - generally speaking (there are many caveats) - shall be signed with services compliant with the e-signature standards provided by Regulation 2014/910/EU (in short: PADES, CADES, XADES).
Out of curiosity: is there a similar requirement in terms of e-signature in the US when documents need to be sent to some agency, such as the IRS?
Not a lawyer, but I know the position in the UK is pretty simple and much the same.
The purpose of someone like Docusign is to provide a trusted third party to provide evidence.
For most purposes GPG signed email (or anything else with a similar signature) would work perfectly well provided you could prove who the keys belong to. In fact it would be better than DOcusign who can (from the few documents I have signed) ultimately only really show they sent an email with a signing link to your email address.
The last one from them has a warning:
"Do Not Share This Email This e-mail contains a secure link to DocuSign. Please do not share this e-mail, link or access code with others."
Not a lawyer but I do deal with contracts under English law day in day out for my day job.
Docusign always saves the IP addresses and timestamps for any signatures. In addition it can be set up to require 2FA prior to accepting a signature - eg our lawyers will set it up to require an SMS 2FA confirmation and I've heard them say that this is a hard requirement for deeds as opposed to simple contracts (tho whether that's down to law firm policy, Docusign policy or court precedent I don't know).
True. Even if one party from the signers dont trust e-sign, it wont work. But the number of people thinking an E-signature is good is only increasing day by day.
The backlash is funny. USPS does the same thing for mail forwarding to verify identity and legitimacy. It’s not like this is some crazy money-making idea from Elon.
> It’s not like this is some crazy money-making idea from Elon.
It's going to give him real name, street address, and zip/postal code for these users; for a company that makes most of its money off ads, that's absolutely money-making.
I remember having to send a euro for a service (can't remember which, only that I was building my rack at the time, but it might have been for a car pooling service), but it was immediately reimbursed upon reception from the service provider.
People need their mail, because they can't things like social security checks without it. It's not clear that anyone really needs Twitter, except for influencers and bot-shops.
