CharonY

You need to read whole sentences then. Exchemist wrote: Again, it states that it is highly speculative for ME/CFS and the only form that has established uses is the C. difficile example. The issue here is you claim that you have the intention of clarifying things but are effectively muddying the waters essentially because you do not seem to read things properly (neither the posts nor your sources, for that matter).

You are conflating different goals here and have missed exchemist's key point: You then proceeded to provided links that basically state that yes, it works for C. difficile infection (for reasons outlined by exchemist) but completely missed that the part you quoted was in reference to CFS. Before questioning the validity of someone's sources one might want to read ones' own AND put it into context with the provided information.

Moderator NoteThis seems more suitable to the speculations section of this forum. Please note the guidelines for this section.

Yeah, but importantly, how can you hype that and make money fast with it?

I adore pretty much anything with Attenborough and even if the narrative can be weak at times, the wildlife footage is superb. The big issue is that it is is also extremely depressing, especially if you watch wildlife documentaries back in time.

Your endorsement certainly piqued my interest. I have a bit of a pet peeve for terms like "untold stories", "mysteries" and "secrets" in documentaries but maybe it is worth getting the blurays once it gets out.

I think the evidence is a bit weak, there are associations, but it is unclear if there is functional involvement. There are some data from animal studies but at least from what I have read the effect size an potential mechanistic linkages are weak. While the gut brain axis is a hot topic, there is a risk (as with many other hot topics before) to overstate early findings and to conflate associations with causative linkages. These are complex interactions on multiple levels (development, environment, genetics, immune system etc.) and focussing on one aspect tend to create appealing, but often non-viable models.

Our gut environment also changes with age, and lifestyle. And that in turn influences the gut composition in addition to diet in the mid- to long-term. That is, even a diet change might not be able to fundamentally change the intestinal environment and might lead to a continued shift to unfavorable gut microbiota (though there is also uncertainty regarding the specifics of that).

Here is a fun little study providing evidence for a friendly association between ocelot and opossum. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.70322 Also a NY Times article (gift link): https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/15/science/ocelots-opossums-friends-video.html?unlocked_article_code=1.XE8.rKzr.EcZZx85fiDvm&smid=url-share I think there is a continuing trend in research to be less restrictive in assumptions about the range and capabilities of animal behaviour, which in the past frequently has led to dismissal of unexplained observations.

Oh yes, there are a lot of unspecific observations (e.g. necrotization of tissues) but figuring out what leads to these phenotypes is often painstaking work and often unfundable. A pity, as it can be quite interesting.

Or some fibrous food residue.

Well the use of AI is frequently done to avoid the arduous task of thinking. If they were able to listen and respond to criticism they likely wouldn't just blindly copy the LLM output in the first place. The best you can hope for is that they enter your criticism into their chat and then paste whatever abomination of a response is generated then. And of course, if the idea is to outsource the thinking and reading part, it is just a consequence that citations are not going to be read, either. The whole approach takes away the joy of discussing and arguing and it simply becomes a bad-faith performance for its own sake. In a broader sense, I am not sure whether this might eventually be the end of online discussion fora. What is the point of it, if over long or short you could have the exact same discussion with a chat bot? It might be a Luddite way of thinking, but it seems to me that the new technologies almost makes it necessary to go back to face-to-face to maintain the human connection.

AFAIK the toxicity mechanism might still be poorly understood. Last time I looked was around 10-15 years back and while there were histotoxicological studies out there, there were still big gaps in figuring out what ultimately killed the ants when exposed to boric acid. I recall that histologically there were dose-dependent morphological changes in the epithelium of the gut, potentially related to intercellular adhesion and restoration. I believe there was some speculation that this also affects water homeostasis. But the main idea is that it somehow disrupts especially the midgut of ants.

I am not sure how accurate it is, but read that while it performed well in benchmarks, it did poorly on a range of tasks, most notably coding and debugging. But then I have no idea how the whole thing works and how citizen data would impact it.

Well, what are the chances that things might be dependent on whether the operation is a in a red or blue state/county? Meanwhile, the acting director of ICE claims that they don't even need probable cause to arrest folks. https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5396985-trump-homan-immigration-detainments/

Well, probably the least surprising development in recent times.

Oh I see. At least in the agriculture sector it seems that most developments in that area a still smaller startups. They are trying to put AI in everything and it might be a market that they may be eyeing, but I am not sure how profitable it might or might not be. But honestly, that looks like too much long-term planning for techbros.

I am not sure why that would be an issue, they can implement automation regardless of immigrants. They have been quite in favour of H1B visas in the past, though. It does not mean that they won't help enforcing deportation, if they get to make money out of it, though.

I think it is too early to tell. China had multiple slowdowns and even some short-term plateauing pre-COVID, fuelled by aggressive investment into renewables. Part of it was a drive to be a leader in this segment. However, following those dips (I think around 2015ish) there was then an uptick in fossil fuel use due to expansion energy production via coal. It is possible that the recent slowdown could be part of a larger trend, but might as well be reversed if they see a short-term need for fast energy expansion.

Moderator NoteConsidering that arguments are made with AI input predominantly to handwave away arguments it is unlikely that the discussion is going anywhere. Therefore the thread is locked.

I think there are different motivations here at play. There are many companies wanting a disposable workforce with little power, which is often filled by immigrants. They are also less likely to unionize, for example. Right-wing workers OTOH therefore see those guys taking their jobs. I just don't see how deportations has any positive financial impact for the rich. It is much easier to redistribute wealth by getting more tax money to the top. Most from what I read is that the big corporations (as e.g. outlined by recent SEC filings) are rather against deportations for financial reasons, even if they are ideologically aligned.

Yes, but I think they have far more effective ways of redistribution to the top. Especially as they get to make all the rules. I have doubt that the deportations will have any impact on that.

There is certainly a confluence of capitalism, technocracy and politics. Especially as the power has finally accumulated so heavily in the top, that they are now beyond reproach in influencing or controlling politics. At least in the past there was a need to pretend or play coy for fear of some sort of public repercussion. That is clearly gone now. That being said, I don't think that grabbing assets is a part of the plan. These are just peanuts considering what they amass. I rather think that being cruel to those without power is part of the panem et circenses strategy, essentially to rally bigots and stoking fear, hatred and other divisive emotions (which then can be commercialized).

I think we are seeing the development of a new society where facts do not matter as much as emotion, driven by a fractured media landscape that has realized that standards and regulations are not needed anymore and are, in fact, an hindrance to make money. Instead, attention and anger is the new (old?) currency. Add to that the regression of critical thinking skills and we have grift-based system where folks propagandize themselves without the need for centralized efforts.

I will also note that there are some studies showing a beneficial effect, but they were all in the context of a study where use was directed (e.g. in classroom settings). There sometimes benefits are seen, but I think this is a common issue in testing benefit of approaches and technologies for education. These studies are often with selected or self-selected students and because the it is a novelty, almost everything you do (multimedia, AI, exercise, dancing) students get more engaged and perform better (for a while). But after implementation in large scale, the benefits vanish or things get worse. One area where I have seen actual improvement is in underserved regions, provided the infrastructure has at least some level of computerization (e.g. in form of cell phones).