It's weird to me how many people treat an agent running as a signal to run another one in parallel, instead of just taking a break and doing something else you enjoy. If "code is compiling" was an excuse to get a break (https://xkcd.com/303/), why isn't "agent thinking"?
my team is reading so many blog posts and learning so many new things. We have a great culture now of discussion around philosophy, engineering management, product strategy, testing, observability, etc at a much higher level than I would have experienced before AI I believe. I think its also partly why we've been successful over other teams that have gone way harder into massive automation with agent swarms, they constantly seem stressed over there taking on massive projects and never delivering
I main Deepseek Flash and the biggest bottleneck often isn't the model itself, its external stuff like compilation, testing things, making requests, running linters
To be fair, recommending it doesn't mean endorsing it, just how people read autobiographies of someone they don't like to understand them better. There's probably a bunch of good lessons to take from reading Mein Kampf, it's just that none of them are "this guy was onto something"
It's arguably better to count how often one is buying the drops and make an estimation of dosage from that. The daily dosage doesn't matter that much, the aggregate dosage is what's going to count, and it doesn't have to be that precise.
edit: the precision comes from getting blood levels measured after supplementation.
Yes, you can track dosage that way, but squirting it into a beverage and then drinking the beverage is a good way to get off-track. What if you are in the habit of not finishing the entire beverage? Or some reaction or poor mixing occurs? It seems if the directions for a liquid medicine say to squirt it into your mouth, then you squirt it directly into your mouth.
But the trouble with supplementing Vitamin D is that you are treating a symptom. A Vitamin D deficiency usually indicates that you need to touch grass, get outdoors, do some exercise. Since the physician and clinic profit by $0 when they recommend those things, they prescribe you a pill instead. Which idea is a better solution?
Okay look, we are still talking about a symptom and not a disorder. Clearly, the subject of TFA is an aberration, being a football player, ostensibly active and exercising and being outdoors on the regular.
But most people diagnosed with deficiency are not doing any of that.
It really doesn't matter if they're making Vitamin D or whether they're being exposed to UV at all. You could be working in a post in Antarctica, and either you're at a desk job where you're sitting all day and not exercising, or you're working in a storeroom and running around outside doing highly physically demanding things and getting proper exercise. The doctor is clearly going to be concerned about the former person, but what are the indicators?
The people with low Vitamin D need to be retested and monitored during bright summer months to see if the deficiency persists. They need to be up-front about their activities and whether they're exercising properly and getting fresh air at all. The point is not the D nor the UV at all, but the D is what the physicians can detect, and the D is what they will prescribe when it goes off the rails, but what people actually, really need is not prescribable, and it doesn't profit anyone anything, and that's the crux of the problem.
Over here Vitamin D often comes in spray bottles that you're meant to just spray in your mouth. It's more convenient for me than a pill because you don't need to open a container or a glass of water, takes 5 seconds.
reply