dmschulman

The FDA was already in bad shape as far as inspections go. In 'The Secret Life of Groceries' (published in 2020) I believe the statistic was that the people responsible for keeping our food system safe only have the capacity to inspect around 5% of domestic agricultural and food processing operations nation-wide. That speaks more to the amount and size of agri-business in the United States than the FDA's capacity, but it also doesn't mean great things for the federal government's ability to preemptively intervene in most cases.

DOGE cuts to FDA, HHS, FSIC, FTC, EPA, and more have inevitably made this problem much worse.

My dad was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in December 2019 and thankfully caught wind of it in its early stages due to an eagle-eyed nurse going over some routine blood work and noting his liver numbers were off, he should talk to the doctor.

You can imagine how hard it was to be sick in the early days of COVID, much less have to go to the hospital on a regular basis to receive chemotherapy for hours on end. Our family was lucky that he responded well to treatment at least and we had a few extra years with him before he passed away in late 2023.

Cancer is a terrible thing but pancreatic cancer is especially horrible due to the difficulty in detection when you're in otherwise good health. The fact that intense medical research into retrovirals has yielded something so significant as the RAS-inhibitor is nothing short of miraculous.

The purpose of the ACA was to get more people to sign up for health insurance by creating plans everyone could access regardless of employment status or income. Solving the healthcare crisis in this country from top to bottom is going to take more than an act of Congress.

Also necessary to remember the ACA was only passed because of Democratic support in 2010. Republicans hacked away at the proposal before it became law, kneecapping any real institutional changes it had contained, and have effectively killed it since becoming the majority in the House and Senate in 2024. That bipartisan support piece is required in order for anything meaningful to happen.

There's a multitude of evidence that points to the success of the ACA from a cost perspective (among other things).

Cost of healthcare for individuals is not a good metric to judge by. The ecosystem of hospitals, patients, doctors, insurers, health systems, and the federal government is complex and you're not going to get a clear picture of the overall impact of the ACA by looking as something as simple as cost savings.

One example, hospitals are required to treat patients whether or not they hold insurance. The hospital foots the bill for that care and it's a major reason why hospitals shut down (especially in underserved communities). Getting more people on insurance plans was a direct factor is keeping many struggling hospitals and health systems afloat.

https://www.statnews.com/2019/03/22/affordable-care-act-cont...

https://www.networkforphl.org/news-insights/the-affordable-c...

https://www.cbpp.org/research/health/chart-book-accomplishme...

I just launched my digital media shelf on my personal website, a catalog of my favorite books, movies, records, podcasts, and more. Lots of fun to build despite some false starts and fits:

https://dmschulman.com/shelf/

Funny you should mention this. Benn Jordan, on the heels of his Flock camera research, reverse engineered a non-flock ALRP unit and built his own system using some off the shelf parts, a tablet, and 3D printer. He did it mostly as an experiment but also due to the fact that Flock's algorithm for image detection is astoundingly bad and has a high incident of reading plates incorrectly.

There are a handful of open-source models for license plate detection, I forget exactly which model outperformed the rest, but it was an excellent watch and help me really understand just how inefficient these commercial systems are and how easy they can be to defeat: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pp9MwZkHiMQ

Have we colonized Mars yet? Asking for a friend.

I read this as "why are they going after a soldier who made $30k when they could be going after guys who made seven figures off of expertly timed trades on going to war with Iran"

One of the biggest accounts on X hosts one of the most listened to podcasts on Spotify/Apple and has a huge following that's grown exponentially since 2023. He's an active Holocaust denier, proud antisemite, and dined with the president and members of his cabinet on more than one occasion.

To say there's no growing movement towards Nazi and anti-Jewish ideologies is to be willfully ignorant of the world around you.

Your internal organs can't keep up with that kind of mass fluctuation, for one. Keep an eye on your kidneys.

Taking continuing education credits to check a box for retaining professional licensure and educating yourself about emerging and novel concepts in your field are two vastly different things. If anything, CE helps professionals update their knowledge base regarding existing processes and procedures.

Hey now, I'm still reading the booK!

It's been interesting to watch some of Wynn-William's claims be vindicated by recent court decisions about the addictive and manipulative qualities of Meta and Google's products. She left the company in 2017, and along with her many other allegations about Facebook and their executive team, had a good amount of information in the book about the reasoning, rationale, and management decisions that led to allowing advertisers to hyper target "coveted" demographics of tweens and children (among other claims).

Facebook, according to Wynn-Williams, sold advertisers on the fact that they could target young girls who post and then remove selfies from their services in order to market to demographics who were likely experiencing depression and negative feelings about their body image.

Woosh

In addition to all the other answers here, foreign governments would fall over themselves to get this kind of data.

Additionally that kind of public trust only works if you have a government operating under the constraints of a legal framework, and to a lesser extent, an ethical framework. When a government serves the whims of an individual and instead of the function of their office, shirking agreed upon laws, etc, then you no longer have a government serving the people.

Google Glass failed because they made the user look like they were wearing a high tech computer on their face ala Dragon Ball Z. It looked odd. Meta and Snap learned from this, but it had nothing to do with smartphone cameras not being part of daily life.

The first iPhone was 2007. Google Glass came out in 2013

One thing I've noticed is a large difference between what's served on Facebook's desktop site and what's served on their mobile version. I don't use the app, I just log into facebook.com on my phone, but the mobile version is serving 100% more of this AI slop than on desktop.

I think it's obvious why given the way users interact with sites/apps on their devices vs on desktop (they want to make FB mobile as TikTok-like as possible), but it's really striking how much of Facebook on mobile is just a bunch of AI slop at this point. I see some creep in on desktop too, mostly within the Reels/Shorts section (same creators/videos on both platforms, that is), but to see my recommended feed content be so vastly different indicates a lot to me about how the algorithm interprets user behavior and a lot of Meta's thinking about mobile audiences.

EDIT: mind you I don't follow a single topic or favorite anything on the platform, the content being served/recommended to me is purely based (as far as I can tell) on gender/demographic info they know about me and user behavior.

Did they even end up launching and maintaining the project? Did things break and were they able to fix it properly? The amount of front-loaded fondness for this technology without any of the practical execution and follow up really bugs me.

It's like we all fell under the spell of a terminal endlessly printing output as some kind of measurement of progress.

It's part of a multi-pronged approach to intentionally cede US soft power.

To what ends I'm still fuzzy on, but this discontinuation follows a pattern we've seen with this administration knee-capping or outright dismantling many of the ways this country spreads soft power such as through humanitarian services via USAID, broadcasts from Voice of America, ending international research opportunities and divesting us from the WHO, and doing everything possible to turn the US into a pariah in the eyes of NATO, just to name a few big changes.

https://www.dmschulman.com - a mixture of a blog, portfolio, music production info, web experiments, and soon a digital garden

This is Nathanson's recent article (gift link) describing her work and the story that likely triggered the FBI's interest. Her reporting tells the stories of federal workers, she's not involved in any investigative work beyond interviewing current or former civil servants who feel helpless and lost now that the career that gave them purpose is no longer the same: wapo.st/49BQBrh

  One day, a woman wrote to me on Signal, asking me not to respond. She lived alone, she messaged, and planned to die that weekend. Before she did, she wanted at least one person to understand: Trump had unraveled the government, and with it, her life.

  I called William, feeling panic rise like hot liquid in the back of my throat.

  He told me to stay calm. He told me to send the woman a list of crisis resources, starting with the 988 national suicide hotline. He told me to remember that reporters are not trained therapists or counselors, just human beings doing the best we can.

  “You should try to help, but whatever this woman does or doesn’t do, it may happen regardless of anything you say,” William said. “It’s not up to you.”

  I did what he said, then fell asleep refreshing the app, checking for a reply. The next morning, a message appeared below her name: “This person isn’t using Signal.”

It's not healthy in the least, but attempts to help fans understand why it is so are met with resistance due to ingrained biases and skepticism of the establishment.

The pushback against "institutional nutrition" has been a long time coming and is honestly welcomed as health and nutrition science have evolved from the days of telling us to avoid all fat and offering consumers "low calorie" processed foods that didn't do our bodies much good.

In the same way the bacon craze of the 2000s was a successful marketing effort from pork farmers, cattle farmers (and their lobbying groups) are now having a moment with beef and subsequent beef products. Good nutritional science has been pointing to many fats (but not all fats) actually being good for our diet, contrary to those old institutional guidelines, but there's a lot of nuance around adding fats back to a person's diet. Many aren't making the distinction between saturated vs unsaturated fat as well as UDL and LDL cholesterol that ends up in our bloodstream (one of those is not good for us!).

But in an era of memes, misinformation, and context collapse good luck trying to have that more complicated discussion with people when the nutritional aspect is brought up (the book is closed on the flavor debate of course, it's delicious)

When Michelle Obama pushed for better school lunches she was excoriated for trying to get healthier foods into the hands of children. Glenn Beck's response was "Get your damn hands off my fries, lady. If I want to be a fat, fat, fatty and shovel French fries all day long, that is my choice!". Seems partisan spite cuts both ways.

I'm glad to see this announcement and despite the leadership in Washington right now I don't think these adjustment will be seen as too controversial by the American public. The recommendations are based on a lot of good nutritional science that's been out there for years, but the buck seems to stop at the conversation around fat.

They went to great lengths to remove the debate around good fat vs bad fat from this discussion. Even reading the report, emphasis is put on the discussion of why we use so many pressed oils in the food chain, but not why we phased lard and shortening out of the American diet.

"Eat real butter" is ostensibly a recommendation presented at the bottom of the webpage, but butter is not a healthy fat. Same with some people's obsession with frying in beef tallow, but the report doesn't want to dig into this distinction for obvious self interested reasons. They even recommend:

> When cooking with or adding fats to meals, prioritize oils with essential fatty acids, such as olive oil. Other options can include butter or beef tallow.

Which is a good recommendation. But no, you don't want to replace olive oil with butter or beef tallow. There's a lot of good nutrition science to back this up, but the report would prefer to not go there. Maybe "eat some butter" is appropriate, but unless the FDA wants to have an honest conversation around HDL and LDL cholesterol and saturated fats, I don't see this inverted pyramid doing too much good for overall population health (besides raising awareness)

They didn't develop a new font, they improved an existing font that's packaged inside a larger design library used for building government websites. Creating a standard that states, cities, municipalities, townships, etc can utilize for digital services improves access for all.

HN would probably hate it but I've been digging Panic World. They investigate mostly modern media or internet-driven moral panics and discuss how they've led us to our current moment. Lots of 90s/2000s internet deep dives, but I mostly appreciate how well the host connects the dots between cultural/political zeitgeist (of any recent era) with some seemingly minor niche movement or idea seeded years prior.

https://www.garbageday.email/panic-world

People have varying immune responses to getting vaccines, but feeling crummy after getting a flu shot has nothing to do with whether the vaccine used mRNA technology or not.

I would say people who end up bedridden for 3 days are in the minority for most vaccines immune responses, but people also need to make peace with the idea that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

The business model for pharma and drug discovery is unfortunately one that requires a lot of upfront investment for research and trials that may or may not pay off as revenue one day.

The technology they invented is incredibly promising for new vaccines and they should be attracting enough investment (through contracts or other deals) to continue innovating and saving lives. Maybe they can license it as a last ditch effort to build revenue, but unfortunately the public perceptions about vaccine efficacy is on the wane and government contracts are no longer there to support this vital work both in the present and as a hedge against future pandemics.

The incentive many times is to create a scarcity of talent for other tech companies by hiring as many experts as you can. Facebook, Amazon, and many others have been employing this strategy for over a decade, but now that the era of cheap money is over we're seeing a pivot away.

Eh, if this is true then IBM and Intel would still be the kings of the hill. Plenty of companies came from the bottom up out of nothing during the 90s and 2000s to build multi-billion dollar companies that are still dominate the market today. Many of those companies struggled for investment and grew over a long timeframe.

The argument is something like that is not really possible anymore given the absurd upfront investments we're seeing existing AI companies need in order to further their offerings.