Absolutely - in some cases you'll see the major sins addressed, and there's a small mountain of lesser issues waiting to be uncovered.

Maybe it's just me, but someone deciding to physically sand things without my consent would get a stern eye from me. Unless it's well into the "no brainer" kind of decision. (eg: the railing didn't have a finish on it, etc).

I’ve just had the displeasure of interviewing a batch of candidates over zoom. ALL of them were cheating with AI in realtime.

If you have so little scruples, I can imagine you wouldn’t think twice about doing that with an assignment.

I absolutely would not, and I’m concerned that my conviction on that is going to make me unemployable in the near future.

I’m simply not built for the “puzzle based memory trial in front of a live firing squad”. It will not measure my ability.

"The issue would be that LLMs seem to not improve senior devs productivity" - that's the opposite of what they said. And the opposite of my experience.

"Rules for thee but not for me" - isn't that beyond obvious now? The folks running things simply do not play by the rules you or I do (assuming you do).

That is true. Then again if you can’t even provide a reference you’re unable to jump a very low bar.

We’re inundated with fake applicants. References are more than mandatory now. But not enough, the whole system is broken.

Also you come off like a reactionary ahole.

Enough to make it a non-started at the organizations that pay their bills. Everyone else isn't big enough to matter.

Going to be an interesting world where big enterprises have to spend 100X the cost for the same value of AI as startups and small businesses.

I think they call that inflation :).

What I'm getting from all this is that we have an armchair expert explaining details about something they're not an expert in, and we have you reviewing the way they present this information, saying their very weak hedge wasn't strongly negative enough. Based on priors about the industry.

Basically, HN doing HN things - having a good deep think about topics outside their realm of expertise, then debating the minutiae. I'd just rather trust someone who has spent their career researching this stuff, thanks (unless that's what you do - in which case please tell us more).

"HN doing HN things" over someone saying "good discussion, however, one point about the conclusion" and having that point be very rational and still open to debate.

Is discussing such secondary but still highly relevant aspects verboten? Must every comment here be by a lead researcher in the specific field? Would a biomedical science researcher necessarily have any more expertise on these important secondary aspects?

"Trust me, I'm a scientitian". No thanks.

They're not saying "one point" about the conclusion, they're saying that their statement isn't nearly confident enough, and that they would prefer that they say with strong confidence that there is unequivocally NO positive effect on cognition.

It is a hell of a thing for a random person on an internet forum to be so unilateral, without providing some kind of strong evidence (aside from statements about "the industry", which is kind of beside the point). I would also suggest if you want to be so unequivocal, that the burden of proof is especially high for you.

This "point" isn't actually all that rational - it's knee jerk skepticism. It's a fine default for yourself, but it's not something you get to force on others because they admit there's room for the potential of benefit.

Again: You're perfectly fine to hold that opinion yourself, but when you start trying to force that on others - you now have an especially high bar to reach, and yes - being a lead researcher in the field is exactly what I'm looking for when someone says "X has been proven to not have a benefit for Y".

"Trust me, I'm a scientitian" - Not sure the point of that juvenile wordplay, but Ok: we do have these things called scientists, some are good, some are terrible. You still need to back up your statements - that's the key part, this isn't a blind appeal to authority. And it's a hell of a lot better than "Trust me, I'm a nerd with very strong beliefs about a topic I know very little about".

The top of HN threads is generally nitpicking minutiae which are more likely technically correct than not but also highly irrelevant. It's done by non-experts and drowns out any more valuable discussion.

It'll be people arguing about exact language not being someone's preferred level, or overloading the importance and exact definition of a technical term that experts don't really care about, or blowing up some edge case or another.

It wasn't a point about exact language in and of itself. It was a point about the conclusion, and how it doesn't account for highly relevant aspects of the publication record and industry. This was not "a better word would be" or similar. This was "the meaning was wrong, the thinking was wrong, and here's why".

Exactly my point. You are making an essentially meaningless distinction in attempts to "correct" what I said to be more precise in a way that does not matter at all with regards to what I was trying to say.

My understanding from this exchange is that for you, large distinctions of meaning and reason are reducible and accurately described as meaningless language nitpicks, but regardless, you dress up the last post as if it's the opposite, so I will not respond further.

It was certainly the case that gym bros thought you had to cycle it. But you're right that this was never necessary.

"poses no danger to your hair" I keep hearing folks say this, and even in this thread there's someone who's experienced that and had it stop when they eliminated creatine. I too have experienced exactly that with exactly the stopping of issues once I stopped taking creatine.

Perhaps you can say "danger to your hair is rare", but there's very clearly (to me at least) an effect there, and the way it gets hand-waved away is strange to me.

Do you do anything else for hair? Like Minoxidil, Finasteride, or other serums/etc.

Just curious for other folks experiences as they are on or off creatine in parallel with other hair interventions.

I have normal hair, and probably less hair loss than is average for someone my age. I don't use products on it. Aside from this issue, it's been clear sailing the whole time.