So coffee doesn't calm people, so then why do stimulants also act oppositely for those people? It's not caffeine.

It isn't stimulating that part of "the nation", it's calming and focusing them.

> Lets stop spreading this BS lie that stimulants calm people with ADHD down.

Most people who follow the science and personal experience probably don't have any reason to follow your command, sorry.

I mean, that's the GOP

For all the sloganeering, Democratic administrations have better fiscal responsibility about deficit spending

It's amazing how Reagan-era propaganda still sticks despite all evidence

So you went from know it "reduces appetite" to make a bunch of conjectures about why it affects other things

> But please, tell me how it's better than finally doing some exercise and eating right.

Because it actually works well?

Good ol' fashioned gumption doesn't work, no matter how crankily and haughtily you say it. GLP-1s do

Also, you don't mention why the things you listed are bad. Any weight loss will require a calorie deficit, which has the same "starvation" you're so aghast at.

Lack of resource adds stress to the body, plain and simple. Exercising without a caloric deficit can build muscle. Weight loss without exercise is all loss no gain while maintaining a stressful state on the body.

And "good ol' fashioned gumption" does work, at least for me. (Sample size: 1)

Define “stress”.

Calorie restriction is demonstrably life-extending in multiple species (that it’s feasible to test it in).

So what?

Are you fantasizing that they'll reduce the price of cars because of this and somehow benefit people?

And they'd have to take the time to redesign. And Democrats will (hopefully) reinstate it in a few years, and carmakers probably recognize that. Along with the threat of legal challenges by environmental groups.

And, further, if we eventually do get these inefficient polluting cars - who's going to want to buy them? They certainly wouldn't be able to sell them in same countries. Seems pointless overall for carmakers, generally.

Just a gift to polluting corporations and billionaires who want profit at our expense.

Bush-era fabrications really worked on some people, I guess

Or is this a hard-to-parse witticism about Iran?

The poster is obviously being sarcastic…

They’re suggesting that threats about Iran attacking US cities serve the same purpose as the propaganda about Iraq harboring WMDs. To gin up the public for war.

> like a road with traffic, cars parked, pedestrians about, weather

Not all of those need to be done "quickly". That's where LLMs fail

You note the weather when you leave. You understand the traffic five minutes ahead. You recognize pedestrians far ahead of time.

Computers can process a lot in fractions of a second. Humans can recognize context over many minutes.

The Waymo may have done better in the fraction of a second, but humans can avoid being in that situation to begin with.

Computers can take all of those things into account as well

Can, but don't.

It doesn't seem like self driving cars take into account the icy conditions of roads for one simple example.

They also seemed to basically do it for two weeks and then stop because the rats "aged out" - despite it supposedly working well and achieving concrete results.

I know rats aren't long-lived, but I would be interested to know how they determined the rats 'aged out'.

Could also be a complete failure they spent considerable effort in with zero results, and are hand waving and constructing a way to quit while claiming success.

I could see the rats not really connecting things and just puttering around. It's a pretty involved setup and I poor uptake on the part of the rats would be a steep disappointment.

It summarizes the point of the article using the words of people interviewed.

How do you judge it as "clickbait"?

I don’t. My comment makes it clear that I consider editorial oversight to be the most likely culprit.

As for the “why”: as an in-context quote it’s fine; out of context - as an article heading - there’s a high chance that the reader will understand it literally and be shocked by it. As pointed out in the other comments. A heading that is misleadingly designed to shock is the definition of clickbait. If, as I said, it was intentional.

...it was pretty obvious. Did you assume it was literally dipped in human blood before export or something?

I'm curious how the metaphor is so far from one's mind when reading.

It took me a minute to figure out if they were talking about a biosafety problem or a labour safety problem. Maybe that’s just me.

I mean it certainly evoked The Jungle to me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle