there is even easier way to estimate the chances of time wasting - it is a "rationalist" website, an "effective altruism"-like version of rationality.

wrt. original post - quickly googled, and that for example https://www.news-medical.net/health/What-are-Amyloid-Plaques... - pretty short and seems to be clear that amyloids do have some correlation while may or may be not the cause.

"Amyloid plaques form one of the two defining features of Alzheimer’s disease, the other being neurofibrillary tangles"

Interesting that the latter is inside the neurons while the former is outside - speaking of complexity. The article also describes that activating microglia back helps with amyloid plaques while this

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33010092/#:~:text=The%20stud...

"The neurofibrillary tangles (NFT) and amyloid-ß plaques (AP) that comprise Alzheimer's disease (AD) neuropathology are associated with neurodegeneration and microglial activation. "

Human body reminds a large monolith codebase - fixing one thing breaks some other :)

Huge codebase with years of fixes, features and hacks added on top and nothing ever refactored.

It’s a miracle it works at all

It is worse. The code changes are mostly random, only surviving the tests of fitness nature is applying (on various levels though; immediately catastrophic changes on level of cell biology are sorted out). And at least the high-level tests are also random and unreliable.

So basically it's a codebase mostly composed of bugs, and the features mysteriously work because they're based on bugs that happen to be mitigated by other bugs. :)

A billion years of kludges.

>there is even easier way to estimate the chances of time wasting - it is a "rationalist" website, an "effective altruism"-like version of rationality.

Is that supposed to be an endorsement or a dismissal? The ostensible goals of "rationality" seem like good things, so it sounds like an endorsement, but in the wake of the FTX/SBF fallout they got a bad rap.

there is a big difference between a theory/idea and espousing the theory/idea as an ideology.

For you, simply listing the author of the post is enough to discard it. Not everyone is that well informed, so it would be helpful for you to add another sentence explaining why this author has no credibility with you.

It is self-evident? What do you mean. The guy is not an expert, end of story

By this logic, we wouldn't have some of the breakthroughs made throughout history. Outsiders have made some pretty interesting leaps (later honed by experts). Expertise is great, but it can exist outside of formal education, and it isn't the only metric.

Might this be a doctor vs. physician assistant situation?

The people who know the most are probably busy and (not to be rude) are not necessarily the strongest educators.

Maybe my standard is too low here or I have a different need than you, would make a different accuracy-accessibility tradeoff…

Many in this thread, who have evidently spent very little time studying the topic, have confidently concluded the experts are wrong.

I, also a non-expert, spent six months studying what the experts are doing, concluded that they actually seem to know what they’re talking about, and shared my understanding of that with other non-experts.

If you’re going to dismiss me for saying the experts are right, since I’m not an expert, then shouldn’t you dismiss those who spent far less time than I to learn about the subject, who are saying the experts are wrong?

DSJ! I remember you from about 2001, when you had made the chatbot VIAL. I can vouch for you being a smartypants 25 years ago, don't know about now.

Ha! You must be using a different username than I knew you by then. Hit me up on one of the many platforms we’re probably both on if you like, would be good to reconnect.

>then shouldn’t you dismiss those who spent far less time than I to learn about the subject, who are saying the experts are wrong

Already have