sieveoferos

This is not great reporting by the BBC. Most grievously, as others have mentioned, they don't mention the dosages this guy was taking.

The important point to grasp behind all this concern over "supplements" is that there's no such thing as a supplement. Everything that's not a food is a drug. If something is not part of a human diet somewhere - i.e. if it's been extracted and refined significantly - then it's a drug. (Does that mean you regulate supplements? No, because then you end up in ridiculous situations like banning high doses of water-soluble B vitamins. Banning certain brands and formulations is sometimes appropriate.)

Drugs have a dose-response curve, a median lethal dose, and all the rest. People taking "supplements" (taking them seriously, beyond taking a common-or-garden multivitamin you can pick up anywhere) should be aware of this and understand the risks.

"Natural" doesn't mean safe. Polio is natural.

Not all sets of genetics tolerate all "supplements" at recommended dosages.

In vitro is not in vivo.

Animal studies are not human studies.

I got into nutrition and supplementation through bodybuilding, and within that community the knowledge that things you put in your body can hurt you, do your homework is fairly widespread and well passed-on. Unfortunately that perspective hasn't really permeated broader fitness culture.

I think the attitude of "have this problem, take this pill" (without regard for risks or better options) is mostly at fault here. I'd argue corporate pharmaceutical companies have some culpability here - "ask your doctor if X is right for you" - or don't, and just bloody do some cardio or something.

This article is only interesting if you still conflate "green tea" with "natural" and "natural" with "safe".

That's a pretty good idea IMO. Give cops the same as Google's 20% time, to help with things that bug them (which probably also help the communities they're serving in).

"Arch Villain or Arch Agent?"

http://journal-neo.org/2015/06/12/paul-calder-le-roux-arch-v...

I agree there's a legitimate question about the legal basis for the FBI's request. But assume rational behavior on the part of the FBI here: if they had a more solid legal basis for the request, why wouldn't they use it? The fact they didn't provide one implies the key issue in the debate is the extent to which private companies should legally have to provide help for investigations (bear in mind the FBI is fairly budget-constrained). I actually find it difficult to see a lot of malice in the FBI's actions. They've forced a "public" debate (really just within the tech industry, but I think that's the useful definition of "public" for this issue). I think it's disingenuous to complain about national security letters, then turn around and whip the FBI for bringing an issue more into the public consciousness. (I think they've taken advantage of the San Bernardino shootings to force the debate, but that's exactly how you force a debate.) Finally - I see the FBI's behavior as a sign of progress. This isn't the bad old days of Skipjack and NSA backdoors in Official Windows - times have changed, the tech has changed (and improved), but I see the government's behavior on the whole trending toward being more democratic, not less.

I believe you, but cite please

I agree with the general sentiment of "don't get rid of things only because they make certain jobs more difficult" - but I don't think the FBI is arguing for getting rid of encryption. I think they want to be able to break security surrounding encryption sometimes and under certain circumstances.

I actually wouldn't bet on that. As much as I dislike the FBI based on previous behaviour, I'm happy Comey is running it now, because he seems to have a fair amount of personal integrity. I wouldn't rule it out completely that on a matter this politically charged and visible he does some homework himself, and HN would be one of the first places to start.

I'm still hoping for something like the "calculus of statement" described in Heinlein's "Blowups Happen." I think that a plurality of axiomatic approaches and formalisms is always better - consider the dialogue between those advocating a change to category-theoretic axioms for modern math and those that want to retain the set-theoretic ones. The debate is very productive.

So I think the world needs more thinkers-from-scratch. Shinichi Mochizuki is one such, regarding his work on the "abc conjecture." But his case makes obvious one other reason there's not more from-scratch unconventional thought: it often requires Von Neumann-level intellect to pull off.