It can't just be low fiber diets - there has to be some other exposures involved.

I mean, there's a well-documented link between colon cancer and inadequate fiber intake.

And it's also well-documented that the average Western diet is highly deficient in fiber and that this is a thing which has gotten much worse in the last 75 years.

There also seems to be at least some light evidence that there may be generational effects - that the starting point of your gut is already bad if your mother's was.

Why?

Apt username from a person suggesting that non edible fiber is the nutrient causing illness and thats the presupposition we should argue against.

Why would more fiber help?

The mechanism behind why more fiber helps is pretty straightforward:

Insoluble fiber speeds up gut motility. Faster gut motility means less time for toxins to sit and absorb in your gut.

Also, fermentable fibers serve as substrate for gut microbes, producing short-chain fatty acids (butyrate is one - a primary fuel source for colonocytes - the cells that line your colon).

It also lowers colonic pH, inhibiting pathogenic bacteria.

Lastly, (although there are tons more benefits I'm not listing), soluble fiber is incredible for people trying to lose weight, as highly fibrous foods increase satiety, keeping you fuller for longer.

Uh, what? I have not made a presuppositional argument (I made no argument at all...). I made a statement about my epistemic state - ie: that I would "bet" on low fiber being the major contributor to colon cancer rates. Someone then asserted that it can't be that, and I asked "why?".

> Why would more fiber help?

Because there is an incredible amount of research into high fiber diets being good for your gut, including reduced colon cancer rates. This is the consensus of various organizations such as WHO - high fiber diets have lower risks of colon cancer.

My comment is that it is not ONLY low fiber diets. There are a lot of other risk factors involved. Will high fiber help - absolutely. Is it the be all end all - no I doubt it.

Western diet collapsed its fiber intake well over 80 years ago - it would have shown up already.

> My comment is that it is not ONLY low fiber diets.

Well, you said "can't" and I asked "why", which feels very reasonable to me. Your argument seems to be that it wouldn't account properly for the data - specifically, you're saying we would have seen colon cancer rates rise earlier.

> Western diet collapsed its fiber intake well over 80 years ago - it would have shown up already.

I don't really buy this for a lot of reasons. Probably the two most important are (a) ability to screen historically and (b) the timing isn't particularly "off" for the fiber argument. We did see it already, we've been seeing increases in color cancer risks for decades.

Now, I'm not married to it "just" being fiber whatsoever, but if I were to "bet" on the major contributing factor, naively, that's where my money would go. I think it's very reasonable to not place your bet there.

Yeah, i wonder what was the fiber i take for someone from egypt or hunter gatherers. I get it that in our modern diet, fiber is better than sugar and plastic stuff made in factories combining oils and sugar into something that looks like food. But if a person is regular and does not have any gut issues, how would more fiber help?

> Yeah, i wonder what was the fiber i take for someone from egypt or hunter gatherers.

Very high.

> But if a person is regular and does not have any gut issues, how would more fiber help?

There is a ton of research about this and it's why WHO and other orgs state explicitly that fiber reduces rates of colon cancer.

99% of humans ate meat, amd fruits occasionally.

Fiber does nothing.

lol this is such utter bullshit? I'm blown away by how confidently stated and how utterly incorrect this is.

1. Ancient egyptians ate fucktons of wheat and barley, lentils, chickpeas, etc. They ate massive amounts of fiber lol I mean holy fuck I just can't believe how wrong you are?

2. Fiber is very, very well understood by ALL health organizations to be preventative for colon cancer.

You shouldn't feed the trolls.

Maybe, but the person they're responding to seemed to be genuine in their question, and I worry that they'll read a statement like "they mostly ate meat" and think it's plausible when it's insanely incorrect.

Should be a betting service for this kind of thing instead of sports betting. Maybe all the men betting sports might read and change their habits based on the betting outcomes (and improve their health).

I would also bet top reason is fiber but it isn't the only reason - multiple factors at play.

I think that's all very fair.

Are you serious? Do you really think thats the reason that this is happening -- that people don't just eat their veggies? Fiber is important but, um, that's a pretty hot take.

I suspect there are other factors at play.

The diet of most people in the US is pretty horrific. Absurd amounts of sugar, little to no vegetables, little fiber, lots of heavily processed foods.

That certainly does not help the situation. Whether it's correlational or causal I'd leave up to people more knowledgeable in the subject.

Right but as I understand the problem of colon cancer its impacting people across the board in good health - not strictly this "core" US consistuency of high fat, high sugar, low fiber, high processed food.

It is also across normal BMI, "healthy" diet and regular exercising population. Thats what's concerning about the uptick.

No health issue is so easily reducible, but the impact of eating a diet of "actual food" and moving around even a little bit daily cannot be overstated.

The odds ratios for nearly all diseases and all-cause mortality shift so far from those two interventions it's almost unbelievable.

We really don't know the reasons well. Food... some kind of bacteria or virus... 5 random things stuck together... it's silly to guess.

I believe the gated feature can be waived though it causes a precarious situation. It ends up with same psychology of a bank run -- people (institutions) concerned because they can't access funds or they think that the queue to exit a failing fund is too long - filled each quarter (i.e. by the time they redeem NAV has collapsed).

> the gated feature can be waived

Or never invoked. It's a safety feature for the fund and, arguably, systemic stability.

Totally - its supposed to prevent a collapse of confidence but at the same time can signal a collapse of confidence. Double edged sword.

There are limited ways to short these positions which would probably add some fuel to the fire.

I don't see it as adding fuel to the fire. I see it as helping the market price companies correctly

Its a balancing act.

Update: original comment should be. 300B/1.2T*(10% of bank funds) = 2.5%. If I'm reading comment correct. Also I believe the whole private credit ecosystem is about 1T.

In a catastrophic scenario: if the whole asset class went to 0 (on the banks asset sheet they would lose 2.5% - absorbable pain assuming its not leveraged through creative financial mechanisms).

I would wager that risk is more concentrated on certain institutions instead of across the board so acute pain likely.

I've been told by the head of compliance of the largest European banking group that 2.5% is exactly the threshold at which they begin to be very worried/ at systemic risk

Apparently they operate on very low level of tolerable risk (way lower than I thought)

>2.5% is likely still survivable, but i think risk departments + regulators are all a lot less risk tolerant after seeing how quickly things went south in 2008 and worries about an out of control spiral

That's only loans to non bank financial institutions.

Total bank balance sheets are about $25T.

And then that 25% is 10% of US banks' entire lending portfolio, so private credit is about 2.5% of their entire portfolio.

Does openclaw have a killer use yet? Ive not opted to use it yet becauase - while very impressive hype and capability - seems like a lot of risk/credits for not an insane gain.

Does any fashion thing always offer a lot of gain? But it's selling well because it's hot fashion, a talking piece, a sign of belonging to a particular social circle, etc. Perplexity caught the moment very reasonably: a fad should be monetized very quickly, because it's often as quick to fizz out.

I guess my question is there any value or is it merely the thing du jour.

Giving non-technical people agents with custom skills, quickly (like literally in under an hour). We've done a couple similar deployments but with some hard guardrails and it's been a hit.

So is that the use case -- getting non-technical people a leg up?

Or, alternatively, there are so many companies that are weak on tech they pay for someone else to guide them.

Having done some work with these F500 companies, this is part of it. These legacy companies have long seen tech as a cost center, haven't invested in it, and are unable to attract talent. And, for whatever reason, these companies insist on working with large consulting firms, when a dedicated software or tech consulting firm that is smaller would be way better.

Ultimately, why would a large company hire a consultancy company that is bad at tech and has a lot of bad processes to do their tech for them? Because the company itself is even worse and doesn't know what good looks like. If you are hiring McKinsey or Deloitte to do your tech, it's because you are completely lost and don't have the slightest clue how to become unlost. And you have no concept of what good looks like.

If you think the actual tech talent and systems are bad, when you work with these consulting firms, they are going to do the most heavy SAFe process you have ever seen. For me, the worst part is not the tech talent, but rather the most by-the-book, heavy-handed agile process possible. Everything moves way slower because of this "agile" rot, and there is almost no concept of doing proper ideation and prototyping work.

These legacy F500 companies try to do everything cheaply with consultants and offshoring, and yet it always ends up costing way more than it would if they just had proper in-house tech talent.

Yeah its more this, the companies who ask Mck's help in software tend to hire contractors or vend out software already.

It feels like the quality of reddit collapsed over the last decade and a lot of the reddit style posting has come over here. Especially the examples above. To be fair both the good and the bad.

The upvoting for political tribalism (whole political spectrum) is so truly mind bogglingly unintelligent and unoriginal. Its just brings the bar down.

Its interesting that you seem to be more concerned that we would potentially enslave human like robots (while arguing sentience) while the likelihood of events is that we are far more likely to be enslaved to/by our own creations.

Id say probability wise we don’t create sentient like behavior for a long time (low probability) much higher is the second circumstance.

I think we wont know until the true costs for ai are revealed. Right now were still in the vc growth above all things part of the cost curve. It will get worse quality as revenue demands increase (as all products suffer).

It will be another dependency for all companies to bear. Hopefully significant gains for humanity, tbd