Exercise absolutely helps as it helps regulate blood sugar more effectively. A surprising effect of building muscle and exercising is that your body becomes more insulin sensitive and your blood sugar stabilizes instead of having drastic swings.
April is the start of the second fiscal quarter, so companies had completed Q1 and were doing quarterly earnings reports. The stock market was trending downward all of Q1, so it was probably an attempt to reduce costs to ensure that Q2 would have better numbers for the Q2 earnings reports.
What if the outcome is the competition burns their money on LLM usage for little to no gain? If you're an exec and you jumped into LLMs as well then you also lose any advantage you would have had by saving your money or hiring a few more humans.
Boomers and Gen X are riddled with diseases associated with a sedentary lifestyle and poor nutrition/diet. I would like to think the generations are learning from the mistakes of their predecessors. A lot of science has come out about the benefits of resistance training as well, along with the normalization of women doing resistance training in large part due to CrossFit
I think there might be something here. I believe people flock to bigger, stronger and healthier people as some sort of evolutionary strategy for survival. If we were in a crisis and had to revert to tribes requiring everyone to pitch in to save humanity would you rather have the person who can resist impulses and keep a strict schedule (fit/healthy) or the person who looks like they lay around eating everything in sight. Using looks alone someone may assume the more healthy and fit person would be better to keep in their circle and thus prioritize being in their good graces.
I understand that it's not that simple, and someone's physical ability has nothing to do with intelligence in the real world. Unfortunately we're all subject to making split second judgements when interacting with strangers and as a result people don't think deeply about how that impacts those they deal with (or don't care).
Technically in the USA: It is impolite to begin eating without first washing your hands, rest your elbows on the table, chew with your mouth open, double dip in shared dishes, leave your napkin on the table, and also all sorts of rules about which spoon to use when. None of these rules are followed by your average American and nobody really cares, I imagine it's similar to these.
Imagine everyone who is in less technical or skilled domains.
I can't help but resist this line of thinking as a result. If the end is nigh for us, it's nigh for everyone else too. Imagine the droves of less technical workers in the workforce who will be unseated before software engineers. I don't think it is tenable for every worker in the first world to become replaced by a computer. If an attempt at this were to occur, those smart unemployed people would be a real pain in the ass for the oligarchs.
I think that this way of thinking is a little reductive. Every sport depends on certain intelligence metrics, and the brain is ultimately the operator behind all movement. The intelligence required to read a defense and solve a complex math problem may be different, but being good at either require intelligence.
A professional athlete in team based sports, at any given moment, is parsing a ton of data and responsing with quick reflexes and intuition to their changing environment. For example, quarterbacks in the NFL are reading a defense, parsing coverage, and making split second decisions after the play begins to develop.
A soccer goalkeeper is ensuring precise geometry to stay in an optimal position to make a stop, ensuring they are creating a triangle between the ball and the goalposts to optimize their position relative to the possible shooter.
Ontop of all of the in-game aspects, there is intelligence required to train to optimal levels, and hand waving this away as the coaches responsibility is not based in reality. Professional athletes have to stay very mentally focused in their training off the field to achieve their on the field results.
A lot of people judge professional athletes intelligence based on their communications with reporters and on field interviews, but public speaking ability and intelligence are not necessarily correlated. Your smartest engineer is probably not great at making keynote speeches, and likewise would be particularly terrible if they were making them after exerting extreme effort (like athletes do in post game interviews) or while they are pumped with adrenaline with an elevated heart rate (conditions sideline interviews tend to take place in).
All of this is to say, professional athletes arent all meat heads like most computer programmers and bookworms tend to believe. Your judgement that they aren't smart is probably based off of your bias and you are likely overweighting your analysis on a few notable dumb athletes against the crop.
Also, to top it all off, every sport is different, so you can't lump professional athletes into a single bucket.
This is an odd attack on a single slang word which is en vogue right now. Its slang. Its meant to be terse and communicates belonging of a cultural subgroup. Nobody thinks using "vibes" is eloquent.
Doing resistance training will mechanically stress the ligaments, bones and muscles which results in your body reinforcing and strengthening them. This is important to do on a localized level, as hypertrophy of the heart is not good whereas hypertrophy of the leg muscles is. You cant do this in pill form (at least yet)
> The AI of today can and if everyone knew about it, they would be using it.
The AI of today absolutely does not add 0.5x, I'm using cursor and copilot and they still are usually just a fiddly tool which gets it right half the time. Anything complicated enough to need me to review its work takes longer through series of prompting and correcting its work than if I did it myself, and anything trivial enough for it to one shot its not saving me much time on anyways. All for a costly monthly subscription.
I work at big tech and the number of bad deploys and reverts I've seen go out due to getting types wrong is in the hundreds. Increased type safety would catch 99% of the reverts I've seen.
Every one of these quotes is from someone who would be junior or midlevel at best at any company. Not trying to be ageist but mid twenty somethings are filled with enthusiasm and fantastical ideas which are yet to be vetted or guided by real world experience. I agree with your skepticism here
At some point, the turnover has to lead to "the blind leading the blind" with nobody having a clearer big picture view on the software they own. This can't be a productive way to run a company, but they seem to persist nonetheless. It may take many years, but I imagine their software will rot from within due to their hiring practices.