Someone in the thread posted the source. It’s from an AI scammer’s account. He generated it to promote his AI scams

lol cheers mate, have fun with your AI generated podcasts or whatever

Literally an AI generated video generated by an AI scammer account who is actively using it to shill his AI scams. Thanks for clearing that up lol

What “discussion” lol

“Does this look like (specific policy) is good?” [AI generated frowny faces]

Just wow man. The only thing trash like this accomplishes is making the movement look like it has nothing, hence the need to try and pass off slop. Enjoy your moralizing corporation worship though I’m sure next year’s perfect AI will do really great things for the world

Signs all over the image, most obvious place to look would be the woman’s face directly under the “is”. Glasses and eyebrows and nose all swirling together

Awful AI slop

Well, if you’re feeling philosophical I think you’d first need to address your presupposition that life has or is meant to have any meaning whatsoever.

Like, according to who? And how did they determine that? Would you be sad if it turns out there isn’t any underlying meaning?

No I get what you’re trying to say, the problem is your arguments make no sense

The number of musicians on the stage is irrelevant. I’ve seen plenty of shows with a single guitarist. They aren’t costing other musicians anything by doing their own thing

You also are trying to make the point that people “suddenly” care just because it’s AI even though you reference nearly 50 year drama in the same post

Yea there are parallels between the AI slop situation and other technological advances (invention of the camera, moving pictures, typewriters, and so on) which you are trying to illustrate but your illustrations are misguided. There’s a clear difference, and your strategy of throwing artists under the bus isn’t going to accomplish anything. Not that you seem to actually want to accomplish anything other than making some grand proclamation about society

To be honest, reading thru the study and poking at some of the discussions about it online, it seems to not be remotely saying what people are saying it’s saying lol.

Like they weren’t able to find many of the results they expected in actual human samples compared to the mice. They also found that slower weight loss seemed to correspond with fewer and less severe epigenetic changes.

That second point there was never really expanded on beyond a throwaway statement, but it jumped out at me because the humans studied received bariatric surgery. Which causes massive weight loss very quickly. They even cited that as a potential confounding variable.

It’s also not really about “fat cells multiplying” at all, but rather how a collection of dozens of different factors differ between never obese and formerly obese samples, and only at the two year mark after a weight loss intervention.

Their own conclusion is that “they have not proven” their findings have anything to do with weight regain. This is then bizarrely and immediately followed by what can only be described as an unprompted advertisement for Ozempic, along with speculative musing that further study is needed to determine if it could be used to “erase or diminish” the epigenetic memory (despite semaglutide being unrelated to the experiments and appearing nowhere else in the paper?). Interestingly enough, there’s also an extant conflict of interest statement linking one of the researches to several pharmaceutical companies, including Novo Nordisk

All in all, it strikes me as nothing more than yet another case of bad science reporting. With people kind of going in with preconceived notions, glossing over all of the details, and emerging with snippets taken out of context (body remembers being fat! It changes your genetics!). Lo and behold all the online discussion centers around just the provocative headline and the speculative sections of the paper.

It seems like the researches even deliberately tried to use language to bait this type of response from the general public (although this is now just speculation on my part). In summary, I am unpersuaded by the available evidence. Thank you however for linking it! There is a lot of other interesting info in there

Righteous, thank you! I’m in the muck right now at work but I’ll give it a read when I can

Sorry, I’m not sure what you mean?

DJs never performed with bands? Disc Jockey. They’ve always played pre-recorded music.

Synthesizers also aren’t used to replace musicians. It’s a totally different sound. That’s like saying the piano replaced the upright bass because it can hit all the same notes. Just not how that works.

Also why throw shade at synths at all? They’re very far from fake instruments, if you’ve ever sat down to actually understand them and listen to synthesizer dominant music outside of the 80s pop you dislike so much

Seconded, I flipped to youtube then flipped back to check. This is top tier monkey content, people!

Thank you, no rush! If so could you please reply in a new comment so I get a notification?

Gotcha, yeah and thanks once again for the discussion. What I’m looking for basically is just evidence for the claim posted above us, specifically that “it is a fact that weight loss results in lifelong ravenous hunger due to fat cell signaling”

Scientists all the time come out with reviews and proposals that ultimately fizzle out without supporting evidence. So before I am able to believe any specific claims I need to see that it’s an actual scientific finding rather than just something tentative that has caught headlines (like I said, it happens all the time).

Since you like reading studies in general, for your own amusement I would suggest investigating the claim “cooking rice with coconut oil, then leaving it in the fridge overnight, will reduce the calories absorbed by your body by half!”

It’s a total and blatant piece of misinformation based on a chain of bad news reports made about a study that claimed something totally different, and was subsequently never confirmed. Yet I have met people in real life who swore by the method (even though they struggled to lose weight regardless of this supposed calorie cutting “hack”).

The weight loss space in general is totally flooded with this type of misinfo which is why I get so particular about it. Thank you again!

Could you direct me to the paper where it was proven? There seems to be a notable amount of bad journalism and broad misrepresentation of the science on this topic.

We are basically discussing whether or not obesity is an inescapable condemnation, so we should not sensationalize the topic whatsoever, and we should especially not present it as a fact if it is not a fact

Thank you again for the link, but it seems like you’re just reiterating the hypothesis without any supporting evidence? We have a proposed mechanistic explanation for the phenomena that requires further study. My point of contention is that it should be presented as such, and not as a granted fact

I’ve read the first study already, it doesn’t comment at all on the hunger signaling aspect.

The second study is just proposing this as a mechanism which may account for weight regain. They spin off pretty quickly into a more matter-of-fact tone while presenting the hypothesis itself, but at the moment it remains speculation. I obviously haven’t had the time to click through to every reference in there, but so far the links I have checked similarly lead to speculation.

Basically I think it’s somewhat dishonest to present this hypothesis as a statement of fact. I feel like the inevitable result of this mischaracterization will cause people to not even try. Why bother if something is probably impossible, or only one in a million could do it?

Thank you for linking it however, and I will be very interested to know if Professor MacLean verifies the concept. Of note, in the conclusion they propose that environmental and behavioral interventions will be important for combatting this effect, if it does turn out to be true

I’m down 100lbs and been chilling there for a a while actually. (I do bulk/cut cycles of around 30lbs for bodybuilding so my total weight loss fluctuates from like 120lbs to 90lbs depending on how that’s going. Just for disclosure)

But I’ve heard a few people mention this idea that “fat cells stick around forever” and “send hunger signals to fill you back up”. Do we have a scientific source for this?

My other thing with it is like, that’s not the reason someone gets fat the first time right? Because the idea is your fat cells start multiplying after a certain weight? So regardless it still seems important to address that first cause and not repeat it

But for me personally I just haven’t really experienced it at all lol. I’ve found that actually the type of food I eat makes me hungry and more likely to go off track. Like any fast food, most prepackaged snacks and prepared meals from the grocery store.

Like I could eat an 800cal pint of ice cream then have dinner 45 minutes later. But 200 calories of frozen grapes and I’m like, stuffed lol. Or I’ve also noticed if I have a doughnut in the morning (work offers them) I’m hungry all day, but eggs cheese oats and yogurt leave me satisfied to the point where I’m not hungry at all when I get home, and eat just because I know I need the nutrition from dinner.

Anyway sorry for rambling, really I’m just curious to get to the bottom of the “depleted fat cell” thing. I had never heard of it the entire time I was losing weight/maintaining then all of the sudden I’m hearing it pop up in lots of places, even lemmy now

“It’s worth it to push through the pain!”

Neither, I personally determine the meaning of art. Please feel welcome to ask about any pieces you are unsure of