hey, thanks for asking!
short answer - i combine an LLM model with TTS models to generate and narrate each episode. But there’s a lot more happening behind the scenes to make sure everything is safe, age-appropriate, and sounds natural every time.
> Even with evidence staring them in the face, carriage companies still did not pivot, assuming cars were a fad.
I like this quote. But this analogy doesn’t exactly work. Withe this hype cycle, CEOs are getting out and saying that AI will replace humans, not horses. Unlike previous artisans making carriages, the CEOs saying these things have very clear motivations to make you believe the hype.
I think ceos that think this way are a self fulfilling prophecy of doom. If they think of their employees as cogs that can be replaced, they get cogs that can be replaced.
The median CEO salary is in the millions, they do not have to ever worry about money again if they can just stick around for one CEO gig for a couple of years
Granted, people who become CEOs are not likely to think this way
But the fact is that when people have so much money they could retire immediately with no consequences, they are basically impossible for a business to hold accountable outside of actual illegal activity
And let's be real. Often it's difficult to even hold them accountable for actual illegal activity too
If you’re playing at that level, you’re not thinking about subsistence living and never having to work again. You are driven by ego, by winning, by legacy. All three incentivize you to do well if your board consists of non-asshats. You are playing a multi-shot game.
>At the extreme end, research shows that 1 in 3 CEOs are fired within 18 months.
And the size of the parachute they get when they're tossed from the plane? I know that there are many small companies with someone in a "CEO" position who might not be hugely compensated, but speaking of CEOs at major corporate ventures here, as is commonly understood when one talks about questions of executive responsibility (or lack thereof), let's be real on some actual severance figure averages for a clearer picture of consequences and "punishment".
I just think that "our company got caught doing seriously illegal / negligent shit but don't worry we fired the CEO who oversaw all of it after paying them 10s of millions of dollars" is really not a punishment to either the company or the CEO
It's kind of a rigged system that ensures no one is held accountable
Oh, "the company" gets fined a fraction of the value they gained from behaving illegally, the shareholders get a ton of money, the executive team gets a golden parachute, and society gets fucked
Honestly we should be putting people to death for this behavior, instead many of us applaud what great business sense everyone involved has
Isn't this good for the CEO? if your employees aren't cogs then what do you do if they leave? the more replaceable they are the better bargaining power you have as a capitalist right
If you have all cogs, the scope of your business is almost always local. You’re running a lawn mowing business or a subway. And I’m not denigrating those businesses just making the point that they’re not the bulk of the economy. If you’re running a serious business part of your business may be cogs but there’s a very important layer of non cogs that you spend most of your time recruiting, keeping, and guiding. These folks are irreplaceable.
Moreover, there was at least one company which did pivot --- the Chevy Malibu station wagon my family owned in the mid-70s had a badge on the door openings:
>Body by Fisher
which had an image of the carriages which they had previously made.
I remember having small kids we took this very seriously. I always wondered if this was just another overprotective order, or could really be an issue.
> Infantile botulism is extremely rare. There are an estimated 100 cases per year in the U.S., among approximately 4 million children in the age range under 1. That’s a risk of 1 in 40,000. This is somewhat less likely than the chance of visiting the ER for a blanket-related injury in a given year (yes, I looked that up, and I do think it’s a good comparison).
> ... In an estimated 20% of cases — that’s about 20 cases a year — honey is one of the exposures. This doesn’t necessarily mean that the botulism actually came from honey; it’s just that because we know the spores can live in honey … it seems possible.
> At best, this suggests that by avoiding honey, you could lower the risk of infantile botulism from 1 in 40,000 to 1 in 50,000.
I don’t think these probabilities are correct. Every parent is told not to feed their under 1 year olds honey, many times.
In an extreme example… only 20 parents fed their kids honey and 20 kids contracted botulism.
That would be a 100% risk. Obviously in real life it’s not 100% of kids, but still could be a meaningful percentage and likely higher than 1 in 50,000 for babies that eat honey.
It is correct. They are considering the most extreme case; in the most extreme case, no non-botulism-infected infants eat honey, and honey was the cause of botulism for those 20 infants.
If that is so, then completely removing honey exposure for infants would mean that 80 rather than 100 infants get botulism poisoning.
So the new probability of contracting botulism is (80 / 100) * (old probability), and (80 / 100) * (1 / 40000) = 1 / 50000.
There are no errors in the calculation, but it's wrong anyways because it calculates the answer to the wrong question. "At best" suggests this is the largest possible effect, but it is the smallest possible. To get an upper bound estimate on the usefulness of avoiding honey, you would need to know how many parents of 1-year-olds are avoiding honey.
Yeah, and their infant mortality is on par with Sub-Saharan Africa.
"The second most common prelacteal feed is honey, a delicious natural sweetener. Numerous studies [29,30] have shown that the ingestion of honey under one year of age is linked with infant botulism, a disease that results in a blockade of voluntary motor and autonomic functions. Apart from this, other prelacteal feeds get contaminated due to unhygienic environment, especially in rural India and in urban slums, resulting in infantile diarrhea. Thus, a wide range of prelacteal feeds and the introduction of early supplements result in recurrent diarrhea with multiple illness finally ending lives because of inaccessibility and unaffordibility of treatment and delayed or inappropriate care seeking behavior."
The paper lists a bunch of other traditional practices that have deleterious effects on the infants' health, such as putting unsanitary herbal concoctions on the babies navel while it's still healing, etc.
"Diarrhoea is a leading killer of children, accounting for approximately 9 per cent of all deaths among children under age 5 worldwide in 2021. This translates to over 1,200 young children dying each day" - https://data.unicef.org/topic/child-health/diarrhoeal-diseas...
"OK, sister bees, now remember: this season we'll be feeding the hu-man's child, so wipe your feet before entering the hive, and if you feel the sniffles coming on, Don't Make Honey!"
It's more about the below minimum wage people harvesting, bottling for transport, transporting, then bottling for sale than the bees themselves. More intermediate steps to introduce contamination and more potentially contaminated sources all mixed together.
I'm not sure that number is meaningful without knowing how many parents are giving their infants honey. Granted I'm in a high-income, high-education area, but at least in my bubble, "don't give babies honey" seems to be common knowledge, so it's possible there are relatively few instances and a high percentage result in complications.
Whole food crunchy Instagram grifters push that infants should eat honey
Though tbh do people really eat that much honey? I only have some in my kitchen to have with tea when I have a cold. Other then that I almost never use it.
Oh man buttered toast with honey... English muffins... But most controversially, and most deliciously, it dresses up a pizza something lovely...
For me the shift happened when I stopped thinking of it as a sweetener for liquids and started thinking about it as a condiment to deploy conservatively but frequently.
The United States is the second largest honey consumer behind China according to the latest data available from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) in 2019. In 2021, consumption increased 8 percent from the previous year. Between 1991 to 2021, the average rate of growth is 10.7 million pounds per year. This translates to about 1.9 pounds per capita of honey consumption in 2021 compared with 1.2 pounds per capita in the early 1990s.
Breakfast buns go well with honey. Often switched up with jam every few days. Also pancakes and waffles are great with honey from time to time when I'm tired of maple syrup. Jam works too.
Type 1 isn't caused by any of this stuff. Type 2 is caused by excess body fat -- consuming too many calories in total over a long period of time. It doesn't matter what the composition of those calories is. You can eat mostly sugar, at maintenance levels, and never be at risk for T2D.
