Those rules are about discriminating against various cards from the same brand. They have also been significantly limited in many jurisdictions by now.
> Creatine mono-hydrate which mostly comes from China and "creapure", which is a patented formula known for its purity.
Creapure sells Creatine Monohydrate not a proprietary form of creatine [1]. The higher end in creatine is Creatine HCL which is more expensive but more water soliable, easier on the stomach, and requires a smaller dose.
In terms of creatine manufactured in the Western World:
* CON-CRĒT manufactures creatine in the US, they produce Creatine HCL.
* Creapure manufactures creatine in Germany. They produce Creatine Monohydrate.
There are also a variety of brands that import creatine and run various tests to ensure quality.
The abstract you linked, pasted below, seems to say otherwise. Placebo groups report same SE frequency.
“Across 684 randomized controlled trials, reported SEs were infrequent. Although dose and duration tertiles were statistically associated with study-level side effect reporting, the effect sizes were uniformly small, events were infrequent, and the reported symptoms were primarily mild and nonspecific. No consistent exposure–response pattern indicative of clinically meaningful risk was observed. Adjusted logistic regression and frequency-based analyses showed no consistent dose- or duration-dependent increase in SE risk, with placebo groups often reporting similar or greater SE frequencies at the study-reporting level. CrM appears to be well-tolerated and, at the study-level, does not increase the risk of gastrointestinal, renal, liver, musculoskeletal, or other SEs compared to placebo, even at high doses or longer durations.”
1) Creatine is safe, "creatine supplementation is safe across a range of doses, durations, and populations according to human trials".
2) Stomach issues are a commonly reported side effect, "Gastrointestinal issues were the most frequently reported side effect... Most notably, gastrointestinal distress is a commonly reported side effect, and those supplementing with creatine may need to divide the dose into smaller boluses to alleviate it; however, it is worth noting that this side effect was not persistent"
3) It is not clear if the side effects are caused by creatine, many of the issues can be explained by baseline issues rather than caused by creatine, "No consistent or clinically meaningful dose-dependent increases in side-effect reporting were observed across models; even at higher doses and prolonged durations, reporting remained low and largely comparable to placebo at the study level"
> I still haven't heard a solid explanation of how taxing loans as "income" is going to work.
The idea is that taking a secured loan out using an asset as collateral would be a taxable event for that asset.
That is to say, if you buy a house for $400,000 and it appreciates to be worth $850,000 then take a home equity loan out against the house, you would owe capital gains on the $450,000 appreciation.
With the current $250,000 capital gains exclusion for primary residence, this would result in ~$30,000 of capital gains tax.
> The idea is that taking a secured loan out using an asset as collateral would be a taxable event for that asset.
Doesn't that puts valuations in the hands of people who could conspire to manipulate them, creating false data points?
For example, suppose you bought something for $25 a long time ago, and it has, very unofficially, appreciated to ~$100.
I could lend you $100, and the contract will say that I'm only asking for it to be partially secured with collateral, which will be, oh that "$25" asset which obviously hasn't appreciated in value at all. Poof, no gains tax.
I think the real issue here has to do with dodges in the Estate Tax, which is the endgame that these delaying games are meant to reach.
I certainly agree with the estate / inheritance tax (the main issue is “resetting” the value to market at point of inheritance)
But as for the valuation problem I think that can only stretch so far. If you put up a million shares of $TechFirm as collateral for a loan to buy a yacht, it’s hard to claim they aren’t worth what the NYSE listed them as. If instead you put up 250,000 shares as partial collateral the bank has to put the missing collateral on its balance sheet (else some one is committing fraud)
The thing is it’s common. We on HN know all about “borrow till you die”, that Trump got Mar-a-lago valued at a billion dollars. The problem is not banks doing favours for valued clients, it’s so common and normalised that we don’t notice.
My not-too-strategic thinking is that maybe we don't have to solve the tricky problem of loans, if we merely close the enormous final tax dodge that they're all aiming for.
Maybe a dumb question, why do electric cars have issues with water?
My understanding was that ICE cars have trouble because water get's drawn into the engine. Water in the engine causes it to stall. And the engine must have air in flow and out flow.
An electric car doesn't need air in the same way (no oxygen to ignite with gasoline, no air to compress and expand).
Shouldn't electric cars to much better at driving through water?
They can drive through surprisingly deep water, but you'd still rather avoid it for a lot of reasons. Dangerous loss of traction and risk of getting swept away, soaked passengers will want a refund, and a sopping wet interior will take the vehicle out of service for a while.
that and the seal for the battery enclosure can seize up after continuous drives through dirty water, the next passenger may not be so lucky and end up stranded once water breaches the battery pack
You also have to consider the bouyancy of wheels and body panels not yet filled with water which will kill traction, or if the water is moving it doesn't take a lot to push vehicles around.
Most cars crossing water don't get stuck because the intake is blocked by water but because they either floated or get pushed away by the flow (or slammed into the water hard enough to break stuff). If you maintain forward movement and dont float most cars will keep going in water 4-6 inches above the intake height because of the wake and bubble of the engine compartment. You only really benefit from a snorkel if you are offroading through water where there may be unseen holes because submerging your entire engine and drivetrain that deep is still a horrible idea even with a snorkel.
Also if you don't have a direct motor on each drive wheel you still have to worry about water entering differentials and transfer cases even if the electronics are perfectly sealed.
Another reason water and ICE cars don't mix is the wiring harness. Even if you don't flood the engine, you'll be having trouble with the electrical for the rest of the car's life. (Or, at least, that's the conventional wisdom)
True... I had to look if wiki has some new information, but no - as expected it is frozen ice of co2 and not h2o. Getting that h from somewhere to make water is still going to be an issue on Mars.
> The caps at both poles consist primarily of water ice. Frozen carbon dioxide accumulates as a comparatively thin layer about one meter thick on the north cap in the northern winter, while the south cap has a permanent dry ice cover about 8 m thick.
There wasn't always an external resource to go to for help. Especially for legacy pieces of software, it was easy to become the person with most context on the team.
From their pricing page, Opus 4.8 costs $5 per million input tokens and $25 per million output tokens [1].
[1] https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/models/over...
reply