You might play a G# note in the context of an E chord (where it's the third), and then you might play it in the context of a C# (where it's the fifth).

These are discernably different pitches, but the same "note", in the same key, in the same song!

Great way to help nudge people along in musical interest.

While the other person replying is not technically wrong about why these things are grouped, it is kind of offensive to sufferers of Type 1.

In one case, a 3yo starts randomly getting sick one day, worse by the day, and will be dead if they don't get a diagnosis soon. From that day forth, their parents need to manage EVERY single bite of food they have, stab them with needles multiple times a day no matter what, and inject them with a insulin - where, if you miscalculate, will cause a seizure within an ~hour and death within a few hours. From a single typo.

Nothing will cure them, their life will be much shorter, filled with work and pain and expense with absolutely no relief, and nothing could've avoided it.

Now compare to Type 2, where you basically cannot get it if you maintain a reasonable diet and a reasonable weight.

Once you start showing symptoms, if you listen to your doctor and reform your diet (particularly with the 5% shock weight loss approach), you will almost definitely avoid it.

You will avoid it for the rest of your life just by eating well, which has the added benefit of extending your lifespan and healthspan and saving you money.

These things have nothing in common, for the sufferer or their family.

But even Type 1 people will have a different experience in the early days versus years later - you don't lose all beta cell function in one moment.

I suspect if you cornered a parent of a 2yo in any of those countries, they would not say it is meaningfully more social and child-friendly TODAY that the USA is, or Australia (for which I can speak) is.

(WHY they want to stay inside is another matter, but I suspect a large part is the stereotypical answer: unending seas of digital content highly optimised to hack the consumer's brain.)

It was an intentionally bananas statement. As I clearly stated.

But it's not new to me, I've seen hundreds of comments just like it.

It just stood out to me because it doesn't appeal to any facts, or anything you would expect in this commentariat - just a bunch of pretty low resolution, low-brow opinions.

It's not very helpful to point that out, especially if you can't do it with specifics so that people can correct themselves and move closer to the truth.

Your contribution is destructive, not constructive.

Your objection boils down to "sure you're right, but there's more to it, man"

So, what more is there to it?

Unless there is a physical agent that receives its instructions from an LLM, the prediction that the OP described is correct.

It doesn't dictate externalising cost as much as possible unless you have a very short-term view.

Short-term view businesses get eaten pretty quickly in a free capitalist system.

People forget that half of capitalism's advantage is the "creative destruction" part - if businesses are allowed to fail, capitalism works well and creates net value.