Both are excellent resources and look at design from a bit different point of view.

I think the biggest problems with swithing designs are not what you have listed, although both noise and failure modes are a huge problem and main cause of concern (and cost) when certifying your designs.

The biggest problem is that they are just so damn complex and they have so damn complex characteristics over time and operating parameters. You might think you understand how a switching PSU works but that's just an illusion. There are people who spent their entire life specialising in switching PSU design and are still learning. At best we can understand how they behave within certain parameters and then try to make sure to shut it down safely when we leave those parameters.

In most realistic designs you put multiple power supply rails in your designs because you need a lot of parts that don't need a lot of power but have different voltage requirements or might need voltage offset. In those cases linear regulators are perfect solution.

More than that, those power supply rails usually have standard voltages and there exist standard linear regulators that output those voltages to make everything even easier.

My strategy is to use linear regulators default and only use anything more complex on those voltage rails where I need to step the voltage up or where the inefficiencies would affect my design's performance significantly enough for me to care.

Oh, and use voltage dividers if you want to convert signal levels (unless it is fast signal and you care about signal integrity).

AFAIK there exists no popular belief that physics was different in early universe. The physics was the same, the only thing that was different was physical conditions. Meaning everything was densely packed together.

If you, even for a moment, assume that laws were different in early universe then you essentially lost any possibility to predict anything.

I am always giving as much notice as I can. And also try to finish my projects and accommodate my employer/client as much as I can at the end of the project.

Regardless how unprofessionally they may act, I resolve to always act professionally myself.

I think it is more about the attitude rather than simple cost/benefit calculation.

But even if you are just looking at cost/benefit, after two decades of doing this I am finally seeing people noticing and coming back to me. I have my past bosses bringing new work to me, I have my colleagues spreading information about me by word of mouth. I have CEOs of unknown companies reach out to me because they learned about me from somebody who worked with me in the past.

Maybe you will not get noticed when you are junior level but when you get a bit more exposed position it starts becoming more and more important.

I am not a physicist, but I understand we are talking about Universe so early after Big Bang that it wasn't yet transparent to light. There simply wasn't vacuum yet if by vacuum you mean electromagnetic waves being able to travel long distances.

But that's not true. What we have been seeing was attempts that looked marginally useful. Helpdesk chats that were only able to handle simplest problems and would respond with something stupid more often than not. Things that did not really look threatening to actual people doing their jobs well.

What I saw recently, on the other hand, is something that can actually perform useful, novel work and that can actually replace some marginally productive people. And this is very important difference.

I find it a bit strange (although entirely predictable) that some people would try to forget about whole matter and hide from it as if it did not exist. The reality is that the IT world is going to go through some fundamental shifts in near future and very likely a lot of people will either lose jobs or do completely different work or do it with a completely different set of tools and skills.

We are now all trying to figure out what's in store for us and prepare for it, or be left out.

I find articles on HN actually pretty useful. And unlike some other hysterias, the whole preoccupation with AI to be healthy and useful.

> Given this I wonder if it is possible at least for some people with diabetes...

I am fully aware that diabetes is a dangerous, life threatening condition and that you can't do the same things that are totally fine for a healthy person.

And while I do not agree with some of the treatments for diabetes, it is just my own opinion and everybody is responsible for their own health and in doubt they should follow their health professional's advice.

Now... given the above disclaimer so that nobody confuses what I am about to write as an actual medial advice... I have just lost 1/3rd of my body weight and feeling absolutely fantastic by doing exactly the opposite to what health professionals are saying. I also observe a lot of people struggling to get any lasting effects by following the popular, official advice. I am angry and feeling powerless to the inertia of the health establishment and forces that do not really want people to get healthy but would rather avoid change that would disrupt their jobs, keep pushing medication that could be easily avoided for most of the people.

I have learned that so many "professionals" do not really understand what they are talking about. And it should not be a surprise, when you go to multiple "professionals" for advice and they give you opposite advice.

Just yesterday I had to visit an ophthalmologist to remove a foreign object from my eye (a piece of eyelash that got stuck for the past week). I had to spend at least 20 minutes to hear his ranting about how improper glasses I wear and how this is going to damage my vision. About a year ago I red (here on HN) that you can actually reduce your shortsightedness by slowly reducing the strength of your glasses which I have been doing successfully for the past year. I went from -3 diopters to -2 diopter glasses. I am currently seeing perfectly with -2.25 diopter glasses and I am using slightly lower strength for most of the day except for driving a car. Some of the stuff he said is that "This has been proven not to work by a study X", and "This is going to my shortsightedness to only deepen" (when exactly opposite has been happening) and that "If there are any result this is only my imagination" and "If I am seeing well at -2.25 it must be because my previous prescription of -3 diopters was wrong".

I am grateful that I am intelligent person that can read and make my own opinions but I am dismayed that people who can't do the same have to rely on those fucking idiots for their health.

There is couple things I learned. When you are on a strict ketogenic diet your blood sugar pretty much stays the same throughout the day. Even if I eat one huge meal for entire day, my sugar after the meal is pretty much the same as before the meal or within 10mg/dL. My exercise and circadian rhythm affect sugar more than meals.

Given this I wonder if it is possible at least for some people with diabetes to skip carbs completely and live carb-free but also insulin-free life.

Another thing I learned is that as I started my first keto month, your blood sugar starts dropping, then goes back up after about two weeks. Coincidentally, I also felt pretty poorly for those two weeks and my running performance dropped dramatically until my body adapted. The second time I started keto (after two months of break from it) I have seen nothing of the sort. Actually, I feel (but don't have good enough record to be sure) my blood sugar got a bit higher. But I have only been doing regular sugar measurements when I was in keto so I don't have data for sure.

Hypoglycemic means your body is dependant on sugar, can't get sugar and has adverse reaction to it.

My body can't get sugar, true, but is not dependant on it (fat adapted) and I have no reaction to it.

As I have not eaten any carbs for about two months any notion of hypoglycemia due to not eating sugar is a bit meaningless.

I know people who get much, much lower blood sugar levels and feel fine. The levels they get would (below 40? below 30?) would be lethal to "normal" person, if sugar addiction can be called normal at all. But they all feel fine and are probably healthier than most.

I put CGM on my arm to learn how my blood sugar levels look when on my diet and then what happens when I switch carbs back on -- I expect my body to "freak out" a little bit and then stabilise within couple of days and that's what I would like to see in a bit clearer detail using my CGM.

As to driving the prices down... nah, I am not making a dent. These devices are too expensive to use regularly even for me (software devs salary). I will just put a couple of them to learn a bit about myself and then stop when I got what I needed.

But these devices are not really built for non-diabetics. There is a constant barrage of alerts as my blood sugar regularly dips into hypoglycemic levels. I feel fine but the device purposefuly does not have any way to disable the alarm.

I make a huge, 15L pot of broth. I use various pieces of meat, especially ones that have a lot of collagen. If I think I have too little cartilage I will add achilles tendons which are pretty much pure collagen. I brown everything them either on a pan or in the oven and I simmer it for at least 12h until all meat disintegrates and all collagen and fats dissolve. I then remove and discard meat and bones and small particles by filtering it through fine mesh strainer, I remove (and store) the tallow. And then I reduce everything about four-five times to get the meatiest substance on Earth. Cool it down, it should completely congeal in room temperature. I cut it into cubes, throw it into plastic bags and into the freezer. Then whenever I want to make soup or a sauce or risotto or whatever else, I just take some cubes from the freezer and drop directly into the pan or pot.

I also make and freeze other useful things. For example, I always keep a supply of bolognese sauce which I make 9L at a time and then lasts me for a year.

As an example, we are told that fish is generally one of the healthiest fats around. But what people forget is that this is assuming wild fish and the kind that does not accumulate rare metals. Salmon is pretty health... unless we are talking farmed salmon. Farmed salmon is fed with highly processed, carbohydrate-rich feed which completely changes the fat content of the salmon making it very high omega 6 to 3 ratio. And God knows what else...

Beef tallow -- I have simple solution for this at least for my home use. I buy lots of quality red meat. Whenever I may broth or render fats for any reason, I gather them all and store them for later.

Somehow doing one thing right is supposed to prevent obesity in every single case?

That all obesity must necessarily be because of people eating multiple meals?

I now don't even need to eat every day -- I had situations where I skipped entire days of eating because I simply forgot about it.

If you think about it most people have hundreds of thousands of calories on them in form of a huge fat layer covering most of the body which is enough for even lean people to live off for weeks at a time. If you think about it, it is pretty silly to complain one is hungry when there is so much energy stored on us.

I remember this thought struck me when I was reading about first Inuits trading in Canadian outposts. They would sell their furs and buy food. When a curious scientist decided to follow them he discovered they would stop outside the outpost, eat ALL food they just bought in one huge binge and then travel back home for many days or even weeks without eating anything. They were not only good at storing fat, but they were also good at recovering the energy when they needed for however long they needed. This is what means to be fat adapted -- being able to completely separate intake of food from burning stored fat for energy.

People nowadays are like a car that does not have a tank for gas. You have to keep pouring the gasoline into the engine constantly or it will shut down. What you want is a large tank from which you can be constantly supplying energy to your engine but you can fill this tank at your convenience.

Is it possible that people who are likely to be more obese are also likely to eat garbage food delivered in low quality plastic packaging? And more healthy people are more likely to cook their food from higher quality ingredients like fresh produce that is not delivered in plastic?

See, the above explanation, I think very reasonable (though requiring a proof), could explain why obese people could have higher PFAS?

Another possible explanation (again, I am just sayin', no proof for it): imagine all food is contaminated with PFAS, but obese people have different chemistry that is worse at removing PFAS from their bodies.

This is why we say "correlation does not imply causation". Yes, highly correlated things are interesting and require further investigation. Even if PFAS is not causing obesity we still might learn something interesting about either PFAS or obesity or something else that is connected to both.

Fasting is an opportunity for the body to burn stored fats. Insulin is a hormone that tells every cell in the body to take sugars from the bloodstream and effectively prevents burning stored fats. When cells are used to burning sugars all the time, when given access to sugars and fats they will chose sugars preferentially. So as long as they have supply of sugar there is very little fat burning happening.

What's more, when you stop eating for a moment, for whatever reason, your body still does not have ability to burn much fat for energy because the metabolic pathways to do it are too dormant to provide enough energy on a moments notice. You become hungry which is your body telling you it can't get energy and you resolve the only way to fix the issue is by putting more carbohydrate-rich food in your mouth.

Fasting periods are necessary for the body to train those metabolic pathways. For example, by eliminating breakfast and not snacking in the evening you can easily double the time it takes between two meals giving couple of hours each day during which your body has to get energy from the fats. Over time your body relearns to burn fats and when you don't eat for a moment for whatever reason it is able to start burning fats faster and start providing more energy lessening the feeling of hunger and immediate need to put more food in your mouth.

Fasting is the normal state of the human body. We have evolved in conditions where food was relatively scarce and when we finally caught something, we had to eat it here and now and then move on and wait until we are able to catch something else at unknown future time.

This means we have evolved to accept food for a relatively short portion of time, be very good at storing energy as fat and then to use this fat for a long time until we could catch something else.