Dictators die all the time and most often not of old age.
As we get older our flexibility to adapt to change also starts to diminish.
You will eventually be outperformed.
We can’t account for what we don’t know.
I see a lot of people talking about the past, but I think this is just a reminder that no matter how successful they become, there will always be these periods where companies and people lose focus.
The exact reason/s for this to happen is hard to figure out. Leadership changes, trends, getting too comfortable, lack of competition, the list goes on...
There's always bad reactions to change, but eventually they fade away because the product turns out to be good and just needs some time to get used to it.
But this time, this is not the case. Liquid glass sucks and so does the UX that came with it.
Apple will eventually fix this mess, they have all the resources in the world to do so.
Pretty good news! But also I think this study tells us that people are infact staying in doors more then they should! Our levels of vitamin D are likely really low in general otherwise we wouldn't see that much of a diference.
I bet the supplement industry is going to be splashing this study all over the internet for the next few months.
I don't see how being in the sun could be bad for us. We've been doing it for as long as we've existed and every other form of life does it as well. Anecdotally, I feel amazing when I'm sunbathing and I feel terrible during winter when there's less sun. The only explanation I can come up with is that modern people are somehow uniquely sick so their bodies can't do what every other organism has done for billions of years.
Uv rays are not safe. But not getting uv rays is also not safe. Like so many things in biology, bodies are optimized for ranges in the middle and not at the extremes.
That's been my conclusion recently. While I'm sure it's true that people aren't getting enough vitamin D because they are indoors a lot, I'm not convinced you can't easily get enough of it in supplement form. If UV is only needed for vitamin D then you might as well avoid the aging effects of UV exposure and pop a pill.
I don't think we know the entirety of what happens in the skin with UV exposure. We are pretty sure that vitamin D is good, and that cancer is bad, and that seems to be all that people talk about, but there are a lot more things happening that we don't fully understand.
I suspect when we know more, the best answer is going to be moderation. But it's really anybody's guess right now.
There are even things that we do know about but generally aren't talked about such as UV-triggered nitric oxide release[1] which moderates blood pressure among other positive effects.
I want to be clear that there being pros and cons whose relative proportions change is very different than what some other commenters seem to be implying which is closer to a threshold model of UV safety which clearly doesn't exist and is non-scientific.
I'm aware of the importance of wearing a hat (with a brim) when in sunlight, to protect scalp and ears from UV radiation.
"Researchers think the three primary types of skin cancer -- melanoma, basal cell carcinoma, and squamous cell carcinoma -- are mostly caused by too much time in the sun. So it’s very important to use sunscreen or cover up if you’re going to be outside longer than 15 minutes or so." https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/ss/slideshow-sunlight-he...
there's nothing wrong with being in the sun. but there's no denying UV rays damage the skin, accelerating the signs of ageing- hence the recommendation by dermaotlogist to avoid it.
I'm not sure how you square that with findings that show any increase in UV exposure is associated with all-cause mortality[1]. It would seem that in this case common sense is bad sense.
This is exactly what I mean. You cite a single 12-yr old study and extrapolate its conclusion to extremes.
No mention of the Swedish cohort study (Lindqvist 2016) showing sun-avoiders had 2x mortality risk over 20 years. No mention of the dozens of ecological studies showing inverse relationships between UV and many cancers.
I could go on all day. You can't just paste one link and call it settled science.
For your consideration a 2025 meta-analysis[1] of 73 eligible articles concludes no change to current avoidance recommendations.
You'll notice that Lindqvist 2014, 2016, and 2020 are references 77, 78, and 79 respectively. Definitely interested in what evidence would change your mind. Any chance you could describe your evidentiary bar?
The meta analysis is inconclusive. I would not use that as evidence to back up the idea that you should avoid any UV exposure. I’d describe this as a complicated situation where reasonable people could disagree.
“””
What did we find?: Our findings are mixed. Exposure to sunlight has been reported both to increase and to decrease your risk of dying. Alongside its harmful effect on skin cancer, sunlight may help prevent other types of cancer. However, there were issues with the amount of data available, as well as the quality of some of the data that was available, so we can’t be certain about the findings. Currently, there is not strong enough evidence to alter sun exposure advice and so people should continue to follow the guidance.
“””
I’m not the original poster but one thing I look at is recommendations from bodies in other countries that have more experience with the issue. During COVID I found countries that had experience with SARS had better guidance than the US.
Similarly Australia has more than 2x higher skin cancer risk. The American Academy of Dermatology recommends even people with dark skin wear sunscreen daily, even if they don’t go outside. Australia doesn’t recommend this noting the tradeoffs of having higher risk of vitamin D deficiency.
I think the major advantage for consumers is being able to securely ensure their cards never breaks and device restarts make their sim always available, no need for pin.
Even if someone steals your phone they can’t disable your SIM card unless you don’t have a pincode.
I’ve had a SIM card constantly fail and require me to put my pin to unlock it multiple times in the same day. If someone wanted to call me they would not be able to because I didn’t know it was off.
eSIM is also great for travel. There's a lot of competition on price and it's easy to check esimdb to find the cheapest carrier that meets your needs for a given trip. Download the eSIM in advance and you're good to go as soon as your plane lands
Unfortunately there's not much competition on providing low-latency data connections, so most travel esim providers don't advertise where their connections route through. It's not great when you're travelling and all your connections to local sites get routed through and geo-located to a different continent.
I am currently traveling in the Philippines and used a cheap eSIM provider offering nearly unlimited data. The only problem was all the traffic was getting routed through China, and then I encountered a bunch of great firewall or geolocation restrictions. For example, Claude wouldn’t work because Anthropic doesn’t allow access to Claude in China.
Eep! I guess you do get what you pay for. I tend to stick with Airalo for that reason. It's more expensive, but there's also no monkey business like this.
Airalo definitely does not always have endpoints in the country they're selling the esim for - I contacted their support a year or so ago and their response then was that they explicitly do not give any IP address or routing guarantees or information.
True but it can be an advantage as well. Some countries highly restrict what you van do on the internet and a roaming card bypasses that. For example UAE doesn't allow calls via WhatsApp but foreigners can do it fine this way, no need for VPNs even (though a foreign roaming kinda acts like a VPN in the geolocation sense)
What are you even talking about? eSIM for travel requires to be connected to internet and in the country when provisioning. With a SIM you just pop it in. It is however nice to be able to buy an eSIM without having to wait in line at the airport, but you get what you pay for. The airport SIM is better than the eSIM from generic provider, depending on your use case, like making calls in some countries
I like that my current phone can do both, and I'll hold onto it as long as I can. Why can't we just have both options? Why do we need to keep removing features to save 2mm of space inside the phone? Oh right, it's not really so much to save space, it's to make an extra $0.01 per phone they sell.
Only half-joking: I really do think people habituate quickly to fragrances and scent norms.
I’m hygenic but I (and the people around me) really do avoid scented personal care products. I really notice when I’m in regions or settings where kids schlump around in clouds of Axe Body Spray or Summer Strawberry Juicy Whatever Mist.
Or when an older person has become so habituated to their own perfume that they’ll tell you with a straight face they’re barely wearing any. Ma’am, I literally followed your scent trail to find you.
For sure. I’m among them—very sensitive both to human (and animal) odors and to fragrances. For me at least it tends to be fragrances—usually synthetic ones associated with body or room products—that people are able and willing to concentrate to an overwhelming intensity.
I certainly recognize that others’ sensitivities can go the other way, and I apologize for sounding dismissive toward the distress that can cause.
And perhaps we can share a sigh over people we’ve met who like to combine a pungent personal odor along with a pungent concentration of perfume or cologne…
I genuinely havent washed properly in over a decade. I wash my armpits, genitals and asscrack usually daily with some all natural "soap" and thats it. No baths or showers. I get compliments on my skin daily and when I tell people my "skincare routine", followed by that I'm eating healthy, sweating daily through exercise, sleeping good and getting sunlight, they assume the not washing part is a joke because I "would stink if that was true" and I would have dreadlocks in my hair.
Unrelated: This is why reading comments is becoming useless.
People react to the news without opening the article.
Its so annoying.
Related: This article shows an interesting study but it’s hard for me to interpret what does this translate to?
I think we should minimize very complex and synthetic products to our bodies. Although sometimes it’s necessary when we harm our body (e.g. long sun bathing sessions)
Cloudflare products disrupt the human ability to read science.org articles. The article text available to me:
>Enable JavaScript and cookies to continue
Turning on JS and doing the captchas just results in more captchas, forever, with no end. I have emailed science.org about this in the past but they only fixed it on the blogs, not the main site.
reply