Larry should be remembered for the development of "patch" more than perl. Without the concept of fuzzily applying patches to modified source files you can't have "git rebase" or "git merge".
I think you've got yourself confused. The heap is what malloc is allocating. So it's like you said "Surely this is somewhere in Europe, not France?" or "Surely this is a round shape, not a circle?"
In the specific case of the OpenJDK, there isn't the one JVM, rather a standard[0], like in ISO languages, with a reference implementation to go along it,
Yeah if you ever wondered why the fields in a lot of Posix APIs have names with prefixes like tm_sec and tm_usec it's because of this misfeature of early C.
The C++ GC is not for V8 code, it's for the users of the V8 API eg. Chrome (Blink). It's not being used for big internal systems like the compilers or GC.
V8 has its first module in Rust and I'm sure more are coming, but it's not necessarily an easy integration.
JS is a GCed language. Are there good examples of Rust interacting well with a GCed language runtime where it is able to free unreachable cross domain pointer cycles? Like a JS object that has a reference to a Rust object, which itself has a reference to a JS object. Add more steps and hopefully you can see that collecting such cycles is a hard problem. This is the problem the C++ GC solves.
By the way you can't always break cycles with weak pointers. The browser standards have semantics you have to adhere to.
To help prevent vitamin D toxicity, don't take more than 4,000 international units (IU) a day of vitamin D unless your healthcare professional tells you to. Most adults need only 600 IU of vitamin D a dayhttps://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-h...
Part of the issue with vitamin supplements is that the bioavailability can be unpredictable. The actual amount absorbed can vary between 10% and 100% depending on the time of day, supplement formulation, what foods if any are taken together, as well as the particular characteristics of the individual's intestines, which are difficult to assess. Because supplements are not regulated as pharmaceuticals in the United States, this variability can be severe; in the worst cases, supplements do not even contain the active principle.
So, I am not surprised that someone needs to take 5000 IU to get 600 IU worth of effect. Institutional medical authorities are (rationally) quite defensive when cautioning readers about supplement consumption; they must consider the worst case (100% bioavailability) when assessing the risk of overdose.
As an alternative to vitamin supplements, exposing common dietary mushrooms to ultraviolet light converts (by an uncatalysed photochemical reaction) the ergosterol therein to calciferol. How best to achieve this in a home setting is unclear.
One number is not going to work for everyone. The only way to be sure is to get a blood test for Vitamin D levels. I get tested with my yearly physical, but if someone really cares they can get more frequent blood tests.
As has been commented elsewhere, everyone absorbs vitamin D differently, this really is a matter where someone should just get tested, if they (and their doctor) decide supplementation is needed, do so, test again, and adjust dosage accordingly until desired levels are attained.
Not medical advice here, but harmful effects from vitamin D exposure/toxicity generally only happen at very high levels, or if high doses are taken over long periods of time (as excess can be stored in fatty tissue/liver). Doctors often prescribe a very high dose (like 50,000 IUs) for individuals who are very deficient (often taken once a week, not daily) for a short period before going on a more standard (400-2,000, maybe 5,000) IU dose for maintenance.
The advice on this is all over the map and that's a big problem in the space. Reputable medical sources have recommendations almost two orders of magnitude off from each other at times.
...cites several cases where daily supplementation of 50K IU was required to restore normal D levels, although also a case where that same dose caused toxicity. As one of the other commenters in the thread noted, working with your doctor to establish the right level is probably the right move. If nothing else, they have the capability to test your serum levels to see where you're at.
I experimented with taking 10,000 IU a day for about a year. I had my D levels checked with my normal yearly blood test (lipids, etc) and it put me into the high normal range. I still take 5000 IU daily and have for years with no ill effects.
I should note that I live in a place that sees little sun for five or so months a year.
You can't possibly have the same recommendation for all geographies. Florida and Scotland have somewhat different level of UVB especially throughout the winter, come on.
The issue I've found with these discussions is it appears there's mixed evidence on if vitamin D *supplementation* actually has a positive impact, regardless of vitamin D deficiency. In other words, is the deficiency causal or correlative.
I have no opinion on the matter, and am inclined to think there is at least some positive benefit. But YMMV
I took 10k iu via a multivitamin for a few months, and ended up with Vitamin D levels 5x higher than the maximum on the labcorp reference range. "Vitamin D toxicity"
It took many months to get the levels back to normal. Vitamin D is one of those things that once you overdose, it takes many months for the levels to slowly come down after you stop supplementing.
Be careful with Vitamin D!
The downside to having high levels is plaque/calcium deposits in arteries, if I'm not mistaken. Which can be mitigated by taking K2.
Are you aware of the history of setting acceptable levels of Vitamin D? Basically, 100 years ago, people experimented with cures for TB by giving patients one to two orders of magnitude higher dosage than the "vitamin D toxicity" levels reported today. Like insanely high numbers. Strangely enough, most people did recover from the TB, but they kept getting the treatments anyway, and that in a few instances led to bone issues. So for some reason that doesn't seem to be documented, they set the "safe level" of vitamin D to be something like two orders of magnitude lower than the level that actually caused issues. And that level has never been changed.
All of the studies I've seen around Vitamin D supplementation has shown that the "safe level" reported today is way, way lower than it should be. People appear to be just fine taking 10k IUs for months on end, even 7 years in one study. I think what we're learning is that the "safe level" is a very wide spectrum; some people could possibly be harmed from a low level, whereas some people are perfectly fine at a very high level.
And, fixed dosage never makes sense with Vitamin D. If you're supplementing, you need to make sure you regulate it based on sun exposure, since it's literally the Sun vitamin.
It's easy to double up if you decide to eat lunch outside because the weather is nice this month. I take 10k only if I'm indoors all day, and reduce or take none if I'm out.
> An excess of vitamin D causes abnormally high blood concentrations of calcium, which can cause overcalcification of soft tissues, including arteries and kidneys. Symptoms appear several months after excessive doses of vitamin D are administered. A mutation of the CYP24A1 gene can lead to a reduction in the degradation of vitamin D and thus to vitamin toxicity without high oral intake (see Vitamin D § Excess).
> Treatment
> In almost every case, ceasing vitamin D intake, combined with a low-calcium diet and corticosteroid drugs, will allow for a full recovery within a month. Bisphosphonate drugs (which inhibit bone resorption) can also be administered.[2]
Regardless, blood levels need to be checked for this sort of thing and doses are not one-size-fits-all. I also once was taking 10k daily, for several months, and ended up just barely in excess territory with no noticeable symptoms. (I settled on taking 4k daily in the long term.)
> In almost every case, ceasing vitamin D intake, combined with a low-calcium diet and corticosteroid drugs, will allow for a full recovery within a month.
Surprised to see just 4 weeks for a recovery. I got retested after 8 weeks (only minor improvement) and wasn't until 16 weeks until the test finally came back in range.
100% no dose is one-size-fits-all. I overdosed from taking a specialty multivitamin (it has a discord channel and everything). So was chatting with people taking the same vitamin, same dosages, also getting tested, but others had no issues at the same doses.
I guess I just absorb vitamin D with great efficiency, who knows.
Echo this with a PSA: it's a simple test to get your levels, and I'm a proponent of ensuring it's included when you have other regular blood tests (may have to ask for it). That can allow a person to see patterns, how effective any supplementation (and different amounts) are, etc.
I can use myself as an example: I have crohn's disease and I can take doses of 50000UI for some weeks, then 4000UI daily and after a year have my Vitamin D results as low as 20ng/ml.
The point wasn't the dose, I just picked a number out of my ass.
The point is that from that N IU the 100 people will absorb anything from 0-N, it's very individual and varied.
The only way to be sure is to test your levels, which costs money every time. There really should be a simple and cheap home test kit for it. You'd sell millions every year just in the Nordics and Canada =)
Maybe this comes across snide, but have you been to the Nordics? I can get tested at my GP for free practically as often as I'd like, I doubt you'd sell too much in the way of home test kits.
There is no way that's what they meant. 50k is an absurdly large dose that's way outside the safe intake range. 10k is used sometimes under medical supervision and even then it's a very short term measure. For long term intake, 4000IU is a widely accepted safe upper limit. 50k is an order of magnitude more than that.
There's plenty of documentation of people taking 50k for a period of time and having no side effects. There's been something like a dozen trials using high doses like this to treat TB, and they're usually successful, with no significant negative symptoms.
Conversely, some studies have shown that 4k IU does contribute to hypercalcemia in a small number of cases (4 per 1000). So actually 4k is deemed "not completely safe" as a limit.
The point is, the amount you take needs to be adjusted by a clinician, as the safe range for you is unknowable otherwise.
If your doctor is not seeing results they’ll keep upping the dose and I’ve heard of some that sound like an attempt at assisted suicide. Most of us would get toxicity from some of the ones I’ve heard.
My family is in this group. We are poor absorbers of vitamin D, some of my elder relatives need 5 times the "safe upper limit" to have healthy blood levels. As long as you're checking your blood values routinely (and for both D2 and D3, not just one or the other), it's reasonably safe. Sort of like other prescriptions in general.
I heard about a guy who ordered a bottle and ended up with vitamin D poisoning, on one of those Ira Glass style podcasts. Turns out they forgot to compound it before sending it out so he was getting “cask strength” vitamin D. Sounded very unpleasant.
Most of the vitamin D supplement studies have been very low quality in that they give all subjects in each group a fixed amount (or placebo). Ideally they should periodically test blood levels and titrate the dose to hit a target range. This would get us closer to establishing causality (or lack thereof) including a response curve. The amount needed to hit a given target will be wildly different for many individuals based on factors that are still not well understood.
Just my results (n=1) and I don't think this is exactly what you were saying, but just in case other read it the same way I did at first: having had (lab tested) vitamin D deficiencies, vitamin D supplementation can help to restore levels back into the desired range. So supplementation can have the desired effect of improving vitamin D levels (more below). It is a simple test that most doctors don't quibble about adding on to other blood tests (i.e. during annual checkup, for instance), but isn't generally checked by default. (note: insurers may want it to be "diagnostic" rather than "preventative" in order to cover the test.)
Whether it has a "positive impact" on overall health (which I believe to be your point), that would be even more anecdotal and also impossible for me to narrow down whether that one factor had any significant effect, so I won't posit that. And I agree that from different studies I've read, the actual science on it is pretty varied and I haven't seen anything conclusive. Even this study notes their conclusion was "... among adults with suboptimal baseline vitamin D levels".
This is solely my own anecdote, but I used to get bad seasonal depression every winter. I tried a number of interventions short of medication; none moved the needle very much. I started supplementing with vitamin D probably 8 years ago and haven't had any issues with seasonal depression since.
I'm pretty personally convinced that it was the supplements that helped here.
I was put on prescription vitamin D2 50000 IU and it caused a bunch of side effects for me including heart palpitations for over a week and then a paradoxical reaction to magnesium causing them to be even more intense.
Proceed with caution and listen to your body. Doctors were accusing every other thing than accepting whatever it did to my calcium / other electrolytes bothered my heart.
It's expensive in the US because one company has exclusive sales here (patent protection?), but you could try calcefidiol, weekly dose and is supposed to get levels up rapidly. Apparently it's the common form to take in Spain, and it's further down the metabolic pathway vs cholecalciferol. (I take but still have to get levels checked)
I took a blood test several weeks ago, my Vitamin D level was 14 ng/ml. I was so fatigued there were times I had to lay on my office floor because I didn't even have the energy to sit in my chair. I started taking 50k IU's weekly and then 10k IU's daily, and the results were dramatic. I went from having 0 energy to nearly normal. I also had soreness in my legs which went away.
Vitamin D isn’t technically a vitamin in the strict sense, because unlike the other vitamins the human body can produce it itself (by exposure to sunlight).
The body can also synthesize vitamin A from beta-carotene which is effectively two vitamin A molecules joined together (one rotated 180deg relative to the other).
Sure, many things are vitamins for one species but not another. (In fact, every vitamin must be able to be produced by at least one species – where else would it come from?)
Many animals can. There are a gene for it, humans don't have it. There is a lot of speculation as to why, but nothing really stands out (possibly just random chance - if you eat enough there is no advantage to keeping the gene and in turn no loss from losing it. However I'm unable to rule out other possibilities) https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3145266/ is a really interesting survey of the issue across many different species.
From the article:
> Another argument supporting the suggestion that species which have lost their GLO gene were under no selective pressure to keep it, is that all species which have lost their GLO gene have very different diets but all of them have diets rich in vitamin C
What would a diet poor in vitamin C be considering that "everything else" makes it? I guess root vegetables? It feels like, if anything, this would imply a GLO gene decay more often than has happened, no?
That is probably a question for a nutritionist not me. My understanding is Grains, root vegetables, and meat are all low in vitamin C. Likely other things as well. But I'm not a nutritionist (I've read enough that I think I'm right here, but not enough to state it with confidence), so take the above with plenty of salt.
Most definitions of the word vitamin are not specific to humans. Wikipedia talks about "organisms", Britannica about "higher animal life", Webster about "most animals and some plants"
For most people just eating a good balanced diet and they are good to go. There are a few with genetic/biological issues and they need more - ask your doctor. Vitamin D is one that modern lifestyles likely don't get enough of and so probably worth it - again talk to your doctor.
If eating a "good balanced diet" were easy/normal, we'd have close to zero disease. Supplements are definitely a way to get as close as possible to balance when day to day food intake is chaotic.
there is no reason to think a good diet will prevent disease, nor that supplements will help in most cases. Good diet will prevent some disease, but disease is natural in the environment and good diet is mostly your immune system has what it needs to fight it off after you get it.
ErikCorry, bluGill and others like them get people killed with their exceedingly harmful assertions. It is pointless to argue with them since they're here to spread harm, also probably working for big pharma. The best that one can do is ask the reader to find the evidence for themselves.
Uncalled for. GP is pointing out that the fact the human body can produce Vitamin D means it is not a vitamin.
vi·ta·min
/ˈvīdəmən/
noun
any of a group of organic compounds which are essential for normal growth and nutrition and are required in small quantities in the diet because they cannot be synthesized by the body.
Most ducks lack the roosting instinct that chickens have. Apparently Muscovy ducks are a notable exception, they'll roost in coops, on roofs, and in trees like chickens do.
_couple_perched_for_the_night_..._(27751132099).jpg){kind=link}