2025-05-08 08:00:00

This is an article that just appeared in Asimov Press, who kindly agreed that I could publish it here and also humored my deep emotional need to use words like “Sparklepuff”.

Do you like information theory? Do you like molecular biology? Do you like the idea of smashing them together and seeing what happens? If so, then here’s a question: How much information is in your DNA?

When I first looked into this question, I thought it was simple:

1. Human DNA has about 3.1 billion base pairs.
2. Each base pair can take one of four values (A, T, C, or G)
3. It takes 2 bits to encode one of four possible values (00, 01, 10, or 11)
4. Thus, human DNA contains 6.2 billion bits.

Easy, right? Sure, except:

1. You have two versions of each base pair, one from each of your parents. Should you count both?
2. All humans have almost identical DNA. Does that matter?
3. DNA can be compressed. Should you look at the compressed representation?
4. It’s not clear how much of our DNA actually does something useful. The insides of your cells are a convulsing pandemonium of interacting “hacks”, designed to keep working even as mutations constantly screw around with the DNA itself. Should we only count the “useful” parts?

Such questions quickly run into the limits of knowledge for both biology and computer science. To answer them, we need to figure out what exactly we mean by “information” and how that’s related to what’s happening inside cells. In attempting that, I will lead you through a frantic tour of information theory and molecular biology. We’ll meet some strange characters, including genomic compression algorithms based on deep learning, retrotransposons, and Kolmogorov complexity.

Ultimately, I’ll argue that the intuitive idea of information in a genome is best captured by a new definition of a “bit”—one that’s unknowable with our current level of scientific knowledge.

On counting

What is “information”? This isn’t just a pedantic question, as there are actually several different mathematical definitions of a “bit”. Often, the differences don’t matter, but for DNA, they turn out to matter a lot, so let’s start with the simplest.

In the storage space definition, a bit is a “slot” in which you can store one of two possible values. If some object can represent 2ⁿ possible patterns, then it contains n bits, regardless of which pattern actually happens to be stored.

So here’s a question we can answer precisely: How much information could your DNA store?

A few reminders: DNA is a polymer. It’s a long chain of chunks of ~40 atoms called “nucleotides”. There are four different chunks, commonly labeled A, T, C, and G. In humans, DNA comes in 23 pieces of different lengths, called “chromosomes”. Humans are “diploid”, meaning we have two versions of each chromosome. We get one from each of our parents, made by randomly weaving together sections from the two chromosomes they got from their parents.

Chromosomes 1-22 have a total of 2.875 billion nucleotides; the X chromosome has 156 million, and the Y chromosome has 62 million. From here, we can calculate the total storage space in your DNA. Remember, each nucleotide has 4 options, corresponding to 2 bits. So if you’re female, your total storage space is:

  (2×2875 + 2×156) million nucleotides
     × 2 bits / nucleotide
     = 12.12 billion bits
     = 1.51 GB.

If you’re male, the total storage space is:

  (2×2875 + 156 + 62) million nucleotides
     × 2 bits / nucleotide
     = 11.94 billion bits
     = 1.49 GB.

For comparison, a standard single-layer DVD can store 37.6 billion bits or 4.7 GB. The code for your body, magnificent as it is, takes up as much space as around 40 minutes of standard definition video.

So in principle, your DNA could represent around 2^{12,000,000,000} different patterns. But hold on. Given human common ancestry, the chromosome pair you got from your mother is almost identical to the one you got from your father. And even ignoring that, there are long sequences of nucleotides that are repeated over and over in your DNA, enough to make up a significant fraction of the total. It seems weird to count all this repeated stuff. So perhaps we want a more nuanced definition of “information.”

On compression

A string of 12 billion zeros is much longer than this article. But most people would (I hope) agree that this article contains more information than a string of 12 billion zeros. Why?

One of the fundamental ideas from information theory is to define information in terms of compression. Roughly speaking, the “information” in some string is the length of the shortest possible compressed representation of that string.

So how much can you compress DNA? Answers to this question are all over the place. Some people claim it can be compressed by more than 99 percent, while others claim the state of the art is only around 25 percent. This discrepancy is explained by different definitions of “compression”, which turn out to correspond to different notions of “information”.

The fact that we share so much DNA is key to how some algorithms can compress DNA by more than 99 percent. They do this by first storing a reference genome, which includes all the DNA that’s shared by all people and perhaps the most common variants for regions of DNA where people differ. Then, for each individual person, these algorithms only store the differences from the reference genome. Because that reference only has to be stored once, it isn’t counted in the compressed representation.

That’s great if you want to cram as many of your friends’ genomes on a hard drive as possible. But it’s a strange definition to use if you want to measure the “information content of DNA”. It implies that any genomic content that doesn’t change between individuals isn’t important enough to count as “information”. However, we know from evolutionary biology that it’s often the most crucial DNA that changes the least precisely because it’s so important. Heritability tends to be lower for genes more closely related to reproduction.

The best compression without a reference seems to be around 25 percent. (I expect this number to rise a bit over time, as the newest methods use deep learning and research is ongoing.) That’s not a lot of compression. However, these algorithms are benchmarked in terms of how well they compress a genome that includes only one copy of each chromosome. Since your two chromosomes are almost identical (at least, ignoring the Y chromosome), I’d guess that you could represent the other half almost for free, meaning a compression rate of around 50 percent + ½ × 25 percent ≈ 62 percent.

On information

So if you compress DNA using an algorithm with a reference genome, it can be compressed by more than 99 percent, down to less than 120 million bits. But if you compress it without a reference genome, the best you can do is 62 percent, meaning 4.6 billion bits.

Which of these is right? The answer is that either could be right. There are two different definitions of a “bit” in information theory that correspond to different types of compression.

In the Kolmogorov complexity definition, named after the remarkable Soviet mathematician Andrey Kolmogorov, a bit is a property of a particular string of 1s and 0s. The number of bits of information in the string is the length of the shortest computer program that would output that string.

In the Shannon information definition, named after the also-remarkable American polymath Claude Shannon, a bit is again a property of a particular sequence of 1s and 0s, but it’s only defined relative to some large pool of possible sequences. In this definition, if a given sequence has a probability p of occurring, then it contains n bits for whatever value of n satisfies 2ⁿ=1/p. Or, equivalently, n=-log₂ p.

The Kolmogorov complexity definition is clearly related to compression. But what about Shannon’s?

Well, say you have three beloved pet rabbits, Fluffles, Marmalade, and Sparklepuff. And say you have one picture of each of them, each 1 MB large when compressed. To keep me updated on how you’re feeling, you like to send me these same pictures over and over again, with different pets for different moods. You send a picture of Fluffles ½ the time, Marmalade ¼ of the time, and Sparklepuff ¼ of the time. (You only communicate in rabbit pictures, never with text or images.)

But then you decide to take off in a spacecraft, and your data rates go way up. Continuing the flow of pictures is crucial, so what’s the cheapest way to do that? The best thing would be that we agree that if you send me a 0, I should pull up the picture of Fluffles, while if you send 10 I should pull up Marmalade, and if you send 11, I should pull up Sparklepuff. This is unambiguous: If you send 0011100, that means Fluffles, then Fluffles again, then Sparklepuff, then Marmalade, then Fluffles one more time.

It all works out. The “code length” for Fluffles is the number n so that 2ⁿ=1/p:

Intuitively, the idea is that if you want to send as few bits as possible over time, then you should give short codes to high-probability patterns and long codes to low-probability patterns. If you do this optimally (in the sense that you’ll send the fewest bits over time), it turns out that the best thing is to code a pattern with probability p with about n bits, where 2ⁿ=p. (In general, things don’t work out quite this nicely, but you get the idea.)

In the Fluffles scenario, the Kolmogorov complexity definition would say that each of the images contains 1 MB of information since that’s the smallest each image can be compressed. But under the Shannon information definition, the Fluffles image contains 1 bit of information, and the Marmalade and Sparklepuff images contain 2 bits. This is quite a difference!

Now, let’s return to DNA. There, the Kolmogorov complexity definition basically corresponds to the best possible compression algorithm without a reference. As we saw above, the best-known current algorithm can compress by 62 percent. So, under the Kolmogorov complexity definition, DNA contains at most 12 billion × (1-0.62) ≈ 4.6 billion bits of information.

Meanwhile, under the Shannon information definition, you can assume that the distribution of all human genomes is known. The information in your DNA only includes the bits needed to reconstruct your genome. That’s essentially the same as compressing with a reference. So, under the Shannon information definition, your DNA contains less than 12 billion × (1-0.01) ≈ 120 million bits of information.

While neither of these is “wrong” for DNA, I prefer the Kolmogorov complexity definition for its ability to best capture DNA that codes for features and functions shared by all humans. After all, if you’re trying to measure how much “information” our DNA carries from our evolutionary history, surely you want to include that which has been universally preserved.

On biology

At some point, your high-school biology teacher probably told you (or will tell you) this story about how life works:

1. First, your DNA gets transcribed into matching RNA.

2. Next, that RNA gets translated into protein.

3. Then the protein does Protein Stuff.

If things were that simple, we could easily calculate the information density of DNA just by looking at what fraction of your DNA ever becomes a protein (only around 1 percent). But it’s not that simple. The rest of your DNA does other important things, like regulating what proteins get made. Some of it seems to exist only for the purpose of copying itself. Some of it might do nothing, or it might do important things we don’t even know about yet.

1. In the beginning, your DNA is relaxing in the nucleus.

2. Some parts of your DNA, called promoters, are designed so that if certain proteins are nearby, they’ll stick to the DNA.

3. If that happens, then a hefty little enzyme called “RNA polymerase” will show up, crack open the two strands of DNA, and start transcribing the nucleotides on one side into “pre-messenger RNA” (pre-mRNA).

4. Eventually, for one of several reasons—none of which make any sense to me—the enzyme will decide it’s time to stop transcribing, and the pre-mRNA will detach and float off into the nucleus. At this point, it’s a few thousand or a few tens of thousands of nucleotides long.

5. Then, my personal favorite macromolecular complex, the “spliceosome”, grabs the pre-mRNA, cuts away most of it, and throws those parts away. The sections of DNA that code for the parts that are kept are called exons, while the sections that code for parts that are thrown away are called introns.

6. Next, another enzyme called “RNA guanylyltransferase” (we can’t all be beautiful) adds a “cap” to one end, and an enzyme called “poly(A) polymerase” adds a “tail” to the other end.

7. The pre-mRNA is now all grown up and has graduated to being regular mRNA. At this point, it is a few hundred or a few thousand nucleotides long.

8. Then, some proteins notice that the mRNA has a tail, grab it, and throw it out of the nucleus into the cytoplasm, where the noble ribosome lurks.

9. The ribosome grabs the mRNA and turns it into a protein. It does this by starting at one end and looking at chunks of three nucleotides at a time, called "codons". When it sees a certain "start" pattern, it starts translating each chunk into one of 20 amino acids and continues until it sees a chunk with a "stop" pattern.

   Since there are 4 kinds of nucleotides, there are 4³=64 possible chunks, while your body only uses 20 amino acids. So the ribosome, logically, gives some amino acids (like leucine) six different codons, and others (like tryptophan) only one codon. Also there are three different stop codons, but only one start codon, and that start codon is also the codon for methionine. So all proteins have methionine at one end unless something else comes and removes it later. Biology is layer after layer of this kind of exasperating complexity, totally indifferent to your desire to understand it.
10. The resulting protein lives happily ever after.

It’s thought that ~1 percent of your DNA is exons and ~24 percent is introns. What’s the rest of it doing?

Well, while the above dance is happening, other sections of DNA are “regulating” it. Enhancers are regions of DNA where a certain protein can bind and cause the DNA to physically bend so that some promoter somewhere else (typically within a million nucleotides) is more likely to get activated. Silencers do the opposite. Insulators block enhancers and silencers from influencing regions they shouldn’t influence.

While that might sound complicated, we’re just warming up. The same region of DNA can be both an intron and an enhancer and/or a silencer. That’s right, in the middle of the DNA that codes for some protein, evolution likes to put DNA that regulates some other, distant protein. When it’s not regulating, it gets transcribed into (probably useless) pre-RNA and then cut away and recycled by the spliceosome.

Further complicating this picture are many regions of DNA that code for RNA that’s never translated into a protein but still has some function. Some regions make tRNA, whose job is to bring amino acids to the ribosome. Other regions make rRNA, which bundle together with some proteins to become the ribosome. There’s siRNA, microRNA, and piRNA that screw around with mRNA produced. And there’s scaRNA, snoRNA, rRNA, lncRNA, and mrRNA. Many more types are sure to be defined in the future, both because it’s hard to know for sure if DNA gets transcribed, it’s hard to know what functions RNA might have, and because academics have strong incentives to invent ever-finer subcategories.

On messiness

Why? Why is this all such a mess? Why is it so hard to say if a given section of DNA does anything useful?

Biologists hate “why” questions. We can’t re-run evolution, so how can we say “why” evolution did things the way it did? Better to focus on how biological systems actually work. This is probably wise. But since I’m not a biologist (or wise), I’ll give my theory: Cells work like this because DNA is under constant attack from mutations.

Mutations most commonly arise during cell replication. Your DNA is composed of around 250 billion atoms. Making a perfect copy of all those atoms is hard. Your body has amazing nanomachines with many redundant mechanisms to try to correct errors, and it’s estimated that the error rate is less than one per billion nucleotides. But with several billion nucleotides, mutations happen.

There are also environmental sources of mutations. Ultraviolet light has more energy than visible light. If it hits your skin, that energy can sort of knock atoms out of place. The same thing happens if you’re exposed to radiation. Certain chemicals, like formaldehyde, benzene, or asbestos, can also do this or can interfere with your body’s error correction tricks.

Mutations in your regular cells will just affect you, but mutations in your sperm/eggs could affect all future generations. Evolution helps manage this through selection. Say you have 10 bad mutations, and I have 10 bad mutations, but those mutations are in different spots. If we have some babies together, some of them might get 13 bad mutations, but some might only get 7, and the latter babies are more likely to pass on their genes.

But as well as selection, cells seem designed to be extremely robust to these kinds of errors. Instead of just relying on selection, there are many redundant mechanisms to tolerate them without much issue.

And remember, evolution is a madman. If it decides to tolerate some mutation, everything else will be optimized against it. So even if a mutation is harmful at first, evolution may later find a way to make use of it.

On information again

So, in theory, how should we define the “information content” of DNA? I propose a definition I call the “phenotypic Kolmogorov complexity”. (This has surely been proposed by someone before, but I can’t find a reference, try as I might.) Roughly speaking, this is how short you could make DNA and still get a “human”.

The “phenotype” of an animal is just a fancy way of referring to its “observable physical characteristics and behaviors”. So this definition says, like Kolmogorov complexity, to try and find the shortest compressed representation of the DNA. But instead of needing to lead to the same DNA you have, it just needs to lead to an embryo that would look and behave like you do.

So what would this number be? My guess is that you could reduce the amount of DNA by at least 75 percent, but not by more than 98 percent, meaning the information content is:

  12 billion bits
     × 2 bits / nucleotide
     × (2 to 25 percent)
     = 480 million to 6 billion bits
     = 60 MB to 750 MB

But in reality, nobody knows. We still have no idea what (if anything) lots of DNA is doing, and we’re a long way from fully understanding how much it can be reduced. Probably, no one will know for a long time.

2025-05-05 08:00:00

In a recent post about trading stuff for money, I mentioned:

Europe had a [blood plasma] shortage of around 38%, which it met by importing plasma from paid donors in the United States, where blood products account for 2% of all exports by value.

The internet’s reaction was: “TWO PERCENT?” “TWO PERCENT OF U.S. EXPORTS ARE BLOOD!?”

Well, I took that 2% number from a 2024 article in the Economist:

Last year American blood-product exports accounted for 1.8% of the country’s total goods exports, up from just 0.5% a decade ago—and were worth $37bn. That makes blood the country’s ninth-largest goods export, ahead of coal and gold. All told, America now supplies 70% or so of the plasma used to make medicine.

I figured the Economist was trustworthy on matters of economics. But note:

1. That 1.8% number is for blood products, not just blood.
2. It’s a percentage of goods exported, excluding services.
3. It’s wrong.

The article doesn’t explain how they arrived at 1.8%. And since the Economist speaks in the voice of God (without bylines), I can’t corner and harass the actual journalist. I’d have liked to reverse-engineer their calculations, but this was impossible since the world hasn’t yet caught on that they should always show lots of digits.

So what’s the right number? In 2023, total US goods exports were $2,045 billion, almost exactly ⅔ of all exports, including services.

How much of that involves blood? Well, the government keeps statistics on trade based on an insanely detailed classification scheme. All goods get some number. For example, dirigibles fall under HTS 8801.90.0000:

Leg warmers fall under HTS 6406.99.1530:

So what about blood? Well, HTS 3002 is the category for:

Human blood; animal blood prepared for therapeutic, prophylactic or diagnostic uses; antisera and other blood fractions and modified immunological products, whether or not obtained by means of biotechnological processes; vaccines, toxins, cultures of micro-organisms (excluding yeasts) and similar products:

The total exports in this category in 2023 were 41.977 billion, or 2.05% of all goods exports. But that category includes many products that don’t require human blood such as most vaccines.

To get the actual data, you need to go through a website maintained by the US Trade Commission. This website has good and bad aspects. On the one hand, it’s slow and clunky and confusing and often randomly fails to deliver any results. On the other hand, when you re-submit, it clears your query and then blocks you for submitting too many requests, which is nice.

But after a lot of tearing of hair, I got what seems to be the most detailed breakdown of that category available. There are some finer subcategories in the taxonomy, but they don’t seem to have any data.

So let’s go through those categories. To start, here are some that would seem to almost always contain human blood:

Next, there are several categories that would seem to essentially never contain human blood:

Finally, there are categories that include some products that might contain human blood:

The biggest contributor here is IMMUNOLOGICAL PRODUCTS (be they MIXED or UNMIXED, PUT UP or NOT PUT UP). The largest fraction of these is probably antibodies.

Antibodies are sometimes made from human blood. You may remember that in 2020, some organizations collected human blood from people who’d recovered from Covid to make antibodies. But it’s important to stress that this is quite rare. Human blood, after all, is expensive. So—because capitalism—whenever possible animals are used instead, often rabbits, goats, sheep, or humanized mice.

I can’t find any hard statistics on this. But I know several people who work in this industry. So I asked them to just guess what fraction might include human blood. Biologists don’t like numbers, so this took a lot of pleading, but my best estimate is 8%.

When looking at similar data a few years ago, Market Design suggested that immunoglobulin products might also fall under this category. But as far as I can tell this is not true. I looked up the tariff codes for a few immunoglobulin products, and they all seem to fall under 3002.90 (“HUMAN BLOOD; ANIMAL BLOOD PREPARED FOR THERAPEUTIC, PROPHYLATIC OR DIAGNOSTIC USES; ANTISERA AND OTHER BLOOD FRACTIONS, ETC. NESOI”).

What about vaccines or cell therapy products? These almost never contain human blood. But they are sometimes made by growing human cell lines, and sometimes those cell lines require human blood serum to grow. More pleading with the biologists produced a guess that this is true for 5% of vaccines and 80% of cell therapies.

Aside: Even if they do require blood serum, it’s somewhat debatable if they should count as “blood products”. How far down the supply chain does that classification apply? If I make cars, and one of my employees gets injured and needs a blood transfusion, are my cars now “blood products”?

Anyway, here’s my best guess for the percentage of products in this middle category that use human blood:

So 0.5298% of goods exports almost certainly use blood, and my best guess is that another 0.1569% of exports also include blood, for a total of 0.6867%.

Obviously, this is a rough cut. But I couldn’t find any other source that shows their work in any detail, so I hoped that by publishing this I could at least prod Cunningham’s law into action. Sorry for all the numbers.

2025-05-01 08:00:00

Examples are good. Let’s start with some examples:

1. We all need kidneys, or at least one kidney. Donating a kidney sucks, but having zero working kidneys really sucks. Paying people for kidneys would increase the number available, but it seems gross to pay people for part of their body. Donating a kidney is low-risk, but not zero risk. If you pay for kidneys, the extra kidneys tend to come from poorer people. So we don’t pay, and every day people die for lack of a kidney.

2. Except for Iran. Yes, in Iran you can legally buy or sell a kidney for a few thousand dollars. There is no waiting list for transplants, but most sellers seem driven by desperation and overall it doesn’t sound super awesome.

3. We all need a heart. Paying someone for their heart would mean paying for suicide. If we were to auction off hearts from organ donors, they would tend to go to rich people. People die every day from lack of a heart, but you don’t hear much about trading hearts for money.

4. Many people need blood plasma. For some people (me) donating blood plasma is a psychological nightmare. For other people it’s fine. Not getting plasma when you need it is very bad. Paying people for plasma means more plasma, mostly from low-income people. Much of Europe has long prohibited paying for plasma. Denmark and Italy met their needs with altruistic donors (Edit: Incorrect, Thanks to The Plasma Professor), but overall Europe had a shortage of around 38%, which it met by importing plasma from paid donors in the United States, where blood products account for 2% 0.7% of all (goods) exports by value.

5. The EU recently legalized limited payments for blood donations. The French government opposed this change. The French government owns a company that runs paid plasma centers in the United States.

6. Some people want hair. Prohibiting people from selling their hair is stupid. You should be allowed to sell your hair.

7. We all need a liver. You can—amazingly—give away half your liver and re-grow the rest in a few months. This is pretty safe, but compared to donating a kidney is a more complex surgery with a longer recovery period and 3-10× the mortality risk.

8. Steve Jobs got pancreatic cancer in 2003. This was a rare form that often responds to treatment, but Jobs initially refused surgery and spent almost a year doing “alternative” treatments. Finally in 2004 he had surgery. In 2009, he had a liver transplant. This may have been needed as a consequence of Jobs’ decision to delay treatment in 2003. Tim Cook offered half his liver, but Jobs angrily refused. Most people in this situation would not have been eligible for a liver from the public donor registry, but Jobs was able to leverage his wealth and connections to both get classified as eligible and jump the queue. Jobs died two years later.

9. We all need food. Food that is healthier or tastier is often more expensive. Rich people get to eat more of it. Our for-profit food production system is really efficient and in rich countries the main problem is eating too much food.

10. We all need somewhere to live. Housing that is closer to high-paying jobs or larger/nicer is more expensive. Richer people get to live in nicer homes. The cost of housing means many people need to accept long commutes or live with lots of roommates or cities with worse job opportunities.

11. Buildings needs roofs. In North America, roofs are most often made of asphalt shingles, which need to be replaced every 10-30 years. Roofing work is exhausting and miserable and dangerous. People would rather not do roofing. Roofing is well-paid given the qualifications. We have the technology to make roofs that last for 100 years, at a lower long-term cost. Nobody suggests making it illegal to pay people to do roofing.

12. Large pink diamonds are rare. Only rich people get to have large pink diamonds. This is fine.

13. If there’s a sudden shortage of fuel, then you can either ration or let prices go up. If you let prices go up, then rich people get to drive more, but if you need fuel to drive grandma to the hospital, you can buy some.

14. Cars need to park. If there’s a shortage of parking, you can either raise prices or let people fight for spots. If you raise prices, then rich people get to park more, but if you need to park next to the hospital to drop off grandma, you can do so. If you don’t raise prices, people drive around endlessly looking for spots, wasting energy, creating pollution, and slowing traffic.

15. We all want to buy goods and services. People sell these to us for money. They do that because they can use the money to buy other stuff they want. If money didn’t provide any advantage, they wouldn’t do that.

16. Many people want babies. The idea of auctioning off babies is gross. Nobody wants to auction off babies.

17. Many people want babies, but can’t biologically carry a baby to term. Carrying a baby to term is hard on your body and deeply personal. In much of the world, it’s illegal to have someone else to do this for you. In most of the rest, it’s illegal to pay someone to do it. In a few places it’s legal to pay. (Contemplate this list: Arkansas, Belarus, California, Florida, Illinois, Kazakhstan, Maine, Nevada, New Hampshire, Russia, Ukraine, Vermont, Washington.) The people who purchase this service are usually richer than the women they buy it from. If you’re willing to pay a woman to be a surrogate, some third party might coerce her and steal the money. People who live in places where commercial surrogacy is illegal often buy it from places where it’s legal.

18. Most adults want sex. Some have difficulty accessing it. Paying for sex increases the supply of sex. Some people believe paid sex is degrading or has harmful cultural effects. If you’re willing to pay someone for sex, some third party might coerce them and steal the money. Paying for sex is illegal in most of the world. In places where it’s legal, organized brothels are often illegal. In a few places (Canada, France, Ireland, Norway, Sweden) it’s legal to sell sex but not buy it.

19. Sometimes on planes I think about offering the person in front of me some money to not recline their seat. I don’t do this because I’m pretty sure it would end with them either (A) refusing and thinking I’m a huge jerk or (B) doing it for free and thinking I’m a huge jerk.

20. Lots of people want to move to rich countries. Some rich countries let people based on employment, some based on family, and some on “points”. If you auctioned off the right to move to a rich country, you’d get a mixture of people who (A) have lots of money, and (B) would economically benefit from moving. A few places—including arguably the United States—do this already.

21. Lots of people want their kids to get better grades. Lots of people pay for tutors or extra after-school education. You could directly pay your kids to get good grades. This seems strange and possibly bad, though I’m not sure why.

OK, but how do you feel?

After working through these kinds of cases, I feel: Squishy.

I’m attracted to simple rules that can rise to tame the complexity of the real world. But the more I think about these cases, the less optimistic I feel about such rules.

Like every rationalist-adjacent blogger, I lean vaguely libertarian and consequentialist. (I wish I was more unique and interesting.) So I sometimes find myself thinking in high-handed slogans. Things like, “The government should not intrude in arrangements between consenting adults”, or “The right policy is whatever makes the outcome as good as possible.” I like how those words sound. But are they actually useful?

For example: Paid sex is not my thing. But there are some scenarios (e.g. people with certain disabilities) where prohibiting it seems downright cruel and providing this service downright noble.

On the other hand, when you talk about “arrangements between consenting adults”, it seems to call to mind a sort of theoretical idealized society. Like most people, I like to blithely imagine the Netherlands are such a society. After formally legalizing sex work in 2000, they’ve been creative and tenacious in trying to address organized crime and coercion. It sounds like it’s going OK, but not exactly great? I guess almost every other country has lower state capacity and would do somewhat worse.

Or take kidneys again. Say we had a total free market libertarian utopia/dystopia: If a rich person wants a kidney, they can go find a drug addict, hustle them into a clinic, get them to sign some forms, hand them some cash, and then take their kidney. That sounds gross. I’m not 100% confident I could win a debate arguing from first-principles that it’s grosser than our current system in which thousands of people die every year for lack of a kidney. But I’m not too worried about that, because it has zero chance of happening.

The Coalition to modify the National Organ Transplant Act wants to pay people to donate kidneys. They suggest a months-long screening process that only the 10% of people at lowest risk would pass. Donors would get no money up front, but would get $10,000 per year when they file their taxes for the next five years. This seems less gross than the libertarian {u,dys}topia because people couldn’t donate if they were high risk, because there’s a long waiting period, and because the resulting kidneys would be given out according to the current (non-market) system based on need and potential benefit.

The Coalition points also out that lower-income people would benefit the most from extra kidneys, since rich people tend to have healthy friends and family who are willing and able to give a directed donation. They also point out that the lowest-income people are the least likely to qualify as low-risk donors. But common sense still says the extra donors you get by paying people will tend to be lower income.

I don’t love that. But I think it’s silly to look at the flaws of one system without comparing to the flaws of the alternatives. As far as I can tell, those are: (1) Do nothing and let thousands of people continue to die every year. (2) Pay rich people extra when they donate. (3) Force everyone to register for some kind of kidney donation “lottery”. (4) Reeducation campaigns. (5) Marxism. Maybe the Coalition’s proposal is the “worst system other than all the other systems”.

In both cases (paid sex and paid kidneys) rules and slogans are weak. The action is in details.

The grossness spectrum

What makes some things seem grosser than others? There seem to be many factors. Do some people need the stuff more than others? Will trading for money get the stuff to the people who need it more? Will money increase production? Do we want more production?

Here’s a case I find particularly confounding: Why does paying a surrogate mother seem not-that-bad (at worst), but auctioning off a baby seem horrific? Sure, surrogate mothers usually use genetic material from the clients, but even with an embryo from third parties, it still seems OK. Yet, if I buy an embryo and then pay a surrogate mother, haven’t I just bought a baby in advance? I can’t find any clear distinction, but I also can’t get myself to bite the bullet and say the two are equivalent.

But I do have one theory.

In terms of how gross it is to sell body parts like normal market products, I think everyone agrees the order is hair < blood ≪ kidney < liver ≪ heart.

I don’t think that order is controversial. The main way people differ is in terms of where they’d draw the line.

As you’ve surely surmised, I lean somewhere right of “kidney”. While this is a minority view in the world, I suspect it’s a majority view among people reading this. So I thought I should make the case for drawing the line near the left end of the spectrum.

Here goes: When I picture paying someone for a kidney, I picture someone who is healthy and hearty. They’re thriving in life and don’t need money, but they drive a Honda and they really want an Acura, so they sell a kidney and buy an Acura and live happily ever after. When I think of paid surrogates, I picture a woman who loves being pregnant so much she’d almost do it for fun.

Lovely. But in the existing organ industry in Iran sounds grim. Many sellers seem motivated by extreme poverty and financial desperation.

If someone does something out of desperation, you can argue that—almost by definition—this means it helps them, and removing the option would hurt them.

But suppose that if everyone had their basic needs met, then almost no one would donate their kidneys for money. Then you can argue that paying for kidneys is a step in the wrong direction. We should be moving towards a society where no one is desperate and people donate out of altruism. Paying for donations calcifies the current systems and papers over our problems instead of correcting them.

I don’t really agree, because I like incremental progress and I’m allergic to anything that verges on “the worse the better”. But I see where it’s coming from.

2025-04-25 08:00:00

I don’t know how to internet, but I know you’re supposed to get into beefs. In the nearly five years this blog has existed, the closest I’ve come was once politely asking Slime Mold Time Mold, “Hello, would you like to have a beef?” They said, “That sounds great but we’re really busy right now, sorry.”

Beefing is a funny thing. Before we invented police and laws as courts, gossip was the only method human beings had to enforce the social compact. So we’re naturally drawn to beefs. And, as I’ve written before, I believe that even with laws and courts, social punishment remains necessary in many circumstances. The legal system is designed to supplement social norms, not replace them.

Beefs tend to get a lot of attention. I like attention. I hope I get credit when the world inevitably turns against ultrasonic humidifiers. But I don’t really want attention for beefing. I don’t have a “mission” for this blog, but if I did, it would be to slightly increase the space in which people are calm and respectful and care about getting the facts right. I think we need more of this, and I’m worried that society is devolving into “trench warfare” where facts are just tools to be used when convenient for your political coalition, and everyone assumes everyone is distorting everything, all the time.

Nevertheless, I hereby beef with Crémieux.

That’s the start of a recent thread from Crémieux on the left, and sections from a post I wrote in 2022 on the right.

Click here if you want to see the tedious details for the rest of the thread.

Is this plagiarism?

I think so. And I don’t think it’s a close call.

Plagiarism is:

Presenting work or ideas from another source as your own, with or without consent of the original author, by incorporating it into your work without full acknowledgement.

And in particular:

Paraphrasing the work of others by altering a few words and changing their order, or by closely following the structure of their argument, is plagiarism if you do not give due acknowledgement to the author whose work you are using.

A passing reference to the original author in your own text may not be enough; you must ensure that you do not create the misleading impression that the paraphrased wording or the sequence of ideas are entirely your own.

Applying this definition requires some judgement. Crémieux took eleven (unattributed) screenshots from my posts, as well as the entire structure of ideas. But there was a link at the end. Would it be clear to readers where all the ideas came from? Is the link at the end “due acknowledgement”? I think few reasonable people would say yes.

There are also several phrases and sentences that are taken verbatim or almost verbatim. E.g. I wrote:

Aspartame is a weird synthetic molecule that’s 200 times sweeter than sucrose. Half of the world’s aspartame is made by Ajinomoto of Tokyo—the same company that first brought us MSG back in 1909.

And Crémieux wrote:

Aspartame is a sugary sweet synthetic molecule that’s 200 times sweeter than sucrose. More than half of the world’s supply comes from Ajinomoto of Tokyo, better known for bringing the world MSG.

This does not happen by accident. Crémieux seemed to understand this when former Harvard president Claudine Gay was accused of plagiarism. But I still consider this something of a technicality. It happens that Crémieux got sloppy and didn’t rephrase some stuff. But you could easily use AI to rephrase more and it would still be plagiarism.

Why complain?

I don’t understand twitter. Maybe this is normal there. But I understand rationalist-adjacent blogs.

If this was some random person, I’d probably let it go. But Crémieux presents as a member of my community. And inside that community, I feel comfortable saying this is Not Done. And if it is done, I expect an apology and a correction, rather than a long series of suspiciously practiced deflections.

I don’t expect this post will do much for my reputation. When I read it, I feel like I’m being a bit petty, and I should be spending my time on all the important things happening in the world. I think that’s what Crémieux is counting on: There’s no way to protest this behavior without hurting yourself in the process. But I’ve read Schelling, and I’m not going to play the game on that level.

I’d like to be known as a blogger with a quiet little community that calmly argues about control variables and GLP-1 trials and the hard problem of consciousness, not someone who whines about getting enough credit. But I’ve decided to take the reputational hit, because norms are important, and if you care about something, you have to be willing to defend it.

2025-04-24 08:00:00

Theanine is an amino acid that occurs naturally in tea. Many people take it as a supplement for stress or anxiety. It’s mechanistically plausible, but the scientific literature hasn’t been able to find much of a benefit. So I ran a 16-month blinded self-experiment in the hopes of showing it worked. It did not work.

At the end of the post, I put out a challenge: If you think theanine works, prove it. Run a blinded self-experiment. After all, if it works, then what are you afraid of?

Well, it turns out that Luis Costigan had already run a self-experiment. Here was his protocol:

1. Each morning, take 200 mg theanine or placebo (blinded) along with a small iced coffee.
2. Wait 90 minutes.
3. Record anxiety on a subjective scale of 0-10.

He repeated this for 20 days. His mean anxiety after theanine was 4.2 and after placebo it was 5.0. A simple Bayesian analysis said there was an 82.6% chance theanine reduced anxiety.

I think this experiment was good, both the experiment and the analysis. It doesn’t prove theanine works, but it was enough to make me wonder: Maybe theanine does work, but I somehow failed to bring out the effect? What would give theanine the best possible chance of working?

Theanine is widely reported to help with anxiety from caffeine. While I didn’t explicitly take caffeine as part of my previous experiment, I drink tea almost every day, so I figured that if theanine helps, it should have shown up.

But most people (and Luis) take theanine with coffee, not tea. I find that coffee makes me much more nervous than tea. For this reason, I sort of hate coffee and rarely drink it.

Maybe the tiny amounts of natural theanine in tea masked the effects of the supplements? Or maybe you need to take theanine and caffeine at the same time? Or maybe for some strange reason theanine works for coffee (or coffee-tier anxiety) but not tea?

So fine. To hell with my mental health. I decided to take theanine (or placebo) together with coffee on an empty stomach first thing in the day. And I decided to double the dose of theanine from 200 mg to 400 mg.

Details

Coffee. I used one of those pod machines which are incredibly uncool but presumably deliver a consistent amount of caffeine.

Measurements. Each day I recorded my stress levels on a subjective 1-5 scale before I took the capsules. An hour later, I recorded my end stress levels, and my percentage prediction that what I took was actually theanine.

Blinding. I have capsules that either contain 200 mg of theanine or 25 mcg of vitamin D. These are exactly the same size. I struggled for a while to see how to take two pills of the same type while being blind to the results. In the end, I put two pills of each type in identical looking cups and shuffled the cups. Then I shut my eyes, took a sip of coffee (to make sure I couldn’t taste any difference), swallowed the pills on one cup, and put the others into a numbered envelope.

Here’s a picture of the envelopes, to prove I actually did this and/or invite sympathy for all the coffee I had to endure:

After 37 days I ran out of capsules.

Initial thoughts

I’m going to try something new. As I write these words, I have not yet opened the envelopes, so I don’t know the results. I’m going to register some thoughts.

My main thought is: I have no idea what the results will show.

It really felt like on some days I got the normal spike of anxiety I expect from coffee and on other days it was almost completely gone. But in my previous experiment I often felt the same thing and was proven wrong. It wouldn’t surprise me if the results show a strong effect, or if it’s all completely random.

I’ll also pre-register (sort of) the statistical analyses I intend to do:

1. I’ll plot the data.
2. I’ll repeat Luis’s Bayesian analysis, which looks at end stress levels only.
3. I’ll repeat that again, but looking at the change in stress levels.
4. I’ll repeat that again, but looking at my percentage prediction that what I actually took was theanine vs. placebo.
5. I’ll compute regular-old confidence intervals and p-values for end stress, change in stress, and my percentage prediction that what I actually took was theanine vs. placebo.

   Intermission

Please hold while I open all the envelopes and do the analyses. Here’s a painting.

Plots

Here are the raw stress levels. Each line shows one trial, with the start marked with a small horizontal bar. Remember, this measures the effect of coffee and the supplement. So even though stress tends to go up, this would still show a benefit if it went up less with theanine.

Here is the difference in stress levels. If Δ Stress is negative, that means stress went down.

Here are the start vs. end stress levels, ignoring time. The dotted line shows equal stress levels, so anything below that line means stress went down.

And finally, here are my percentage predictions of if what I had taken was actually theanine:

So…. nothing jumps out so far.

Analysis

So I did the analysis in my pre-registered plan above. In the process, I realized I wanted to show some extra stuff. It’s all simple and I think unobjectionable. But if you’re the kind of paranoid person who only trusts pre-registered things, I love and respect you and I will mark those with “✔️”.

End stress

The first thing we’ll look at is the final stress levels, one hour after taking theanine or vitamin D. First up, regular-old frequentist statistics.

If the difference is less than zero, that would suggest theanine was better. It looks like there might be a small difference, but it’s nowhere near statistically significant.

Next up, Bayes! In this analysis, there are latent variables for the mean and standard deviation of end stress (after one hour) with theanine and also for vitamin D. Following Luis’s analysis, these each have a Gaussian prior with a mean and standard deviation based on the overall mean in the data.

The results are extremely similar to the frequentist analysis. This says there’s an 80% chance theanine is better.

Δ Stress

Next up, let’s look at the difference in stress levels defined as Δ = (end - start). Since this measures an increase in stress, we’d like it to be as small as possible. So again, if the difference is negative, that would suggest theanine is better. Here are the good-old frequentist statistics.

And here’s the Bayesian analysis. It’s just like the first one except we have latent variables for the difference in stress levels (end-start). If the difference of that difference was less than zero, that would again suggest theanine was better.

In retrospect, this percentage prediction analysis is crazy, and I suggest you ignore it. The issue is that even though Δ stress is usually positive (coffee bad) it’s near zero and can be negative. Computing (T-D)/D when D can be negative is stupid and I think makes the whole calculation meaningless. I regret pre-registering this.

The absolute difference is fine. It’s very close (almost suspiciously close) to zero.

Percentage prediction

Finally, let’s look at my percentage prediction that what I took was theanine. It really felt like I could detect a difference. But could I?

Here we’d hope that I’d give a higher prediction that I’d taken theanine when I’d actually taken theanine. So a positive difference would suggest theanine is better, or at least different.

And here’s the corresponding Bayesian analysis. This is just like the first two, except with latent variables for my percentage prediction under theanine and vitamin D.

Taking a percentage difference of a quantity that is itself a percentage difference is really weird, but fine.

Discussion

This is the most annoying possible outcome. A clear effect would have made me happy. Clear evidence of no effect would also have made me happy. Instead, some analyses say there might be a small effect, and others suggest nothing. Ugh.

But I’ll say this: If there is any effect, it’s small. I know many people say theanine is life-changing, and I know why: It’s insanely easy to fool yourself. Even after running a previous 18-month trial and finding no effect, I still often felt like I could feel the effects in this experiment. I still thought I might open up all the envelopes and find that I had been under-confident in my guesses. Instead, I barely did better than chance.

So I maintain my previous rule. If you claim that theanine has huge effects for you, blind experiment or GTFO.

Edit: Data here.

2025-04-17 08:00:00

(1) Romulus, Remus, and Khaleesi

You probably heard that Colossal Biosciences recently reconstructed the DNA of dire wolves and created live dire wolves, bringing them back from extinction. But have you heard that also they did no such thing and you’re a bunch of chumps?

Jeremy Austin, Director of the Australian Center for Ancient DNA:

I think a lot of scientists are going to be scratching their heads, saying, “Look, you’ve got a white, gray wolf.” That’s not a dire wolf under any definition of a species ever…

Nic Rawlence of Otago University:

So what Colossal has produced is a grey wolf, but it has some dire wolf-like characteristics, like a larger skull and white fur.

They extracted fragments of dire wolf DNA from fossilized remains, and then found 20 gene edits they could do to make gray wolves look more like dire wolves. (Five of those were apparently needed just to make their fur white.) That is cool. It’s a step towards bringing a species back from extinction. But it’s not bringing a species back from extinction. Save your applause for someone who actually does that.

(2) Aspergillus niger (h/t Parsimony’s Panpharmacon )

Citric acid is what makes lemon juice taste like lemon juice. It’s used as a flavoring or preservative in lots of food. So when you drink your delicious lemon seltzer, it’s comforting to remember that what you’re tasting came from black mold.

Aspergillus niger is a mold […] found throughout the environment within soil and water, on vegetation, in fecal matter, on decomposing matter, and suspended in the air.

[…]

A. niger causes a disease known as “black mold” on certain fruits and vegetables such as grapes, apricots, onions, and peanuts, and is a common contaminant of food. […] A. niger is classified as generally recognized as safe (GRAS) by the US Food and Drug Administration for use in food production, although the microbe is capable of producing toxins that affect human health.

[…]

The production of citric acid (CA) is achieved by growing strains of A. niger in a nutrient rich medium that includes high concentrations of sugar and mineral salts and an acidic pH of 2.5-3.5. Many microorganisms produce CA, but Aspergillus niger produces more than 1 million metric tons of CA annually via a fungal fermentation process.

(It’s fine.)

(3) Landmark ruling on the WTO national security exception

Tariffs are in the news. These raise many questions, but what I want to know is: Aren’t there treaties? What about the treaties?

Well, The legal pretext for the American tariffs is that they are being done for “national security”. In some cases, this pretext seems quite thin. The US put equal tariffs on Mexico and Canada, supposedly in response to fentanyl coming over the border from those countries. But here are the amounts of fentanyl intercepted at the border from these countries in 2024:

Still, it doesn’t seem crazy to argue that you need to maintain some industrial base for the sake of national security. Recent history unfortunately shows that brutal land wars between rich countries still happen and still require enormous quantities of matériel. According to some sources, Russia is using around 10k shells per day in Ukraine, while after several years of ramping up production, the EU hopes to produce 5.5k shells per day in 2025 and the US 2.5k. In 1995, the US could make 22k shells per day.

Anyway, to make weapons, you need a long supporting supply chain. And in WWII, all sorts of peacetime manufacturing was converted to making weapons. And what about trucks? Or food? You need food for war, right? If you make exceptions for anything related to national security, that seems to make existing treaties meaningless.

Well here’s a story most people haven’t heard: In 2014, Russia started blocking the transit of various goods from Ukraine through Russia. Ukraine protested to the WTO that this violated the commitments Russia had made to join the WTO. Russia responded that they were doing this for national security, and so the WTO didn’t even have the authority to review their actions. Many countries filed opinions.

The WTO finally held in 2019 that it could review the decision, meaning countries can’t totally “self-judge” what counts as national security. But they also said Russia’s actions were fine.

Apparently, the the national security exception exists because the United States insisted on it during negotiations for the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade back in 1947.

As far as I can tell, the only countries that have filed WTO complaints against the US for the recent tariffs are Canada and China.

(4) In 1982, John Mellencamp released Jack & Diane.

A little ditty ‘bout Jack & Diane
Two American kids growing up in the heart land
Jack, he’s gonna be a football star
Diane’s debutante, back seat of Jacky’s car
Suckin’ on chili dog outside the Tastee Freez

And in 2021 Tom McGovern presented a version with these lyrics.

A little ditty ‘bout Jack & Diane
Two American kids growing up in the heart land
Jack, he’s gonna be a football star
Diane’s debutante, back seat of Jacky’s car
Suckin’ on chili dog
Suckin’ on chili dog
Suckin’ on chili dog
Suckin’ on chili dog
Suckin’ on chili dog
Suckin’ on chili dog
Suckin’ on chili dog
Suckin’ on chili dog

Some people noticed that as early as 2012, Clownvis Presley had been performing a version of this song with most of the lyrics chili-dogged. In the comments, Tom says:

I’ve gotten a handful of comments blaming me for stealing this bit from a performer named Clownvis. I hadn’t even known who he was before I shared this video, it gained traction, and the accusatory comments started coming in.

[…]

I would never, EVER intentionally steal another artist’s bit. Rather than leaving more angry comments, I ask you to consider that two creators can arrive at similar (dumb) ideas independently.

Really? I won’t say it’s impossible, but that’s… quite a coincidence.

I think this kind of borrowing could happen by accident. Maybe someone saw Clownvis in 2012. And they repeated it to Tom at a party in 2017 without attribution. And then Tom forgot hearing it, but the idea lurked somewhere in his brain to be “discovered” anew. I follow a lot of blogs, and I’m constantly paranoid that I might be unintentionally stealing things.

(5) Capital, AGI, and human ambition and The Intelligence Curse

The resource curse is the observation that countries with lots of natural resources often end up paradoxically poor. Say you live in a small poor country with lots of diamonds, and say you want money. Then you can do this:

1. Get a bunch of guys with guns.

2. Go to the capital and shoot anyone who doesn’t do what you say.

3. Go to the diamond mines and shoot anyone who doesn’t do what you say.

4. Take the diamonds from the mines, sell them.

5. Use the money to buy more guys with guns, leave the rest of the country to rot.

That’s checkmate. Everyone else is too immiserated to do anything. You have all the money and power, forever.

On the other hand, take a country that’s rich because it has a modern diversified economy. If you send guys with guns to take over Apple and Goldman Sachs and kill everyone else, you will soon find that Apple and Goldman Sachs aren’t worth very much.

So maybe that is why governments are relatively friendly to their populations. Not because of democracy, but because you can’t steal the money without strangling the money printer.

The idea advanced in these posts is that maybe AI will be like oil or diamonds: Maybe it will create incredible amounts of wealth, but do so in a way that doesn’t require the cooperation of a large educated workforce. If so, then power and wealth may end up in the hands of a small number of people (entities?) who have little incentive to use them for the common good.

But hey, Norway has lots of oil.

(6) The Selfish Machine (h/t Steven Pinker)

This post argues that AI by default has no reason to try to take over the world. Why would it? It has no reason to do anything other than what it’s programmed to do. Danger only arises if AI is allowed to “evolve”. If that happens then it would—almost by definition—make the AI aggressive and expansionary and “grabby”.

I find this insightful and helpful. But I find myself more worried, not less. How is “evolution” different from “recursive self-improvement”? It seems like there will be strong incentives to allow recursive self-improvement. If even a little “evolution” accidentally creeps in, won’t it get amplified?

(7) Which adhesive should I use?

As a fan of redneck engineering and “stuff with high ROI”, I feel like this chart is an underrated triumph of civilization:

(That’s just a small part.) I used to have a mental model where “glue is easy but weak”. Glue is strong. But you must use the right kind, and you must follow the instructions, because atoms are weird and the universe has a lot of detail. For example, wood glue is insanely strong and can fix approximately all broken wooden things, but you must use a clamp, and you must glue long grain to long grain.

(8) Do taurine and glycine provide answers to the mammalian gallbladder and kidney mysteries?

This is my kind of blog-post. Ultra obscure question, tangled and triple-caveated discussion, no clear resolution. If writing reflected real life, this is what 90% of science blogging would look like.

(9) Dynomight dangerous typing app

Sometimes, when I have an idea for a post, I want to write a rapid prototype to sort of see what it looks like, expose weaknesses in my argument, etc. But I have perfectionist tendencies. (That sentence was re-written 19 times.) These make it hard to write quickly.

So—this is embarrassing to admit—I sometimes resort to using a webpage where if you ever stop typing for more than a few seconds, everything is permanently deleted. This is very effective. Make an outline, set the app for 15 minutes, and viola: Prototype done.

But I recently wondered what happens to the text I type. The page has no privacy policy and the code is unintelligible. So I thought: Why don’t I ask an AI to create my own better version?

The result is here. It has a pleasing brutalist design, and definitely doesn’t steal your precious gibberish typing. This took like 5 minutes.

Obviously, I’ve seen many people show off similar things before. But I didn’t really appreciate it before trying it myself. So if you haven’t done so, I encourage you to try something similar. You need no programming skills, just ask for a “single file of HTML+CSS+Javascript” doing whatever you want, paste the code in a file named i♡dynomight.html and then open it in a web browser.

Anyway. LLMs are text models. So how do you use them to create text? Do you have them write for you? No! Boring. What you do is you train them to follow instructions and write code and then ask for a program to manipulate your ape-brain so you’ll keep physically hitting keys on your keyboard. There’s some kind of lesson here.

(Picture courtesy of The BS Detector)

(10)

I was actually so impressed by that AI-generated app that I went and bought a Google Play card with cash so I could subscribe to Gemini without linking my identity/banking details/etc. But when I added it, Google said “we need more information” and demanded pictures of the physical card and purchase receipt. And when I sent those, Google waited several days, and then said, “Thanks for doing everything we asked, according to our systems, something is wrong, go fuck yourself.” I guess they’re keeping my $25.

(11) Kevin Hall is retiring from the NIH

Kevin Hall has worked at the NIH for 21 years. He was first author on what I consider possibly the best ever nutrition study, published in 2019. This found that ultra-processed food causes weight gain even when energy density and macronutrients are matched. Since then, he’s continued to work on the subject and I’ve eagerly awaited the results.

Hall is a real scientist who does real science, which means sometimes getting results that don’t fit with your preconceptions. In recent work, Hall tested if ultra-processed milkshakes might cause addiction through a dopamine response. Surprisingly, they did not.

Because this didn’t support the new Secretary of Health and Human Services’ theories about addiction and unprocessed food, he was apparently barred from speaking with reporters and worried that officials might soon interfere with his experiments. If he resigned later, he would lose health insurance for his family, so he decided to accept early retirement now. Not encouraging.

(12) Lise Meitner

Lise Meitner was born in 1878 in Vienna. She was the second woman to earn a doctorate in physics at the University of Vienna. After this, she moved to Germany and began a long collaboration with Otto Hahn. She later became the first female professor of physics at the University of Berlin. Following the Nazis rise to power, she fled to Sweden, but continued to collaborate with Hahn and in 1939 was instrumental in the discovery of nuclear fission.

Hahn won the Nobel prize in chemistry in 1944, without Meitner. This is now widely considered one of the Nobel committee’s biggest mistakes. Many people offer tidy narratives: Sexism, antisemitism, etc. After the records were made public 50 years later, it appears to have been a mixture of many things, summarized as, “disciplinary bias, political obtuseness, ignorance, and haste”.

Meitner famously refused to have anything to do with the making of the atomic bomb.

What I find cool is: 1939 - 1878 = 61. She was 61.