pull down to refresh
102 sats \ 0 replies \ @marks 4 Nov \ parent \ on: Maple AI releases anonymous accounts, pay with lightning AI
ppq is great too. your queries pass through their servers. and if you're using any closed models like ChatGPT or Claude, your chats end up on those company servers.
maple offers a different option where chats go to open models run on secure enclaves. the source code can be viewed and privacy claims verified.
glad to see many good options out there for users to choose from.
We built it to be similar functionality as a private key for bitcoin or nostr. User needs to safeguard the unique account id and back it up.
For people who want privacy while also having easier login, they can use a privacy email address.
People signing up for Maple AI and paying with Bitcoin https://trymaple.ai
It's the first app running on OpenSecret. We have more in the works from third party developers. Goal is to create a future where the apps we use everyday have privacy on by default.
260 sats \ 0 replies \ @marks 12 Nov 2024 \ parent \ on: Introducing OpenSecret - the encrypted backend tech
Working with a few early devs that are in the bitcoin and freedom tech space so far.
Big update, I like the direction.
One thing I constantly wrestle with is opsec. Sats streamed to shows are public information, which creates a breadcrumb trail of the content a user consumes and finds important enough to stream. I want to support shows by streaming, but I don't want this info to be public.
This makes me hesitant to link my Nostr profile to Fountain because it makes that even more discoverable, in a bad way.
Possible to make sats streaming more private? I know I can always create a nym and go that route.
"Because this study is observational, it cannot be demonstrated that the observed outcomes are adverse events of medications."
More from the study:
This study also has several limitations. As for all analyses of EHR, it is subject to under-coding/coding errors (including potential misdiagnosis) and unknown completeness of data (see also Appendix, pp 3–5).
- We could not assess patients' medication adherence nor the duration of exposure as this information is not available in their records.
- Because most individuals receiving semaglutide were matched to individuals taking a comparator drug but not vice versa, the hazard ratios reported in this paper should be seen as estimates of the average treatment effect on the treated, rather than the average treatment effect.
- The observed associations might be partly mediated by better diabetes control as measured by HbA1c, but this was not tested here.
- We could not differentiate between formulations (i.e., oral vs subcutaneous)4 and doses of semaglutide, as such information is not well recorded in the data.
Many of these are problems inherent with observational studies. I think it's fine that these studies are done because they can help drive the kinds of double-blind, controlled patient research to test specific hypotheses. We need to do a better job as a society educating people to understand when a headline is from an observational study and that it shouldn't carry as much weight.