site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   2339 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for August 8, 2025

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Ever since the halcyon days of early 2020, where some yahoo dared us rationalist corona panickers to buy puts on cruise companies, I’ve been trying to recreate this missed opportunity (turns out, it wasn’t priced in).

Ozempic’s been getting a lot of good press in rat circles. Leaps calls on novo nordisk/eli lily?

If it makes you feel any better, one of my university housemates loaded up on cruise line puts, he timed it well (somewhat) as the price did indeed drop further after he bought the puts.

However, due to the implied volatility being so high when he bought them, he still managed to lose money overall despite buying puts on a stock that fell after he bought the puts (as the IV also dropped over the same period).

I've never felt bad about not being an options degen after witnessing that lol

I don’t know how your friend managed that; In the original thread, the OP of little faith had given the put he dared us to buy – CCL was trading at 42, the 30 put a year out was 1.35. The next month the stock fell to 12 ; so that ‘s 13x, then it fell even further to 8, before rebounding, so if held till expiration, 7x.

Lol, options are so much fun. They will fuck you 99.99% of the time. But the one time they dont... your broker calls you on January 27 about that Gamestop $10 call you bought 6 months ago on the advice of some idiot degen who's math actually penciled out. "Dude... you gonna exercise or what?"

I think eventually that these kinds of drugs will be shown to have extremely negative consequences for anyone who’s not extremely morbidly obese (or at least in bad enough shape that the side effects are less serious than the obesity). Of particular concern is the number of people who are using this product for aesthetic reasons rather than as medically necessary treatment. Women have used this stuff to fit in their wedding dresses as an example.

Long term, given that this substance acts like a hormone, I think that homeostasis will eventually strike leading to the body becoming less sensitive to semiglutide and therefore the person cannot feel full. And there have been some reports of things like stomach and intestinal issues, so I’m not sure about that either.

There have been lots of these pills in the past starting with fenfen in the 1990s. Most of them overhyped or have serious side effects (fenfen worked, but since it was basically an amphetamine, it caused a lot of heart problems and was withdrawn). The thing I keep coming back to is that people are so desperate for something like a skinny pill to be true that the public and doctors pounce on it without thinking about the long term effects. So that’s why I’m shorting it. I’m expecting wrongful death or serious injury lawsuits to kill it in all but the most serious cases and thus limit the profit from it.

Man, I genuinely do not understand the intuition that drives people to think that there must be a catch to Ozempic. You are doing better by couching your claim in terms of likelihood, but even then, I think this is misguided.

The universe is cold and uncaring, but it isn't actively malevolent. There is no law of physics that demands some kind of equivalent exchange here. Sometimes we just get lucky.

Biology has homeostasis, but homeostasis can break, and it can also be reset.

Of particular concern is the number of people who are using this product for aesthetic reasons rather than as medically necessary treatment.

What drives such a belief? Do you think that drugs care about the moral pulchritude of those taking them? We discovered semaglutide in the saliva of Gila Monsters, which aren't known to be particularly discerning moral actors.

If someone with high blood pressure takes antihypertensives, their blood pressure falls. If someone with a normal BP takes them, theirs falls too. I would obviously prescribe them to the first case, and not the other two (at least for the control of blood pressure), but the mechanism remains the same.

homeostasis will eventually strike leading to the body becoming less sensitive to semiglutide and therefore the person cannot feel full."

This is a reasonable concern, but I think it might misinterpret what homeostasis is trying to do in obesity. The obese state isn't a healthy, well-regulated system that semaglutide is mischievously disrupting. For many people with obesity, the homeostatic system is already broken. Their bodies are defending a pathologically high set point for weight, ignoring satiety signals that should be firing, and managing insulin poorly.

Think of it less like a functioning thermostat that you're tricking, and more like a thermostat that's already broken and stuck at 90 degrees (Fahrenheit, I hope, if that's Celsius then turn off the oven) . The house is sweltering, the air conditioner is running itself ragged, and the occupants are miserable. Semaglutide comes along, and it isn't just put a bag of ice placed on the temperature sensor to fool it. It seems to actually repair the sensor.

If I hadn't been awake for 48 hours, I might have linked to a recent paper that semaglutide reduces the risk of Alzheimer's by 50% even in people without diabetes. You can look that up. You might even simply read Scott's deep dive on the topic.

Semaglutide is a miracle. Such mundane miracles are rare, but they do happen. Penicillin was quasi-miraculous, but even in this age of people sweating bullets about super-bugs, antibiotics save far more lives directly than they take.

I don't know about the advisability of taking the long on your short, but I'd probably benefit from taking the opposite end of a normal bet instead of trying to convince you. I strongly expect to make money on that 1:1 exchange if that were somehow feasible.

What drives such a belief? Do you think that drugs care about the moral pulchritude of those taking them?

There's a common religious belief that suffering is holy and morally required. You see this a lot with Catholics in particular. They will lecture people with claims like "quitting smoking using nicotine lozenges isn't really quitting smoking". Somehow results don't count, it's the suffering that's important.

Also in modern society the left expresses purity through diet.

Additionally believing that fat people are gross because they are sick and unhealthy doesn't jive with a lot of modern views. You aren't supposed to be weirded out by people's medical conditions.

So the view that obesity is a moral failing is popular. This has the added effect of letting healthy weight people feel morally superior.

The idea that a medication can safely reduce appetite is jarring. That implies that their feelings of moral superiority were unjustified and kind of immoral.

What drives such a belief? Do you think that drugs care about the moral pulchritude of those taking them? We discovered semaglutide in the saliva of Gila Monsters, which aren't known to be particularly discerning moral actors.

The drugs don’t care about morality, and I don’t see it as immoral to want to fit into a wedding dress. But if it comes to light that there are serious side effects, then the FDA is going to tighten the regulations on who can be prescribed the drug because a 19 year old trying to lose 20 pounds to fit in a dress should not be taking drugs that have serious side effects that far outweigh any benefits she gets from losing those 20 lbs. if she ends up with a permanent injury to her digestive tract, or a heart condition or something along those lines, it’s tragic.

Such risks might be worth taking if the person in question is obese enough to have the choice of risking those problems or dying if they don’t lose 200 pounds. We do that all tge time with other problems. My grandmother was on blood pressure medication that was slowly making her blind. The alternative was she has a heart attack. Blindness is bad, obviously, but when compared to a heart attack, not intolerable.

If someone with high blood pressure takes antihypertensives, their blood pressure falls. If someone with a normal BP takes them, theirs falls too. I would obviously prescribe them to the first case, and not the other two (at least for the control of blood pressure), but the mechanism remains the same.

Yes, and having blood pressure go too low is dangerous in its own right. This is why I don’t think it’s going to be prescribed as often as people think. The use case depends on how bad the person’s obesity is, both in absolute weight and in the difficulty of losing tge weight. Depending on the costs it might be much lower than what people are expecting. And as such I think touting ozempic as a miracle cure for obesity is vastly overselling it.

My expectation is that ozempic will mostly be a last resort drug used much like gastric bypass surgery is today — reserved for serious cases of morbid obesity.

antibiotics save far more lives directly than they take.

How antibiotics take lives, except allergic reactions and antibiotics overuse/misuse reducing their effectiveness?

Overuse or misuse of antibiotics can lead to antibiotic-resistant infections, which can spread to people who weren't even on said antibiotic. They can ruin the natural balance of the gut microbiome, causing Clostridium difficile infections. As you've mentioned, some unfortunate souls get nasty allergic reactions which can kill them from the anaphylactic shock. I'm talking about all the ways they can cause harm, with no carve outs.

Edit: They can also be hepatic enzyme induces or inhibitors. If not planned for, this can cause overdoses or underdoses of seemingly unrelated drugs.

My mom found out she was allergic to penicillin as a little girl, when she had anaphylaxis. Fortunately she was ok and it hasn’t affected her life much.

But also yeah, antibiotic side effects can be real. It beats pneumonia, but uncontrollable diarrhea and stomach upset isn’t fun. Took me a while before I was back to normal.

They can ruin the natural balance of the gut microbiome

oh, I forgot that one, thanks!

hepatic enzyme induces or inhibitors

and was not aware at all of that, double thanks!

Overuse or misuse of antibiotics can lead to antibiotic-resistant infections

I tried to cover this with "overuse/misuse reducing their effectiveness"

Well, the lipostat theory would suggest that the obese already suffer from disrupted homeostasis via leptin resistance. Under that paradigm, GLP-1s are more akin to insulin for diabetics than more tolerance-building substances.

Good point. All the hyped anti-aging drugs haven’t panned out either. Because things very very rarely do, and it’s good to always keep in mind that nothing ever happens. I hadn’t really considered it here, because like most rats/transhumanists I tend to pattern-match every criticism of ozempic, or of a hypothetical anti-aging drug, with a kind of moralising, small-minded complaint - ‘it’s the easy way out’ , ‘it’s unauthentic thinness’, ‘aging/dying is a part of life’ etc – I immediately dismiss.

I’m not going to say it’s impossible that this one is the one, but I think as far as putting money down, I’d wait a year or so to see if the hype is just hype or if it’s real, or if there’s not going to be issues with side effects making the product only “worth the risk” for people who are either going to lose several hundred pounds or die. If the product is only going to be used on the population of people who weigh 300+ lbs, that’s a much smaller customer base than if it can be used by every woman looking to lose ten pounds to fit a swimsuit or wedding dress. If it’s just morbid obesity, it’s life changing for those people, but I don’t think it’s something that’s going to spike the stock price like if you cured a common and deadly disease like cancer

At this moment in the US there are far more people with obesity than with cancer.

If it’s just morbid obesity, it’s life changing for those people, but I don’t think it’s something that’s going to spike the stock price like if you cured a common and deadly disease like cancer

There are a LOT of morbidly obese people. This would still be a major customer base.

My wackiest theory is that when a drug like semaglutide comes out that essentially everyone wants, the government should be able to nationalize the patent for licensing, and in exchange the drug developer gets a one-time Get Out of Liability Free Card, where if they have a drug go wrong they can just get out of Liability for it.

This would lower drug prices, improve drug availability, and encourage labs that are producing good products to take risks; all things we want to do.

Don't live in the past. There are always new, major opportunities in each cycle. Few developments are ever fully priced in, if you are somewhat quick on the trigger. Market efficiency is to a significant degree a myth.

Depends which version of market efficiency you're talking about.

I just spent quite a while at work doing research for a legal case we're doing where proving the semi-strong market efficiency hypothesis is a profoundly load-bearing part of our argument.

We'll know what the judge thinks in like, two years lol

Novo Nordisk's glory days are behind them

It's true more people are waking up to GLP-1s, but there's more competition in the pipeline than ever, In my view, Novo and Eli seem awfully close to getting into a price war.

Also, the rest of the planet is nowhere near as lucrative as the US and the US might be close to tapped out. There's also attacks on the patent regime (might be lost in Canada which might be a backdoor into the US) and also the borders seem quite porous to gray market sources entering the country. Why not? The same Asian labs that produce it for Novo/Eli can just do additional shadow runs and ship directly to US dealers. It's the same money for them but 10% of the cost for US consumers.

The future looks bright if you're a fatty. Not so great if you're pharma. It's actually a bit alarming, since even with GLP-1 boom the pharma industry has plummeting ROI https://www.cremieux.xyz/i/163939433/preclinical-prioritization

Novo Nordisk's glory days are behind them

All the pharma companies’ chart look like that though. I’m not sure these drugs and their implication have really arrived on the street. Cremieux makes a good case for regeneron, I’ll add it to my scattershot leaps package.

There's also attacks on the patent regime (might be lost in Canada which might be a backdoor into the US) and also the borders seem quite porous to gray market sources entering the country.

I’m going to go with the nothing will ever happen heuristic. I’m not really concerned about risks like that since these are deep oom calls, the stock(s) either blows up or not, I’m not trying to conserve its value.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats