I listen to his podcast for a while and stopped when I realized most of what he is talking about is marginal stuff or ”new research suggests”, which I found less interesting.
But has he really ever been a grifter selling complete bunk? Not talking about the ad-segments, which are of course payed endorsements.
"So, Should You Trust Andrew Huberman?" by Dr. Andrea Love: https://slate.com/technology/2024/03/andrew-huberman-huberma...
"Is Self-Help Guru PhD a Womanizer and Pseudoscientific Nonsense Broker? | Andrew Huberman Analysis" by Dr. Todd Grande: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANW3daJggoQ
He definitely has content that is helpful to people, but there's probably better sources for the same information.
This sentence does not imply that Huberman has endorsed this product.
It's incredibly unethical, but in a game theory sense it seems sound. Any one guard is punished for rebelling, and even if everyone coordinates they can't do anything about it. At least if you can eliminate the obvious weak points: the collars would have to be automatically activated
If the collar can be deactivated to be removed for servicing/off duty/retirement/replacement/etc then it can be hacked and replaced with a placebo.