And when it is permissible to say that a society is trash? Cause 30% who think beating children is OK, is frankly abhorrent.
And yeah, Singapore society as a whole is pure trash. When you have monikers like, "Disneyland with the death penalty", you know it's a real authoritarian shithole.
Which now, 32GB goes for $300. Fucking insane. But prices will eventually come down as the enterprise and corpo scalpers realize AI is a losing deal for human replacement. Nvidia has already said as much.
Not defending the legitimately douchey things amazon does, but it explains it right in that article :
>In short, an Amazon listing features prices not only offered by Amazon, but by other sellers. Some of these sellers may offer the items at a lower price, but the order will not be fulfilled by Amazon and won’t be subject to Prime’s shipping discounts and faster delivery.
If you're a prime member and logged it, it will prioritize purchases fulfilled by amazon and delivered with prime delivery. If you click "Other sellers on amazon" there will sometimes be sellers that are cheaper with shipping than purchasing through prime.
What has more calories: 1 lb of peanuts, OR 1 lb of peanuts ground into peanut butter?
I cant find the study, but the peanut butter has more calories since its pre-ground and more bioavailable. Peanuts get chomped up but larger pieces still remain and are not captured by the body.
> Since 1991, the EPA has held that glyphosate is not carcinogenic; it was (at the time) categorized "Group E", which means that not only is there not evidence for it being carcinogenic, but that there is material evidence that it is not. Later, IARC (in a decision that was controversial among global public health agencies) listed glyphosate as a 2A probable carcinogen, alongside red meat, potatoes, deep fryer oil, and a slew of scary chemicals that includes many other insecticides and herbicides.
Excuse me if I dont believe "this stuff isnt harmful".
And Arsenic was once safe.
Asbestos was the most amazing fireproof wonder material.
Thalidomide was a wonder drug with no side effects.
Tetraethyl lead was perfectly safe everywhere.
Fen-phen was a great diet drug.
Id also add "consumption of fluoride in water supply" (topical/toothpaste makes sense, consumption does not).
> Thalidomide never even made it to use in the USA.
What? It was initially blocked by the FDA, but was later approved for use in cancer, where it is in fact a front line drug for some myelomas, albeit with significant usage warnings.
It was never approved in the US for the on-label use for which it gained its reputation (it's a potent teratogen and was prescribed --- never officially in the US --- for morning sickness).
Fair, I was talking more the initial pregnancy use, but even still that further pushes my point that those examples have either never been considered perfectly safe, or have been in active normal usage for so many years that you really have to squint to say it's unsafe.
I mean, you can believe whatever you want to believe, and the EPA can be wrong, but "the EPA has been claiming X since 1991" is not a very powerful argument for "not X".
(There are mechanistic reasons to believe glyphosate is less harmful than other landscaping treatments; it has a fairly elegant mode of action.)
Omitted here is mention that the EPA designation is under review: “the Agency is currently updating its evaluation of the carcinogenic potential of glyphosate to better explain its findings and include the current relevant scientific information”. Their February 2020 registration review decision was withdrawn and their new interim registration has not been completed.
—https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/glyp...
I’m not claiming you needed to mention this in your original post about the lawsuit. This fact would be relevant in the sub thread here with nekusar about what we can or cannot draw from the designation.
The logical flaw in their argument also doesn't depend on the EPA's actions! In fact, the additional color you added works against the claim, in their logic.
Strictly speaking, you're right: they're more than prepared to disregard the position of the EPA (all of us seem willing to). But said designation being currently under review is pertinent to the possibility they raise, namely that consensus has changed in the past, and sometimes the more skeptical or conservative heading taken preemptively has been borne out wise.
Part of that is that I've seen enough evidence between the FDA and EPA that regulatory capture is a thing, and more stuff that we are exposed to and consume are more poisonous than they let on.
Ive also seen that with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ractopamine which is banned in most of the world. Decent countries straight up banned it, since it doesnt degrade with slaughter or cooking. My SO is also allergic to it as well - thats evidenced by not being able to eat US/Canadian pork, but being able to eat Spanish/European pork.
Tl;dr. Regulatory capture has made most of US food not good, potentially toxic, and full of nasty shit we dont want to eat. But hey, selling toxic food makes money for someone.
I'm not arguing that the EPA is right or trustworthy. I'm saying that if you want to argue the opposite of what they claim, you need evidence beyond "the EPA disagrees with me".
> As long as a judge issued the warrant for geofence data, I see less wrong with it. It passed judicial scrutiny, AND can itself be challenged.
The cops say "someone committed a crime in this area, we need to find the perp". They can pretty much say this for any part of the town at any given time. A judge signs off on the warrant, because why wouldn't they? You don't get to challenge anything: no one is going to tell you "hey, your phone was in that area, come to the courthouse and make your case if you think the police shouldn't be given that info".
Im comparing due process with a judges' signature, compared to shit like FLOCK and other non-search warranted processes. And if the warrant was deemed wrongfully granted, the case itself can be dismissed or mistrial.
How much corporate data was just purchased rather than search warranted? Data brokers and parallel construction is a lot larger issue.
And about the cops giving that "someone committed a crime in this area, we need to find the perp" - pig's will always give bullshit reasons. Thats why I went to the judge's determination, rather than oinkers demanding everything and manufacturing whatever they want.
imo there should be a requirement for the gov to tell you within a reasonable time period (a year?) whenever a search warrant is granted for your data. currently there is no ability to check the government because you never learn that you were searched.
If anything, this shows that by shoving all the knowledge we have currently in a blender, that we've actually solved a LOT more than we think.
This LLM prompt didnt create *new* proofs. It used existing human knowledge from other areas that arent well shared, and connected associations to the problem at hand.
It was already mostly solved. The LLM just basically did the usual pattern matching of jigsaw pieces and connected the 2 domains together. We see that with "The LLM took an entirely different route, using a formula that was well known in related parts of math, but which no one had thought to apply to this type of question." in the article.
There's still a TON of stuff that can be done to connect domains together. And that alone is amazingly powerful. But humans are still doing the creative work at the edges. These stochastic word-calculus machines are not yet able to generate new thought, or process absolutely current research. It'll probably get there... but we'll likely need thinking machines. Thats also the hell scenario too.
And yeah, Singapore society as a whole is pure trash. When you have monikers like, "Disneyland with the death penalty", you know it's a real authoritarian shithole.
https://thediplomat.com/2026/05/is-singapores-legal-system-b...
reply