Are you crazy? Do you realize how much use they allow under a subscription already? I’m going through $200-400 in tokens per day on a $200/month subscription. Nobody has ever said anything, throttled me, encouraged me to go to API pricing, etc.
I wish it didn’t go down so frequently, but it does. Still, I get an enormous amount of value. I realize they probably prioritize API users over subscribers and I’m ok with that. I use the API and openrouter for the things that need to be resilient to outages.
I would be embarrassed to try to ask for a refund or free credits. They already give credits far in excess of what you pay for and you have practically the entire month to use them outside of a couple hours of downtime.
A guy gets a worm in his brain, somehow becomes secretary of health, loosens all the rules so the rest of us have a higher chance of getting a brain worm. This is comic book villain kind of stuff. Can we start a serious discussion about whether we might be living in a simulation with a troll teenager at the controls?
> Can we start a serious discussion about whether we might be living in a simulation with a troll teenager at the controls?
Nah. Power centers consolidate and seek slavery, whatever other differences they may have there is consensus there, which we can tell by their practices.
The "mission" of most people we recall by name is really just "knock out any pillars you can find, and cause chaos", they're given free hand and in that sense it's not planned or predictable, but overall it's no more random or silly than dead cows hurled via catapults. The cow has no name, no history, no meaning, it isn't hurled at a precise location in the exact right instant, but at a general location during the siege. And one thing is sure, it controls nothing.
toxoplasmosis doesn't actually do that to mice. It makes them less scared, but iirc, not even so much that they don't flee.
it's one of those studies that got blown up into a worldwide news story sensation even though the actual paper didn't say what headlines claimed it did. I don't know if it was ever proven replicable or not, either.
Making prey less scared of the predator makes them significantly more likely to be eaten by that predator.
The reality is even worse than “seeking out cats” because it means if it does this in humans, (which it appears to do) those among us who get infected will engage in all manner of risky, dangerous and destructive behaviors.
He's the opposite of Fauci, who Trump hates for contradicting him. And MAGA hates because during the pandemic they saw mask mandates as government overreach.
And he's the poster boy for conspiracy-loving anti-science halfwits like Trump and MAGA.
And he got approved because GOP senators get primaried and death threats if they go against Dear Leader.
> And he's the poster boy for conspiracy-loving anti-science halfwits like Trump and MAGA.
I mean this is the guy who as head of HHS has funded research in his government department to "figure out which other government department is doing chemtrails" (He named DARPA as his prime suspect on an episode of Dr Phil, ye gods). You can't make this shit up. If it wasn't for his family name and connections he'd be living somewhere in a trailer as a sovcit with a Don't Tread On Me Decal adorning the back of his pickup truck on blocks in the front yard while he barbecues armadillo roadkill.
> Can we start a serious discussion about whether we might be living in a simulation with a troll teenager at the controls?
Why? To skirt the fact that this is reality and needs to be changed? There is no simulation. There is no super-natural teenager interested in making your life a tiny bit worse (I mean: a human teenager would just let N.Korea send nukes, and it's not as if you're living in Sudan either). Your question seems to be either trolling itself or delusional, or the feeblest attempt at humor. Neither is helpful.
My comment is partially in jest. Off the top of my head, I'm not aware of any particular policies that make brain worms more prevalent, although the person I was replying to mentioned prions and I believe that's a real concern. In general, this administration has favored a looser regulatory environment. Specifically, there have been policy changes directly linked to cyclosporiasis.
Last year CDC scaled back the Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network from eight monitored pathogens to two. Cyclospora was one of the six dropped. The remaining two are Salmonella and E. coli. For what it's worth, there has also been an uptick in salmonella cases. Food policy experts have pushed back on the assertion that the policy change caused the outbreak, but concede that outbreak response programs are underfunded and the fact that cyclospora no longer being monitored makes it difficult to understand how it fits in with longer trends.
What the food policy experts say really points to the broader issue - an overall decrease in response and monitoring capability - and that's a bigger concern than playing the blame game on one particular outbreak.
It's reasonable to question how government agencies are making these decisions and one just yesterday on the peptide industry may be one of the best examples yet of how flawed the decision-making process is. The FDA's Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee (PCAC) met and voted in favor of adding several peptides to the list of substances compounding pharmacies are allowed to produce. Eight members of the panel had been recently appointed under RFK, including six who run clinics that offer peptides, increasing the size of the panel from 6 to 14. The votes on the peptides were 8-6.
So... back to my comic book villain theory. This is exactly how a comic book villain would do it and fool everyone with a veneer of legitimacy.
The Americans have what’s basically a cultural trait at this point of deflecting ownership of their government’s actions with “not my president so not my failure” abdication of responsibility.
I wish we could open trade talks with these people instead. But, alas, that’s not how it works.
Fine, it’s all my fault. Neither me nor my state voted that way, I’ve protested like hell, but nonetheless at your insistence I accept personal responsibility for the policy choices of the federal government.
What do you propose I do?
Or did you just want my permission to be personally angry at me? Not sure you needed it, but you’ve now got it.
I think your observation is valid, but - perhaps from very understandable frustration - overwrought, and unfairly characterized as a specifically American foible.
Success always has many fathers, failure is always an orphan, anywhere. At least I am recognizing failure, if only to disown it!
(And if I rightly feel shame now, even without personal responsibility, can I not be allowed some sober pride in equal measure in other circumstances?)
I think that's human psychology[0], not necessarily specifically American. Either way, I think that the people most likely to say the things in your first paragraph are also much more likely to consider the "bad stuff" you're talking about as "good stuff" and brag about that as well.
American voting systems are bad. Average Americans have minimal influence on the policy that's enacted[1]. I wonder if where you are from these don't apply as much, and you are used to having more control over what the government does.
Of course you care. Enough to play the victim game and cry people “hate Americans” every time someone criticizes anything about (specific) Americans. Talk about cringe.
That's a lot of handwaving and broad generalizations / hyperbole that does exactly what the GP complained about from the GGP, and failed to answer their question: "What do you propose I do?"
You wrote three paragraphs and never once answered “what do you propose I do?” because there isn’t an answer, just a vibe you wanted to deliver.
Congrats on discovering that people claim credit collectively and blame individually. That’s not a uniquely American sin, that’s every human tribe since forever and you just gave it a paragraph structure and called it a diagnosis.
It's easier to throw stones than realize "this could happen to my society too and in all likelihood I'd be just as screwed as the Americans, Russians, 1930s Germans..."
COVID was another vivid illustration of how you're just along for the ride with people who can act contrary to everyone's collective self-interest
Seems it's people with outsized media influence that have the most agency for change, beyond that a fish rots from the top down
At the very least don’t point the finger at others, obviously. It’s your people, even if different individuals. You are a democracy, there’s no “not my fault, someone else must have voted wrong”. Whatever the result, good or bad, it comes from all of the votes, including the ones not given.
If the question was “what do I do to fix it” that’s not something you’ll get answered in a comment.
They asked to stop deflecting. Take that literally. Imagine this page without the comment and the comments hanging off it.
"Don't do this thing". "What should I do instead?" Your choice. Maybe nothing. When there is nothing serious to say, maybe sit with the silence, that space where a little joke or some cynicism would relieve the pressure without doing any productive work, and let it work on you. At least until you can't take it anymore, and maybe tomorrow you'll last longer, and maybe next week you'll have a breakthrough.
At any rate, others can't tell us how to fix a situation we're not part of causing. In a society of millions, while each can say "I'm just one of many", nobody else can say more, so we always have "full" responsibility, that is, the maximum possible. Put differently, it is not possible for a single person to be solely responsible for what two people do, but that doesn't change the responsibility they do have.
This isn't about spilled milk, but rather about the question on who it is to fix this. It is on you. If you cannot do it alone, you have to organise with others. But there is nobody, as long as you're an adult and a citizen, that you can point to that should be expected to "do it" instead.
Though I don't mean this in a finger-pointy way either because we all sit in glass houses. There may be differences in degree and all that, but when it comes to what should or could be, and how it is, we're all so far from the mark that bickering about who is the worst and who should get "the" blame for the situation, rather than how to change it, seems pointless.
> Or did you just want my permission to be personally angry at me? Not sure you needed it, but you’ve now got it.
I personally wish you a really awesome weekend, stranger. You insisted on making this personal, now deal with it >:[
> The Americans have what’s basically a cultural trait at this point of deflecting ownership of their government’s actions with “not my president so not my failure” abdication of responsibility.
That's merely a symptom of the underlying problem, which is that capital interests run the show, and have for many decades.
What we refer to as a democracy is illusory. We basically have a uniparty, but most people are fooled by the sports team arrangement of good cop / bad cop. Those who aren't fooled feel powerless, and they are right to.
Anyone who balks at this need only consider which things receive bi-partisan support.
Yeah, the guy who declared "No Kings" demonstrators extremists and terrorists, and threatens to invoke the Insurrection Act against ICE protestors has in effect said he's not my president for me.
Filter for dates around his presidential run: "he's not really anti Vax", "he's the only candidate talking about health"... With Dorsey and other SV actors boosting him.
That appears to be a general news article that doesn't reference HN. Can you clarify why you think it's relevant, because a general news article does not represent HN general opinion in any way.
"Darling candidate" is overselling it but there's a solid chunk of anti-vax, covid-truthing, lab-leak is-proven-fact, JFK just wants better food nutballs on HN.
They overlap with the climate deniers, the nukecels, libertarians and Trump fans.
And it clearly goes to the top, since his vice-president and primary funded was a Google CEO ex-wife, and he had high level support even before he went back on his stated opinions and joined the Trump campaign.
"Trump isn't Hitler, Hitler had policies" being one memorable zinger of his.
On Dr Phil, an audience member raised concerns about "stratospheric aerosol injections." Kennedy responded, "That is not happening in my agency. We don't do that. It's done, we think, by DARPA," referring to the Defense Department's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. "And a lot of it now is coming out of the jet fuel. You know, those materials are put in jet fuel. I'm going to do everything in my power to stop it."
> In 2016, Kennedy said of Trump, according to newly uncovered recordings: “He’s not like Hitler. Hitler had like a plan, you know, Hitler was interested in policy."
You might benefit from looking up the Goomba Fallacy. As a former anti-anti-RFK guy, I absolutely have to take responsibility, I severely misunderstood the wellness movement and didn't realize that inflicting disease on people was their goal. But I don't know why you think the person you're responding to supported RFK.
He's definitely got the broken clock syndrome. And back in the day he was a strong defender of the environment.
I've got a family member and ex friend (both trained in science) and they drank the koolaid hard. A funny story about them -- both had stayed at my home (different times) and I had taken to heating the water for my coffee in the microwave.
Both of them were horrified by that and refused to use that water. Neither could give reason why, and artfully deflected when I pressed the matter. I think antivaxers caught a virus that melted their brains.
I think the worldwide disruption of the pandemic melted people's brains, and the recent surge in the anti-vax movement is a symptom. Along the lines of: if all this bad stuff happened and my life was significantly harmed, it must be someone's fault; all those doctors and scientists kept advising everyone on what they thought was happening and what to do, so they're probably the ones who caused the problem.
I agree, but it goes much deeper than this. The pandemic provided a powerful distraction and an amorphous "other" to blame. Without the pandemic, after a first Grump term most voters would have seen his simplistic-destructive policies and ineffectual thrashing for what they were in the context of business as usual, and he would have been a one term failure.
The pandemic provided healthy doses of copium. It absolved Grump of responsibility for not achieving any of the reforms he promised in 2016 (having to deal with the pandemic instead). It created something that looks like a coordinated conspiracy, even though it is just people's obvious reactions to mitigate a pandemic. It created a whole bunch of "unprecedented" authoritarian actions by institutions even though you merely had to look back to previous pandemics to see precedents.
All of these effects also applied to Grump personally as well, as it seemed like the "deep state" was lined up against him (in the same way that one's entire family becomes "against them" as their dementia progresses), creating his obvious conclusion that the administrative state (ie the system that has brought us prosperity and stability in the post-WWII period) must be destroyed.
I say this as a committed fan of RNA vaccines and masking, who believed we could have contained covid with more serious lockdowns very early in the pandemic: In point of fact, it was someone's fault, and the someones whose fault it was - the ones doing gain of function research - were the same people who took control of lockdown policy in the US. That would be enough to melt a lot of people's brains, even if it weren't for the psychological effects of lockdowns, remote schooling, and the consequent arrested development of an entire generation. At a bare minimum, the concealment by the CCP of what they knew of covid was an act of war. The cover-up itself killed millions of people and caused untold economic damage to their adversaries, with the collusion of health officials in the US government who had offshored illegal research there.
Even if you accept the lab leak (highly questionable) and buy into the conspiracy that Fauci was controlling the operation of GoF research that created covid this is wrong. Lockdowns were managed by local authorities and state leadership.
Yes, some states, like mine, had virtually zero lockdown. And we also have some of the highest population of anti-vaxxers and covid deniers, somehow. I still hear people talking about the effects of the lockdown. The lockdown that never happened. And the covid vaccine mandates. Which also never happened.
From what I've read about GOF research, it's essentially explored in defensive posture, because viruses mutate and they're looking at how to get ahead of the curve (not a researcher, just my take).
But what is never discussed in the Lab Leak pursuit is: so what? I mean, yes, poor biosecurity and containment should be called out and not covered up, but the real value is in being the foundation of a conspiracy. "The government conspired to make you sick!".
Think about this: covid has mutated consistently since it's been tracked. Were those mutations coming from a lab or was it viruses doing virus things. Was Ebola made in a lab or did it come from a place we know viruses come from.
Was the Spanish Flu a Chinese plot? Was AIDS?
The handling of the outbreak was clearly bungled, but let's remember who was in charge in the US when it happened. The guy who shut down research and tracking teams because Obama had funded them (So had Bush -- until then, this kind of stuff was non-political and taken seriously as a non-partisan issue).
The failure for masking was again, on the then POTUS, and it's been conjectured by many (including myself) that he was against masks because it would mess up his makeup.
Yes, it could have been handled so much better, and sadly, could have been an incredibly valuable teachable moment that made us all safer in the future. But instead it was used to further divide us and foster the literal fucking insanity of antivaxxers. I have nothing but contempt for those people because they are a danger to humanity.
I don't think it was a conspiracy to make people sick. I also don't think the lab leak theory should be a partisan issue. I was in the camp at the time shouting that we needed to enforce masking and stay-at-home orders, and to say that the Trump admin bungled the response is too kind.
What was a conspiracy was the cover-up by health officials who knew that it had escaped a lab. And by the Chinese government, which knew even earlier, and which I believe saw an economic and strategic advantage in keeping the information and the genome of the virus to itself for a few months while it was already circulating in Wuhan.
One does not have to believe that the lab leak was intentional to believe that once it happened, the responsible parties conspired to cover it up.
As for the gain of function research itself, though defensive in nature and benign in intent, it was something that was deemed too risky to be performed in the US, and outsourcing it to a country with a much poorer safety record was wildly irresponsible. When it backfired, a cover-up naturally ensued.
I'm not a MAGA person (I've always voted Democrat, actually). This is just my take as to the most likely scenario given what's publicly known. And of course the virus has mutated in the wild, as viruses do. The question is whether the initial strain was given genetic advantages that were evolved under human guidance - defensively or not.
It's still conjecture. I'm well aware of confirmation bias (that we're all susceptible to), but a recent query of the Goog says it's unclear and leans towards a natural mutation.
But this also returns to the "so what" path. The conspiracy paints GOF as "evil government doing bad things" (which is not unreasonable conjecture in many contexts), but the work is primarily intended for defensive measures:
Search Google for this: "did the us outsource GOF research into sars to wuhan labs in china"
I found the answer to be reasonable and credible. Again, governments lie but so do conspiracy theories.
To make this more HN aligned I'll share a story:
I was introduced to Chuck Peddle at a wedding not long after the turn of the century. I first learned assembly language on the 6502 so I knew who he was and was thrilled to meet him and hear his stories. At that point in time he was working on some hardware startup in Malaysia (IIRC), and was a seasoned world traveller.
The last part of our conversation was his observation through his travels that due to the nature of overcrowded cities in third world countries and the advent of air travel where people could disperse rapidly to anywhere else in the world, he shared a fear that a deadly outbreak would eventually happen and would travel the world in days, with horrifying consequences.
That came to mind when Covid happened.
Lastly, I'm not at all fond of these types of conspiracies because they spread like a virus and their value is primarily in giving people the feeling that they know what's going on and they know better than everyone else -- and it becomes such a part of their identity that trying to debunk that conspiracy is only perceived as a personal attack -- there's no room for reason.
All of this "the truth is out there" while we have real conspiracies happening in broad daylight and people just shrug like "oh, that just happens, whatever". I'm referring to the current US presidential administration.
Once again, I'm not an identitarian, nor was I trying to personally attack anyone, nor is my take on what happened an attempt to gain a sense of control over my environment (anymore than anyone's attempt to understand anything is an attempt to prepare oneself for future events). I find that your need to skew the conversation toward my personal psychology actually is a form of ad hominem, and your own anectdotes or what you found on Google have no relevance other than speciously attempting to increase your credibility in this conversation.
I think my point stands that once a gain of function-mediated virus escaped a lab, the incentives aligned in such a way that the people and the government responsible for that fuckup took steps to cover it up, and that is a perfectly logical and reasonable conclusion.
I'm sorry if it came across that way, I was addressing the issue and my frustrations with the community that pursue it -- I did not have you in mind personally at all, just the topic.
I absolutely agree that government coverups are absolutely unacceptable.
I state my conclusion as "it seems to be this way" whereas I read you as saying "no, it was this, case closed".
Intent matters. In the courtroom and out of it. My frustration is that (from my perspective) the intent behind the lab leak theory is to turn it into a government plot against the people (and yes, those can happen), and that the whole affair of dealing with Covid was a nefarious plot to harm the population and importantly to force vaccines upon the masses.
As the purported incident happened in China, there will likely never be any admission or redress. And the torches and pitchforks will continue coming for vaccine research. And I have every right to be less than happy about that.
The backlash against vaccines was/is idiotic, and tying vaccine fast tracking and (some) forced vaccination to some grand conspiracy notion of a virus being released in order to force nefarious vaccines on people, is completly unserious and falls into loony-bin conspiracy territory. I wouldn't even engage with anyone holding that theory. I actually think that, short-term pitchfork weilding reactionaries aside, covid was the best thing t happen since the mid-20th Century to advance both vaccine science and general uptake in the long run. In any case, I get my covid shot every year, and I own a lot of Moderna stock and feel fairly good about their platform curing other diseases.
I would say this about the purported incident happening in China: From the perspective of the Chinese government, it really didn't matter whether it was a lab leak or not, as their concealment of the problem for 2-3 critical months would likely have happened even if saving face was not an issue. It was a simple projection to say that an authoritarian regime with a top-down economy and an unlimited ability to lock down outbreaks would gain an edge in relative GDP growth over a disorganized, democratic adversary, which would compound for every day they withheld information even though they were attempting to contain the spread within their own borders. That's the economic calculation I called an act of war.
> And I have every right to be less than happy about that.
Sure.
Face saving in China is a cultural institution (not that it doesn't happen in the US and elsewhere). Ascribing that to an intentional act of war is a stretch. Coverups are virtually all motivated by CYA by their very nature.
China is handily winning the economic war without taking the tactic you suggest, and if we are unable to shake the current regime and it's scions, will mop the floor with us.
The reason I am so testy about this conspiracy is that it focuses all attention off the conspiracy that Grump did by dismantling the institutions that were built to protect us from such an outbreak, and then bungle the reaction to it actually happening.
Again: let's say China comes out tomorrow and says: "Sorry, we fucked up. Our researchers got sloppy and lied to us. We're sorry"
What does that do to either protect us from future events (which can be from out of the wild)? Other than the satisfaction of "I told you so", what do we get from that?
RFK Jr is running the show, and must appease his boss and his whims. They'd likely take that confession and use it as a parade and patting themselves on the back while they continue to destroy the science and institutions that are there to prevent future pandemics.
I see the same things you see, but I contend that the causes are reversed. I think Trump's election, and subsequent dismantling of our institutions and safeguards, was a direct result of our country losing a war. It began as an information war in 2015. The installation of RFK Jr is a further result of us losing a biological war, which may have not been started intentionally, but which by mid-2020 was being conducted as one. I'm not trying to shift any blame away from this administration, either for the specific mishandling of covid or for its broader corruption, authoritarianism, and traitorous destruction of our democracy. But I think this administration is merely an effect, not a cause. Most Americans don't realize that we lost a war. The loss of democratic governance in our country, a corrupt puppet who worships autocrats, the decline of living standards and life expectancy, the shattering of our institutions and the lingering effects of covid are all part of the price.
Broken clock syndrome is very easy to "pull off" in medicine because medicine is incredibly complex and it's all risk calculus. For even the most benign or life-saving drugs, you can conjure up examples of how they've killed people. That includes vaccines, unfortunately.
So these people have a leg to stand on. It's a wooden leg (arrrg) but they have a leg. Of course they, and their supporters, are never doing any kind of statistical analysis or risk calculus. The the "risk" part is the thing that really, really matters. I mean, we have chemotherapies which have a very high chance of fucking your shit up or even killing you. But untreated cancers are fatal, and sometimes very quickly. It's all nuanced.
> didn't realize that inflicting disease on people was their goal
I think the lesson here is just because someone is anti-something doesn't exactly mean they stand for something. Just because someone is anti-corruption it doesn't mean they are pro corruption etc. Because people always find it easy to run their mouths and be arm chair experts.
I had a chance to see the full 10 year cycle of an anti corruption candidate. He got elected into power and did nothing. Nada. Because all he knew was to fight and find someone to blame. He was just a weasel. 10 years later the place was worse off and corruption was even higher. When I pointed this out to some MAGA folks - they were like but how do you know until we try. Its like Americans want to tempt fate and want to see for themselves how institutions which took multi decades to get destroyed in few years.
RFK is similar case. He has a stance - whether right or wrong. But under pressure he just abandons them to save his own skin. He has never owned up to the issues his anti vax crusade causing the Samoa measles epidemic. And just like that Americans wanted to tempt fate with - "he is making good points about food". He is not. He demand accountability from others but owns up to nothing. He will weasel out of every issue is causing.
the republicans spent the last 50 years gerrymandering and disenfranchising.
the "who you elect" is a specious argument. Everyone in California could elect democrarts forever, and 2 senators in Wyoming still have a larger sway per capita.
Don't get me started on the words being all used incorrectly or misunderstood! Liberal, conservative, democracy, socialism, communism, free market. These are core concepts to a lot of current political debate and yet the words are effectively meaningless the way people use them. It wouldn't matter except the gap in understanding is exploited to paper over a bunch of dishonesty and corruption.
Tangential but nonetheless, I always think of this quote from Lord of War:
> Yuri Orlov: [Narrating] Every faction in Africa calls themselves by these noble names - Liberation this, Patriotic that, Democratic Republic of something-or-other... I guess they can't own up to what they usually are: the Federation of Worse Oppressors Than the Last Bunch of Oppressors. Often, the most barbaric atrocities occur when both combatants proclaim themselves Freedom Fighters.
>I mean, it is not as if RFK was the darling candidate of HN at one time?
Wasn't my darling candidate. Mostly because I can read research papers and understand that drinking raw milk and avoiding vaccines doesn't make me healthier.
Indeed. There is no reason to consume raw milk. Pasteurization is not actually the problem.
On the other hand, there is no reason to homogenize milk at all. It is safe and legal to procure "cream top" or non-homogenized milk at many grocery outlets. Cream-top milk is not processed, and in fact there have been detrimental effects linked to the consumption of homogenized milk, which you can avoid by drinking cream-top milk instead.
Homogenization does not make milk safer or healthier to drink. On the contrary, it permits the processors to remove healthful elements and sell them in a more profitable vehicle. Why not simply keep your entire product intact, as it was found in nature?
The "raw milk" craze is a bonkers red herring for everyone. Don't drink raw milk. Don't buy the hype. But you don't need homogenization, either!
Non homogenized, lightly flash pasteurized milk has been my favorite for years. Just tastier, luckily I grew up in a little strange town where it was norm, and I don't have the weird modern health movement baggage to go with it.
If you can sit down and compare a glass of skim milk to full-fat milk, you’re getting somewhere.
Cream-top milk is not merely full-fat: the cream is unmixed and free floating. You can immediately tell it is different by texture.
Some people separate the cream and reserve it for coffee or something. Or you can agitate it for “manual homogenization”. The difference is texture, really. It may have bothered housewives trying to cook or to pour it. But I love the experience.
"The objective of this review is to provide an integrated historical account of the complex, often convoluted events impacting milk hygiene and its resultant effect on infant mortality from 1875 to 1925. Heat pasteurization of cow's milk is necessary for rendering this important nutrient source safe for humans-particularly infants. Developed by Louis Pasteur in 1864, pasteurization evolved from the commercially important parboiling of wine and beer when the Industrial Revolution was effecting rapid societal change in Western societies. In European and American societies of the early and mid-19th century, infant mortality rates were 30- to 60-fold higher than the current rates of five or six deaths per 1,000 live births per year."
Not every pre-pasteurization child died, but far more died than post-pasteurization.
Raw milk is just a bad idea at anything beyond incredibly tiny tightly controlled scale. Sure, you got lucky. It's still not a good way to feed a society.
Raw milk _can_ be kind of okay under very specific circumstances. (But knowing the state american farms tend to be in regarding hygiene and controls, it's a ridiculous gamble.)
1) extremely closely controlled cow health
2) minimal storage time
3) minimized chances of cross contamination/reasonably clean cows <- that's the big one
4) healthy immune system to minimize infection chances
If even one of those isn't there, it's basically sickness in a cup. Why take a risk if there's no benefit?
In germany, there's the concept of "Vorzugsmilch", which is raw milk from specifically controlled farms with super tight regulations with regular and intense controls and testing of milk, e.g. monthly testing of every individual cow's milk.
But even then, it's an - albeit small - risk without benefit, with the exception of raw-milk cheese, which can't be made in any other way. I just don't get it, practically none of the claims of the raw-milk-gurus could be proven under controlled circumstances. Why needlessly take risks?
I tend to think the risk is the point. It's an in-group marker, getting very sick every so often for no good reason shows commitment. Which of course makes it doubly pointless as a suggestion to the general public, but the fact that it's a bad idea doesn't mean that for the in-group it's a bad idea. (I mean, it _is_ a bad idea, you understand though.)
In all truthness, it was in a village and I was under 6 or 7. It was the way things worked. And no one monitored the cows specifically: they would graze all day and then returned in the evening and be milked by hand.
Read https://www.docdroid.net/MfW3sAr/parasite-pill-version-20-pd... and be enlightened. I believe it was originally made by a 4chan user so obviously there are a lot of insane ramblings there but if the theory is true, the implications would be hilarious
They're not a news publisher. Not exactly anyway. They are a huge conglomerate and Reuters is just one division - and a recent addition at that. TR is probably more known for legaltech, Westlaw and ancillary kind of stuff that ends up spilling over into other industries like tax and accounting. They also have a large government division, which presumably will take on this project. Their bread and butter is enterprise tech, consolidated public data and research tools. That's sort of where the news fits in. It's just another data source.
Probably because it consumes the same APIs originally developed for a web app and the same front end engineers likely created Claude Code. People assume Anthropic set out to create Code as a product and went through a normal design phase. I think it’s more likely it started as an internal tool or someone’s side project and blew up as a product when they released it to the public.
Am I the only one around here who’s sick and tired of the bitching and moaning on every post about how something was vibe coded or written by AI? Without fail, someone complains and it shoots up to the top of the comments. It’s gotten ridiculous and it’s off topic.
The easiest thing for you to do is just not engage with the post if you don’t like it. You people don’t need to pollute the comment section for anyone else who’s actually interested.
Just about everything is vibe coded or written with AI these days. Assume that’s the default. Comments pointing it out or complaining about it is just noise.
I'm confused by your response. I was trying to understand if the product and the company are real. An AI-generated website is not a positive signal. Neither is the lack of any product photos. And if you go to Wikipedia, you'll learn that the REO Motor Car Company went defunct in 1967, with no mention of any revival.
So my first thought was that it might be a subtle troll or a hoax. I did a bit more research and found the links to trade articles. It's not a dig at AI. And TBH, I'm sure that LLM's feelings weren't hurt.
It seems like everyone is more worried about how something was made rather than what it is or whether or not the work is good on its own merit. Ironic from a group that is surely using AI tools in their own work.
I too find "looks written by AI" comments tedious. I feel that the following guideline [0] actually covers this, perhaps it should be updated to also specifically mention "AI written":
> Please don't complain about tangential annoyances—e.g. article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button breakage. They're too common to be interesting.
> Just about everything is vibe coded or written with AI these days.
And I’m supposed to just accept this? The fact that this is the case sucks. Don’t tell me to stop complaining about it. Just because you don’t have standards or have given up on trying to make things better doesn’t mean the rest of us have.
Plus, it takes up a slot on the front page that could be taken up by something worth reading.
Vibecoding your whole website is an indication of how seriously you’re taking a project. With how new this company is and how clearly this whole website was made with AI, how can you trust a single thing this website says about a product that barely exists? The AI probably just invented half of it
Worse than vibe coding is vibe copywriting—and it appears to have that in spades. I have a really hard time taking something seriously that reads like it came straight out of Claude Code without even a minimal editing pass.
I hope it's legit, though, and that they succeed! I'd love to buy a product like they're planning to build.
Well when you don't even have a product to sell yet the website is the second most important part, right after actually making the thing. The website is there to sell preorders
That assumes progress is linear, which it certainly is not. We’re also assuming Chinese companies are releasing their best stuff when our own government is dictating what American companies can and cannot release.
I don’t know for sure that they are weeks or months behind. I doubt anyone outside of 3 letter agencies knows that. The pace of AI is crazy fast and China is notoriously secretive. We could be comfortably ahead or China could have the top model by the end of the year.
I don’t think any of us have enough information to know what’s really going on, but I suspect it’s a very tight race.
GP here. The initial comment did not say that it was the gross margin. Only a follow up reply to my comment asking about the price reduction did. So I assumed it was net margin.
The joke is that McDonald's spends hundreds of thousands of dollars to identify new locations - traffic studies, visibility, demographics, nearby traffic generators, site characteristics, drive-thru feasibility, etc. They have one of the most rigorous processes in the industry. Burger King's process is to open a location across the street.
That has far reaching unintended consequences. Thousands of people out of jobs, investors out of money, etc. We’re not just talking fat cat shareholders. There are institutional investors, pension plans, 401k’s. Killing a company like Meta has a financial impact on virtually everyone in the country when the people we’re actually trying to punish are the slimeball CEO and his inner circle of executives.
Our system can’t bear something like a corporate death penalty. Maybe that’s another problem in and of itself. You won’t ever catch me advocating for a company like Meta - they are among the worst - but the solution can’t be one with the potential to kick off a 2008-style financial crisis. The cure can't be as painful as the disease.
That's not fair at all. I am not saying anything about too big to fail. My whole point is that most of the people who get punished by a corporate death penalty don't deserve it. And if you want to go around imposing that penalty then some things need to be structurally different to avoid all the collateral damage.
By all means, punish Zuckerberg and the executives who built the monster. Civil forfeiture is ok with me. Take their money, punish them, charge them with crimes if they broke the law. I don't care. I'm not going to advocate for them escaping accountability just because they are big. Force them to change their business model. Let them fail if they can't find a way to succeed legitimately. But understand that there's a difference between letting a business fail and killing it overnight.
Meta’s negative qualities have been obvious for a decade or more at this point. If you’ve joined them as an employee or invested in them then you knew what you were getting into.
> but the solution can’t be one with the potential to kick off a 2008-style financial crisis.
I don't think it would cause that much damage. If I understand right about floats and stuff, Meta is 2.13% of the S&P500, so NVIDIA (8%) could sneeze and cause more fallout to pension plans and so on than deleting Meta entirely. A sudden worldwide loss of access to content on Meta's servers would cause more secondary fallout than what happens to the markets.
I wish it didn’t go down so frequently, but it does. Still, I get an enormous amount of value. I realize they probably prioritize API users over subscribers and I’m ok with that. I use the API and openrouter for the things that need to be resilient to outages.
I would be embarrassed to try to ask for a refund or free credits. They already give credits far in excess of what you pay for and you have practically the entire month to use them outside of a couple hours of downtime.
reply