The systemd version takes a similar approach - only handling the 99.9% use case of running a local command as a different user based on some basic rules and only really providing a userspace implementation without suid.

IIRC that use case is about 15% of OG sudo's code but most distros carry around all the features. I dunno, maybe it can be compiled without those but I don't see that in distros I've used.

Corporatism is a distinct concept from Capitalism. That's the one you're describing. There's been a psyop by Socialists to describe corporatism as capitalism so they get more of a merger of business and State (fascism).

Corporations are creations of a government in which governments get a cut and politicians get bribes in exchange for protection from justice for the corporate actors' crimes.

If you read Adam Smith he described this as Mercantilism in his time and recommended free market capitalism as its antidote with an emphasis on the accumulation of capital and investment into more competitive production.

Von Mises fleshed this out more a couple centuries later (followed by Hayek and Rothbard). The definitive work is /Man, Economy, and State/ which breaks it all down in tremendous detail.

Notably corporations in the early USA were limited to public works projects and had time-limited grants (e.g. for building a bridge or later the railroads).

JD Rockefeller bribed Congress during Reconstruction to make corporations permanent, so he wouldn't lose his charter for Standard Oil. He later wrote the Sherman Anti-trust Act to hurt his competition.

Today we have immortal psychopathic corporations with a legal mandate to be depraved and with legal personhood. The Dulles brothers created the CIA to fight wars and conduct assassinations on behalf of the corporations. cf. United Fruit or the Pepsi War.

After the Revolution remember to forbid corporations. The Gini Coefficient is too damn high.

"They" was Lewis Strauss, the chairman of the US Atomic Energy Commission in a speech. Here's the full quote:

It is not too much to expect that our children will enjoy in their homes electrical energy too cheap to meter, will know of great periodic regional famines in the world only as matters of history, will travel effortlessly over the seas and under them and through the air with a minimum of danger and at great speeds, and will experience a lifespan far longer than ours, as disease yields and man comes to understand what causes him to age.

There's an option for flat rate residential electricity here, mostly provided by hydro and nukes. That's maybe not quite the same thing as he was talking about, but maybe it was.

We also travel pretty effortlessly through the air with frankly unbelievable safety, which has made sea travel more of a recreational thing. We haven't gotten to "far longer" lifespans yet, but US life expectancy is up more than a decade since he said that. Some of that is fewer dead babies but there have also been improvements in life expectancy at all ages.

Hot dog on a bun with glyphosate, chips with BHT, ketchup with HFCS, pickles with Polysorbate 80, and a large Coke.

Hot dog caused Diabetes! Q.E.D.

This is why every civilization for thousands of years have made sausages. To make everybody fat and insulin dependent!

TRUST THE EXPERTS.

And it's a meta-analysis paper, according to the description, and they described the correlation as somewhat questionable. I automatically assume that meta-analysis papers are going to be weak.

So not all of the original studies adjusted for income.

So basically, it sounds like nowhere near all studies adjusted for income, and they think they took that into account, but because this is a meta-analysis, there's a certain degree of garbage-in-garbage-out involved. The only way to really be sure is to exclude studies that don't adjust for everything you care about.

Also, because this is a meta-analysis, the papers you exclude are also kind of important.

I'm not sure why "not outcome of interest" excluded both 45 and 54 papers, but that sort of discrepancy raises some red flags, particularly when there are only 16 included studies.

But the real red flag for me is the confidence interval. If I'm understanding this correctly, without compensating for heterogeneity, the effect on colorectal cancer and heart disease are statistically indistinguishable from zero. This intuitively feels like the sort of study where after a few more studies, you'll see regression to the mean.

And type 2 diabetes tends to be strongly correlated with obesity, and there's no mention of the original studies having adjusted for that. If obese people are more likely to eat processed meat because of it being a quick way to get the calories that they need, then it is also possible that the correlation with type 2 diabetes is entirely spurious.

I'm not seeing a whole lot of actual evidence to go from "we combined a bunch of studies with weak-to-zero correlation and got weak-to-zero correlation" to "eating processed meat likely causes an increase in these conditions".

:(

Agree with all your points.

It's possible I might have missed these, but they're also major considerations with COVID:

1. It causes scarring of tissue, especially heart tissue. That's why COVID sufferers often had severe blood clots in their bloodstream. Scarring of the heart increases risk of heart attacks, but there's obviously not much data on by how much, from COVID. Yet.

2. It causes brain damage in all who have been infected. Again, we have very little idea of how much, but from what I've read, there may be an increased risk of strokes in later life.

3. Viral load is known to cause fossil viruses in DNA to reactivate silenced portions. This can lead to cancer. Viral load has also been linked to multiple sclerosis and chronic fatigue, but it's possible COVID was the wrong sort of virus. These things can take decades to develop.

I would expect a drop in life expectancy, sometimes in the 2040-2050 timeframe, from life-shortening damage from COVID, but the probability depends on how much damage even mild sufferers sustained and what medicine can do to mitigate it by then. The first, as far as I know, has not been looked at nearly as much as long COVID has - which is fair. The second is obviously unknowable.

I'm hoping I'm being overly anxious, my worry is that I might not be anxious enough.

Most people who aren't at or near the poverty line don't eat a hot dog daily. That's what people eat who can't cook and can't afford take-out food. So yeah, chances are, this correlation would go away if you adjust for other risk factors like poverty.

But I'm not willing to spend $33 just to confirm that. Nothing is more useless than medical journal articles that are locked behind a paywall.

Citation needed.

I wonder if these will have academic studies in a few years showing they create a high risk of rare forms of cancer the way studies showed the mRNA based COVID "vaccines" did. If not, no thanks. It is no fun to die a painful death or to lose someone you love and see them die a painful death either.

Math teachers are famous for adding some random but important looking stuff to confuse students who take this "rule" too seriously. They do it because students are fooled by this too. They also do it becase being trained that "everything stated is important" is not true makes students better problem solvers.

Training these models on problems with irrelevant content will undoubtedly make them better problem solvers as well.

It's interesting how critics jump on reasoning. Humans are pretty shit at reasoning. So much so that we have painstakingly developed formal systems, complete with years of training, to make a select few acceptably good at it. Those formal systems ARE how we normally define "reasoning."

Now, formal systems are what conventional computation, not AI, is great at. And some of the reasoning AI models have access to conventional logic programs for exactly that reason. Systems that will happily reason rings around any human.

I generally agree with all that, but I am still not impressed. It is partly due to rapidly declining educational standards where newly graduating programmers need to have remedial classes so they know how and are not afraid to make a phone call or write an email in complete sentences. Writing a compiler for a serious programming language? Apparently that is just short of unheard of, and when I was in school you practically couldn't graduate in computer science without taking a class like that and almost everyone did. I used to write or port video games that ran on machines (like the Amiga, the Atari ST, and the Atari 7800) with as little as 4K of RAM and 16K of ROM, and you had better believe no one wanted to ship a video game cartridge with any visible bugs in it, or something on floppy disks with serious bugs in it either. I had managers yell at me for not being able to fit a cutting edge golf game into 512K of RAM on an Amiga when I was seventeen. It would have worked fine in HAM mode with 4096 colors but the publisher (Accolade actually) insisted that it absolutely had to fit in 512K and took responsibility for the Amiga version away from me and shipped a rather less exciting 32 color version because their requirements were that demanding.

And these days programmers waste RAM like water - and in many (but certainly not all) environments they can afford to, and no one cares. If every version for twenty years is slower and uses more resources than the year before no one really cares just as long as the bottom line looks okay and they can hire the cheapest and least competent programmers possible to get a (bleep) poor job done before moving onto the next bug infested piece of software. And even the *biggest* and most reputable companies do this as a matter of course. Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon, and Adobe produce some great software but overall their software quality has either gone done hill or done nothing much for twenty years. And Internet standards are actually going backwards, especially with the introduction of ever slower versions of DNS, the ridiculous idea that we should use HTTPS everywhere, some of the most inefficient RPC protocols ever devised, the advent of resume driven development SPA web applications and on and on.

Back in the 90s software, including Internet software used to be *fast*, and if you didn't push the limits of the laws of physics you were a bad programmer. And how many companies and how many programmers do that any more? Approximately none of them, if they even know how or use a language that doesn't suffer embarassing pauses and run ten times as slow as what is reasonably possible. Electrical engineers and engineers in materials science know how to push the boundaries of the laws of physics, but on average software engineers stink and are not allowed to dedicate the time and the resources to do anything they should actually be proud of and look at themselves in the mirror in the morning with anything but barely disguised disgust. Someone or some group of people ought to do something about that. I intend to do so (to the degree I can of course) and I hope others do to. I am embarrassed to work on products and services from poorly managed software and services companies with managers, executives, CEOs, boards of directors, and shareholders that just don't care (tm).

Very very few software developers deserve the title "engineer" at all, and not just because they haven't or couldn't pass the FE exam. Software quality has been in free fall for a couple of decades now for a variety of reasons. That is not all the software developers fault of course, but if you can't write code in some serious high performing programming language that could be put in ROM and perform according to spec without any serious bugs for at least a century you are basically incompetent compared to video game programmers who used to count cycles on 8 and 16/32 bit machines and produce reliable, nearly bug free software that was often burned into ROM and still works in emulation today or write code that could control safety critical embedded equipment where failure means death or injury, human spaceflight controls with similar consequences, or any kind of software where a major failure means a financial or other catastrophe that results in human suffering, major loss of life, disclosure of massive amounts of information like that you *definitely* do not deserve the title "software engineer" at all.

Ask a real engineer sometime, someone that deserves the title - they operate under such constraints as a matter of course, if they fail to do their jobs bad things like I described happen, and the professional ones bear personal and professional liability if a design for something like a bridge or a building catastrophically fails. There was a time when if an architect or engineer designed a structure that failed and killed someone, the consequence was the death penalty or at least permanent revocation of their professional license.

It would be nice to bring that level of seriousness and quality, reliability, and performance back instead of cutting and pasting random bits of (possibly low quality "AI' generated) code and tweaking it until it pretends to work like someone with a seventh grade education and then shipping the abysmally low quality result every couple of weeks and planning to fix the bugs sometime in the next decade if you or someone who works there or who calls the shots ever gets around to it at *all*. Some who claims to be a software developer (or worse a "software engineer") should act like they are smarter or at least more responsible than a fifth grader.

Well, your buying power would be crippled.