Did they make any attempt to distinguish between correlation and causation?

Such as? There have been a couple of controlled studies on ultraprocessed food. They found weight gain and other things like speed of eating associated with the UPFs and not other diets. Good luck doing a decade long controlled study until people get heart disease, even if you somehow convinced an ethics committee to let you try.

https://www.cell.com/cell-meta...
https://www.nature.com/article....

There have also been lots of mechanistic studies of many of the common ingredients in UPFs.

Just like today, most people in power are willing to look the other way when money is involved.

If it was a reasonable balance of risk and payback, then they could get a private loan like everybody else.

There's been ticket scalping since the days when I was a kid...

It was always, back then....illegal to scalp tickets, but they would do things like sell a Bic lighter for $200 and throw in a ticket free with it.

I imagine they'll do something similar to get around this law over there in EU.

Lincoln was a Free Soiler. He may have had a moral aversion to slavery, but it was secondary to his economic concerns. He believed that slavery could continue in the South but should not be extended into the western territories, primarily because it limited economic opportunities for white laborers, who would otherwise have to compete with enslaved workers.

From an economic perspective, he was right. The Southern slave system enriched a small aristocratic elite—roughly 5% of whites—while offering poor whites very limited upward mobility.

The politics of the era were far more complicated than the simplified narrative of a uniformly radical abolitionist North confronting a uniformly pro-secession South. This oversimplification is largely an artifact of neo-Confederate historical revisionism. In reality, the North was deeply racist by modern standards, support for Southern secession was far from universal, and many secession conventions were marked by severe democratic irregularities, including voter intimidation.

The current coalescence of anti-science attitudes and neo-Confederate interpretations of the Civil War is not accidental. Both reflect a willingness to supplant scholarship with narratives that are more “correct” ideologically. This tendency is universal—everyone does it to some degree—but in these cases, it is profoundly anti-intellectual: inconvenient evidence is simply ignored or dismissed. As in the antebellum South, this lack of critical thought is being exploited to entrench an economic elite. It keeps people focused on fears over vaccinations or immigrant labor while policies serving elite interests are quietly enacted.

I think I saw someone swimming in some sewage en route from scraping a bear carcass off the road, let me go check.

I suspect that a more fundamental problem is what you would need to preserve.

Embryos are clearly the easier case, being small and impressively good at using some sort of contextual cue system to elaborate an entire body plan from a little cell glob(including more or less graceful handling of cases like identical twins, where physical separation of the cell blob changes requirements dramatically and abruptly); but they are also the case that faces looser constraints. If an embryo manages to grow a brain that falls within expectations for humans it's mission successful. People may have preferences; but a fairly wide range of outcomes counts as normal. If you discard or damage too much the embryo simply won't work anymore; or you'll get ghastly malformations; but there are uncounted billions of hypothetical babies that would count as 'correct' results if you perturb the embryo just slightly.

If you are freezing an adult; you presumably want more. You want the rebuilt result to fall within the realm of being them. That appears to not require an exact copy(people have at least limited ability to handle cell death and replacement or knock a few synapses around without radical personality change most of the time; and a certain amount of forgetting is considered normal); but it is going to require some amount of fidelity that quite possibly wont' be available(depending on what killed them and how, and how quickly and successfully you froze them); and which cannot, in principle, be reconstructed if lost.

Essentially the (much harder because it's all fiddly biotech) equivalent of getting someone to go out and paint a landscape for you vs. getting someone to paint the picture that was damaged when your house burned down. The first task isn't trivial; but it's without theoretical issues and getting someone who can do it to do it is easy enough. The second isn't possible, full stop, in principle, even if you are building the thing atom by atom the information regarding what you want has been partially lost; though it is, potentially, something you could more or less convincingly/inoffensively fake; the way people do photoshop 'restoration' of damaged photos where the result is a lie; but a plausible one that looks better than the damage does.

The fraught ethics of neurally engineering someone until your client says that their personality, memories, and behavior 'seem right' is, of course, left as an exercise to the reader; along with the requisite neuropsychology.

1. I got asked once if I played world of warcraft since they say a guy with the name "thegarbz" playing. I said no. By the way I know exactly who that person is because he impersonated me as a joke. I found that flattering and funny, but it has no impact on my life beyond that.

Reminds me of my first email account ;) One of my professors said we all had to register for an email account (this was in the mid-90s) so we could submit our homework to him, so I registered his name at hotmail.com to mess with him ;)

I don't trust single points of failure.

Yeah, this. If I have to sign up to some site that I don't care at all if it gets hacked, I use a throwaway password. Oh noez, someone might compromise my WidgetGenerator.foo.bar account and generate some widgets in my name, heavens to betsy!

Are these hypothetical babies likely to vote Republican?

Why should he stop exactly explaining the situation?

Lenders take on the risk of a default, and when the government lends money, the risk is socialized.

The loan is being made to a private, for-profit corporation, who will be able to keep any profits generated by this scheme (however unlikely that may be).

Whatever activity the loan is for is irrelevant, whether it's for cranking up a crusty old nuclear power plant, or for bailing out a Wall Street firm during a market panic.

It's different from humans in that human opinions, expertise and intelligence are rooted in their experience. Good or bad, and inconsistent as it is, it is far, far more stable than AI. If you've ever tried to work at a long running task with generative AI, the crash in performance as the context rots is very, very noticeable, and it's intrinsic to the technology. Work with a human long enough, and you will see the faults in his reasoning, sure, but it's just as good or bad as it was at the beginning.

"The market can stay irrational long than you can stay solvent."

Fund managers with more than 10 years of experience knew that trying to short the market during a bubble is just as likely to bankrupt you as to make you rich. The most difficult part of a bubble is no one has yet found a way to predict with any confidence when it will burst.

For fund managers whose bonus is tied to how they compare to "the market" (i.e. everyone else), the safest path during a bubble is to dive into bubble like everyone else. If the bubble did not burst, they all make gains and pocket nice bonus. If the bubble did burst, every fund manager loses a whole lot of people's money but hey! we are competitive with "the market"!

For people investing with their own money, your best bet is to pull out entirely like Warren Buffet did, unless you don't need the money until 10-20 years later, then you have the option to leave them invested in non-bubble related investments and ride through the burst and subsequent recovery.

Part of raising capital is convincing everyone that you need the money and have a good plan for it. We're probably better off if these companies don't actually buy even 10% of the things they are saying they will buy. The hype funding schemes are incredibly harmful to business long-term, but the short-term pay off is too attracted for them to ever stop doing it.