You are deeply delusional. And you have no clue what "state level actors" can actually do.

You seem to be mentally defective because you hallucinate things opposite to observable reality.

Obviously. But why were they not in place?

You wish. But you just exposed yourself as a member of the "cult of AI". You seem to think AI is magic. It is not.

MKBHD reviewed it, and said that the crease is about an 8.5 out of 10. Honor have completely eliminated it, and Samsung is almost there.

Not that I think it matters. Apparently when in use you don't notice the crease at all, except for a slight sensation when sliding your finger over it.

It's too expensive for me too. But I'm amused that Samsung have got the jump on Apple. Apparently Apple's coming foldable is going to be the same "passport" shape as the Galaxy Fold 8, so now Samsung can say that Apple is copying them and the new iPhone is only a mid-tier device, below their Galaxy Fold 8 Ultra.

Okay, you're continually stating that I am incorrect. Let's roll

https://www.npr.org/sections/t....

In 1967, the Sugar Research Foundation wanted to counter claims that Sugar consumption's role in heart disease. So they funded research by Harvard scientist that supported their claim. The conclusion of the research that sugar was innocent, and that Americans fat consumption was the proximate cause.

This was published in teh New England journal of medicine. They have spent 50 years trying to support this claim. Point is, if People consumed less fat, they would be able to increase their sugar consumption by 33 percent.

Then in the 1960's the Sugar industry was concerned that sugar was at best, an undesirable substitute for other carbohydrates. So they funded their own research - shades of tobacco. One of their researchers was a Harvard professor who was also on the Sugar Research Foundation. Said research suggested not only that sugar was not a coronary health problem, but claimed incompetence and methodology flaws on all the research that noted sugar related coronary issues.

That's the leadup to my thesis. Mine is that there was a lot of bullshit in the old suggested amounts of food types in the old nutrition guides, in fair part based on bullshit research like the Sugar industry, this assigned the problems to fat, not sugar and by extension other simple carbs. https://idealhealthmd.com/2025...

Here are two food pyramids. 1992 and present. They look quite different to me. https://realfood.gov/ I do side with the new one, but need your explanation how there is no - or very little - change. Who am I to believe, you, or the data and my lying eyes?

Your thesis appears to suggest that nutritional guidelines have not changed. Can you support that when presented with the old and the new, which to my eyes look a lot different. Explain why I am wrong, that there has been no change as you quite definitely stated.

Well, you are clearly an anti-human cretin. So that fits.

You are correct about the type of people. IIRC you are in another country, but here in the US, corporate interests hijacked the food pyramid, and so many took the advice to go heavy on the simple carbs, limit the proteins, and as little fat as possible, while chow down on that candy. But other than my short lived vegetarian debacle, I don't listen to them.

Back story - I was raised in a poor family, we grew a lot of our own food, canned much, and the extended family would go together and buy in bulk for the rest.

The family in my case was Italian on my mother's side, and Eastern European on my father's. It was only after leaving home it occurred to me we were eating something close to Mediterranean diet with an Eastern European twist. Turns out we were eating better than the wealthy people. Wife and I have picked up canning again, as well as curing meats. Keeps the tradition alive, and damn - it is good.

CEO of a 501(c)3 corporation. Part of that job was required social media presence. The main task was providing information on our "mission" and interactions with people. Educational and technical in nature, not unlike the "learn to code" effort. Teaching classes in digital RF comms is a big part.

But Facebook being Facebook, relatives and friends found me. Being an experimentalist by nature, and noting distinct personality shifts and intensity shifts, with people I looked into the reasons for that. That was apart from my tasking.

This is separate from what I do in semi retirement. It's still technical, but at present my paid work is electromagnetic communications and interference mitigation.

Nutritional needs of humans haven't changed much since we became humans. But not only people but corporate interests always conspire to either push things that will make them money, or in the case of individuals, push some agenda. Sometimes it is "Everything you are doing is wrong" or "I've found the secret to health" or of course, ethical matters.

I understand some of this, but what is your claim that Amazon is messing with people's minds?

A million times this. After I had to be on Facebook for my work, I figured out their algorithms. I'll use real life examples. I introduced a friend to Facebook. A really decent guy. Conservative, but not overly.

Within a year, he was far right Maga on steroids.

My female relatives:

They were all the stereotype Liberal White Women. Over time, they became raging womanists, to the point if you dared to express any other opinion but theirs, you were subjected to claims that you were misogynist, an example of patriarchal rap culture woman abuser. My wife was on the same group chat, and it's been tough keeping her from the same leanings. Only thing that saved her is she was abused a lot by women (note, men get the blame, but try being a slender attractive woman in a high position)

So okay - what's the common denominator for two groups largely at each other's throats? If you go to FB and see an interesting article or story and click on it, the algorithm stores that, and starts serving you up a little more. Some of those stories or articles might be a little further toward your interest. And people tend to believe what they read. So each new push of the algorithm takes you further. The further you accept, the further it will take you into the fringes.

So now, my female relatives are basket cases, my friend is so far right he is almost unrecognizable.

As an example I shared a store piece from the Babylon Bee that said something like "Woman suspects her husband is using AI when he started sending thoughtful loving replies to her texts." Funny, kinda addresses one of the light hearted versions of male vs female interactions.

The results? my feed was inundated with posts from women who very definitely hate all men. What the actual hell? I had to go through and stop those. Now my feed is getting weird.

There actually are some decent groups on FB if you can get rid of the political bullshit. Meanwhile many people are ruined by it.

Oh, having that fried and crisped up sounds awesome.

Random tip: I do home made bacon. The nitrates do not cure the fat - you have to have enough salt.

Random tip: We see "uncured bacon" in the grocery stores - that is an out and out lie. It usually has celery juice in it. Celery is high in nitrates. So are many other veggies. So it is cured, and those who wish to eliminate all nitrates are out of luck - I guess they have to eat bread and a bit of fruit.

Gross.

For those who pay attention. I look at it like the admonitions against protein versus carbs in previous food pyramids, along with a condemnation of fats. The skids greased by your friendly sugar industry and some corrupt researchers. https://www.npr.org/sections/t...

And the results? Obesity and bad health outcomes.

Something seemed off to me. I looked at my parent's generation. According to the high carb/low protein, almost no fat crowd they should have all been dead by 50. Fat, bloated dead. According to that pyramid, they were 180 degrees out of phase with "what people should eat." Yet there wasn't much overweight, they were pretty healthy, although tobacco took its toll on many.

My generation could struggle a bit with weight. Today, there is general obesity in many quarters. It isn't the only reason, but the sugar industry's efforts have taken its toll.

Now to your point - yes, there were nutritionists who preached against this, with a message of moderation in things, that fat was necessary in one's diet, and that overconsumption of carbs could lead to appetite disregulation. I do know that back in the mid 80's, I tried a vegetarian diet. (lacto-ovarian) What a mess. Turns out some of us are not designed for a prey diet. Wrecked my metabolism. I stopped after 6 months, and took 6 more months before I returned to normal.

But those nutritionists who preached moderation and a balanced diet were considered stuck in old school, and being left behind. So who to trust?

Turns out it was the ones who weren't beholden to the sugar industry.