Sure. But the suggestion here is that they were specifically inviting it, ostensibly because it would harm competitors.

They are not going to support the idea that "glyphosate causes cancer" for some short-term market advantage.

Yes, I'm sure than Monsanto is champing at the bit to be the next Owens-Corning and sued into oblivion, which is why they're working hard to make sure that Roundup has to be removed from the market for safety reasons.

Do you people even hear yourselves sometimes? How do you say shit like this with a straight face?

If true, that sounds like pretty dangerous ground for an alleged scientific journal to be treading upon. "Who cares if the paper is accurate or not, we're retracting to make it easier for plaintiffs' lawyers to sue" doesn't sound very scientific.

This is exactly end to end encryption, and the so-called "security researcher" appears to have no idea what he is talking about. So:

And?

The Dell pledge is not for children born during "that narrow period of election significance" but rather applies to children under age ten that were not born during said period. AFAICT, the kids getting a thousand bucks do not benefit from this pledge at all. The Dell pledge also only applies to children who live in zip codes where the median HHI is under $150k.

Dell is piggybacking off of the infrastructure that already needs to be put in place to administer the accounts created by congress. I really don't understand why people seem to be so angry about this. The only real connection to Darth Cheeto is what the funds are named, and Dell didn't name them, congress did.

This may well be one of the dumbest questions ever asked on /. as it ignores the entirety of human history.

Again, you're being willfully obtuse by taking a "very loose definition" of what (or, rather, does not) "probably" constitute "ultra processed" and attacking on the details. Everything on your list (again, other than coffee and tea, along with some spices) has been "produced at home" for millennia, and the things on your list that haven't don't have anything to do with whether they could be, but only the geography of where they could be. Just like your follow up "but I don't have land" bullshit.

"Milk" is not an ultra processed food (or, rather, it doesn't have to be). Something containing "red dye #5" is. You need a factory and a complicated supply chain for the red dye #5, but not for the milk. See how easy that was?

With regard to your follow up WRT cheese, come the fuck on. Cheese is nothing more than a way of preserving milk. You can make some in your home today, and the knowledge required to do so can be obtained by watching a five minute Youtube video. Really, five minutes. That's all. Will you have Le Grand Gruyere? No, you'll have farmer's cheese, or ricotta, or mozerella, or maybe a nice gouda if you're feeling frisky and want to wait a bit.

Most of your list could be "produced at home" by most people. Tea and Coffee are the largest problem on the list, but the only reason is geographic and not "processing" related. I'm pretty sure you know that, though, and are being purposefully obtuse for some reason.

Has anything actually stored hashes in /etc/passwd in the last thirty years?

"Yo, dawg..."

Much as I agree with you from a moral standpoint, from a legal standpoint it is not as cut and dried as you make it out to be.

If you want to make the argument that "data about you" is "your data" that's fine, but the presumption here is that it's the airline's data, and it is offering it freely (as in speech, not as in beer) to the government. Where is the fourth amendment implication? It is not your "house, person, papers, or effects," it is the airline's and they're happy to let the government sort through it.

Sigh. No it isn't. The airline is not a provider of medical services, it is not regulated by HIPAA.

While I agree that this is not something I want the government to be doing, what part of a database maintained by the airlines constitutes your person, house, papers, or effects? If the government demands access that would be one thing, but if the airlines say "hey, wanna buy our data?" and the government says "hell yeah" that is something else.

Apparently, "safeguards" mean "don't let the AI say something that hurts feels" rather than "don't let the AI act in a manner that is dangerous and unlawful." I say this because, apparently, Anthropic's systems have been leveraged by nation state actors for hacking campaigns (though details of this are minimal and read like marketing spiel about how awesome their tools are rather than giving information on what actually happened).