I agree and disagree.

Corporations are obviously not alive and thus have none of that stuff. They're contractual arrangements. However, corporations are operated by humans. Those humans make decisions in the name of "the corporation". Those humans are choosing to put the financial advancement of the owners, investors, and higher ups above those of the workers.

This isn't an issue of being absent of a heart because that would imply a lack of malice. These decisions are made by black-hearted people. People with the capability of caring, but who choose not to.

Without seeing a full multi-month chart of Linux use, I think it's safe to say that there was an abnormal spike (maybe people playing with Proton in anticipation of new Valve Hardware releases) and then going back to what they normally do when Valve announced the hardware delays.

And baseball cards. And computer processors ("silicon lottery"). And Woot.com bags of crap (https://www.woot.com/offers/bag-o-crap-8).

It's a charter flight on a 6-prop helicopter piloted by a human (with hopes of being autonomous in the future). All standard flight and landing requirements apply.

Ride-hailing's innovation was the deception of lawmakers and the app-based dispatch.

Where's the innovation here?

So they may soon have the most electricity storage via battery... Is something supposed to happen if they do? Do they get a prize? Does something happen to California if they're no longer #1?

In what ways does PG&E work against "home installations and other projects"?

American standardized testing isn't particularly different from elsewhere. People just don't like being tested nor do they like that progression within the system is based on testing.

I don't think it's as flawed as "has always been total bullshit".

Standardized testing, first and foremost, exists to evaluate the effectiveness of educational treatments on TENS of MILLIONS of students in the US. Tens of millions. I welcome you to provide any other measurement methodology that costs the same or less in time or money while maintaining similar levels accuracy in measuring the scholastic progression of students.

And doing poorly in standardized testing has never intended to, nor has their results ever been interpreted en masse as implying "everyone must fit this exact mold or else you're an absolute failure". In reality, it only measures what its intended to measure:

1. Is the student's reading comprehension sufficiently strong to understand the question?
2. Is the student's subject-matter mastery sufficiently strong to respond to the question correctly?

If the student scores are below par, then you know the answer to at least one of those questions is "No" and you need to go back and find out what went wrong? Here are some common reasons:

1. The student has sub-par reading comprehension and hasn't made sufficient progress this year to take tests independently.
2. The student has sub-par subject-matter mastery because of attendance, lack of home support, need for different explanations, or need for more subject reinforcement.
3. The student has a cognitive disability which makes either learning the subject-matter atypically difficulty.
4. The student has a cognitive disability which makes taking the test atypically difficult as a task.
5. The educator has made insufficient effort to teach the subject-matter.

If the reason is #1, then you can designate remedial education. If the reason is #2, that's for bringing up in parent-teacher conference. If the reason is #3 or #4, then there are legal mandates to accommodate these disabilities and make an individual education plan to meet the student's needs. If the reason is #5, then corrective action is taken with the educator.

No one is considered a failure for learning other skills. However, they will not progress within the academic sphere if they do not learn academic skills. That's reasonable and rational. The education system both educates and filters out people who choose not to progress further in certain areas so that those who progress to expertise are most likely to want to be experts in their fields. A neurologist that failed all his biology classes from high school through med school would be a danger to his patients.

Lastly, and most importantly since too many people never learn this-- The goals of the educational process do not include "passing tests and getting good grades". The primary goal is that the student learn the subject-matter, but the only way such a poorly-funded/supported educational system can evaluate a whether a student is learning subject-matter is to ask that student to prove that they know it (ie. testing). And the only way to do so in a way that is equitably applied to everyone is to test everyone using the same instrument (ie. Standardized Testing).

To mitigate tort liability and preserve financial partnerships.

No. The fructose in an apple will not harm you nor will drinking a can of Pepsi once per week make you ravenously hungry. Excessive fructose consumption messes with your leptin response.

No. Excessive sugar contributes to heart disease and other ailments.

These are over-generalizations that make it damn near impossible for the average person to understand what they need to do to be reasonably healthy. If you tell people that "sugar is giving you cancer", they either ignore you because they're unwilling to cut out ALL SUGAR or some poor saps will actually cut sugar from their diets so severely that they will actually cause problems because your body needs sugar... just not as much as we have access to on a regular basis.

Correct! TOO MUCH high-fat meat is a problem.

No. Gluten is hard for some people to digest properly (Bread in the USA used to be made with iodine. After the iodine fear craze, it's now made with bromide

Is all bread in the USA made with potassium bromate? No.
Is all mass-produced bread in the US made with potassium bromate? No.
Would bread be considered "ultra-processed" regardless of the use of potassium bromate or potassium iodine? Yes.

I don't know what this means. Are you saying that legislative advocates have corrupted the production of baby formula or that the corporations that mass-produce baby formula are gouging their market?

This CAN be true, but I think it's fair to say that very, very few people in the US are at risk of malnourishment and those that are cannot pin a sole cause of malnourishment on "flavorings". You're not going to develop scurvy because you consume a beverage that's high in citric acid instead of consuming an orange. It's so easy to get all your necessary nutrients that very few people in the US could actually benefit from a daily multi-vitamin.

I 100% agree. They manipulate the fat, salt, and sugar to excessive and unhealthy levels in an effort to keep their customers coming back and, in an effort to reduce expenses, they replace more nutritious ingredients with less nutritious ingredients. And sometimes they add unhealthy things to mitigate loss of product by extending shelf life.

But very little of the food produced right now for the US market is actually "dangerous". Instead, it's dangerous in excess. Go ahead and eat an Oreo. Eat a row of Oreos, if you want. However, one shouldn't make it a habit of eating entire rows of Oreos (or any overly-sugared treat). And if you want to start a non-profit that mass-produces genuinely healthy confections to replace Oreos as a go-to snack, then I will eat your cookies! But you will find it very difficult to compete with Oreo's low cost to produce and shelf life while maintaining the high-health content and low product loss.

One needn't be a nutrition researcher to understand the vocabulary issues.

The process (permutation) of foods is not the issue and every single description of why "ultra-processed foods" are bad, never actually say mixing, cooking, dehydrating, etc. food is bad. It always comes down to the addition of large amounts of sugar, salt, and fat within that process. The name "ultra-processed" has no association with the problem opponents of ultra-processed foods are trying to fight.

It would be like saying, "We need to stop transportation! Transportation leads to death!" and then further into the discussion stating, "The problem with transportation are the polluting of vehicle fuel sources and the unsafe operation of personal vehicles."

There is absolutely nothing wrong with food that has been processed via a variety of means and the term is confusing for EVERYONE as a result. Did you have a tofu wrap with kimchi? Congrats, you had "ultra-processed" food and now your life is in danger. (Ok, no, not really.) Let's just look at what the article itself says:

What is ultra-processed food?

* Fizzy drinks - Carbonation isn't a problem, it's the sugar.
* Sweets - Apricots are not a problem, candy is.
* Fast Food - Quickly produced grilled chicken is a non-issue. High-salt, high-fat meets and sugary breads are.
* Mass-Produced Bread - There's nothing wrong with making a LOT of bread. The cake-levels of sugars are.

What do these foods contain?

* There's nothing bad about fruit juice concentrates except when they use insufficient water to reconstitute the concentrate or if they remove too much pulp.
* Dextrose? Dextrose is used to treat hypoglycemia.
* Golden Syrup? Again... It's sugar!
* Gluten? Gluten is the problem? WTF?
* What in the world is wrong with dried egg whites?
* Monosodium glutamate is just a salt!!

Why does it matter?

And here's where we get to what it's ACTUALLY all about-- HIGH salt, HIGH sugar, HIGH fat. That's it. That's the problem.

There is nothing intrinsically unhealthy about mass produced food.
There is nothing intrinsically unhealthy about dehydrated food.
There is nothing intrinsically unhealthy about quickly produced food or with food with a long preparation process.

The ONLY ACTUAL problems are the unhealthy levels of SALT, SUGAR, and FAT.

So again, I assert We Need to Drop the Term "Ultra-Processed". Most people don't understand it and thus it's a useless term to improve peoples' lives.

I'm not even joking.

I am well aware of the Comcast's LONG-STANDING and VALID reputational issues... but the deal was too much to pass up. My offer was for 1Gbps at $50/mo. The price is locked in for 5 years and I'm not bound by contract. The gateway is included. This is in contrast to my prior ISP where I had one-tenth the bandwidth, paid 40% more per month, and had older gateway with less WiFi range.

We're better off today with Comcast, but I'm not loyal to anyone. The second they try to pull the rug, we're out the door, but we will have gotten ours in the interim.

Here's the ENTIRETY of what Workday CEO Carl Eschenbach is quoted to have said in the article.

* “It’s an overblown narrative, and it’s not true,”
* “absolutely not a headwind”
* “We are uniquely positioned to be one of the AI winners in the enterprise because of our incumbency, and lastly, because of the trust we get from our customers,”

So the CEO of a company, the person hired to continually convince people to buy their stock, said that their financial investments are good and definitely not bad. Let's just ignore every CEO statement about how their choice to invest in LLMs replacing human work is affecting their business unless supplemental insight from that company's customers and employees is included in the article?

Thanks!