This is a BS distinction. Pure Elemental mercury in its liquid form has low absorption, but it is still highly poisonous and a major hazard.

You cannot actually avoid alcohol. A lot of foods contain it naturally.

This is as dumb as claiming you can't avoid Arsenic; a lot of foods contain it naturally, so we shouldn't ban food companies from adding more.

You absolutely can avoid Alcohol. Which is mainly defined as taking food or drink that deliberately contains ethyl Alcohol in significant quantities. Your failure to make fine distinctions between a 0.2% of trace Alcohols within one's diet does not mean there isn't a distinction between trace Alcohol content versus drinking.

And the studies about drinking and consuming Alcohols are not about trace-level products in the diet - which is not drinking to consume at a normal level less than 2 grams a day. The impact of such would require a separate body of research.

Theres actually a better reason to drink in moderation.

That is perfectly fine to understand that there may be a risk, even an unreasonable or significant risk, and to assume that risk anyway because it's fun.

There are also people who drink who seek validation for their conduct as if they are not taking a risk that can be a source of bias, and those people would include researchers Or people attempting to summarize researchers.

my suspicion is you are detached from normal society
Exactly how many drinks did you have last night? I'm gonna guess a few too many.

Alcohol consumption is a highly popular entertainment activity in the US.
The last thing anybody wants to be told Is an activity they highly enjoy is a danger to them in ANY amount.
Drinking lightly or in moderation is not enough to mitigate the risk.

Because of this; there is likely an Undue influence by people who drink within the organization.

The first stage of grief is denial, and attempt to rationalize a way that it isn't true;
Even if you are a researcher, or a person in charge of studies and papers, and
you should know better.

My immediate suspicion is that there are people conducting research or decisions for that organization who are at that stage.

If you believed your computer was talking to you 10 years ago they would have locked you up.

Not really.. broadcasting obviously delusional beliefs might raise suspicions and eventually result in investigation.
You don't get locked up if you just believe your computer tells you things when it didn't.
You get locked up if you believe your computer tells you to do things, and you must do them, and those things hurt people.

Even 10 years ago - locking people up is not based on having delusions or mere signs of mental illness. You can only be forcibly committed initially after 2 licensed physicians initially certify they confirmed you are a serious danger to yourself and others In an emergency they can lock people up for a few days based on that criteria, and locking people up for longer requires proof of specific legal criteria.

It's probably close to 50%. And every single one of them is completely delusional.

Well 100% of the human population is delusional. Having a delusion is just not a psychosis.
Having a delusion 30% of the population has isn't even an abnormality. That's called being
deceived by ChatGPT, and the way ChatGPT is presented. And it's kind of OpenAI's fault how
they have structured the user interface and way the responses are displayed to make it look like
text-chat with a normal human.

A person with Psychosis has a pervasive distortion in their view of reality, so it's not just about
having delusions or having some specific number or extent of delusions.

A human communicating with a person who develops psychosis as a direct result of the communication is blamed, and investigated for wrongdoing.

Well that is wishful thinking, Or this may be part of a psychosis on your part.

There is no law on the books that causes person A speaking to person B to have committed a violation merely because the conversation causes person B develops a psychosis or causes delusions, emotional upsets, or other unwanted affects.

There are some laws against person A abusing person B (Violence, Harassment, Intimidation, or Coercive controlling behaviors), or deliberately encouraging person B with the aim for them to commit illegal or harmful acts, including self harm. Plus some specific statutes protecting children and elderly - vulnerable groups against certain abuses. But so far there is a lack of a case of anyone for being prosecuted with a charge of "Causing a psychosis due to the content of conversations."

And of course by conversation alone.. If that is even possible would be difficult to show, since you can't remember for sure what conversations happened, And a person who experienced a psychosis would by definition be an unreliable witness.

Except the memory makers *aren't* increasing production.

They are actually CUTTING production to create an artificial shortage in the consumer chips.

Micron who owns Crucial is literally shutting down consumer RAM chip production in order to repurpose facilities to make HBM memory for AI companies, since they didn't have the facilities, and the consumer RAM chips are not what the AI companies are interested in buying, either.

These are awesome tools Gmail does provide.

Unfortunately the flaw of both systems is that Plus addressing and Dot addressing are both highly visible.

I recently found there are major companies I supplied a username+vendor@gmail.com address who simply Automatically removed the "+vendor" part from the email address and just start using username@gmail.com at some point in time. Also; new signups or attempting to change email address to a Plus address is now rejected with a validation error. Even though the plus address worked fine a year ago when signing up - they changed their system, and it is now rejected. They also removed the plus portion from existing email addresses.

This is a major Cell phone company who does this! As if to say Not only do they know about the feature, But they deliberately disrespect consumers' decisions to use a Unique vendor-specific email address with the provider.

It would be Great for Gmail and Google Apps/Workspace to have an option for all users to create Invisible aliases and Move the original email address to one of those invisible aliases allowing an account primary email rename.

I know that they'll be another breach or someone will just flat out sell my e-mail address to a mailing list without my consent.

What you really want to do here is have Infinite email addresses and the Capability to instantly Add or Drop as many email addresses as necessary. Then for every website or person you do business with - create an email address for yourself just for that person or company.

Yes there will be breaches. Yes will people with no right or permission will flat out sell or abuse your e-mail address. And thanks to the power of Unique email addresses per contact -- you will know exactly who is responsible.

We wouldn't need any of these, at least in this case here, if the link contained therein pointed to a domain, which even imbeciles could positively identify as legit. No, get[dot]activate[dot]win" does not fit into this category.

The activate(d) dot win domain, Or whatever the heck it is.. or anything similar is Not domain Microsoft ever pointed anyone too anyways.

I would dare say this entire article is about a Tool used for software piracy being impersonated by A different type of pirate.
People trying to get pirate copies of Windows activated getting control of their computer pirated.

(Or if Pirate service is the wrong word.. that the MAS domain impersonated is at best a method of activation not approved by Microsoft, of Activating Legitimate Windows copies --- which avoids requiring verifiable license keys or a verifiable digital license)

...expose and pop this damned AI bubble!? Jeez

The major problem here is Microsoft and Google, and the fact that we have given these two companies so much money by using their shit too much, so they have trillions in spare cash to spend on AI shit.

The AI bubble is Not a bubble as far as the chip manufacturers are concerned, so long as Microsoft and Google keep spending insane amounts of money on datacenters - these companies have an opportunity to make massive bank.

The chip manufacturers simply have dollar signs in their eyes, and they are obligated to do what's best to their investors. Which is screw consumers, so they can sell all their capacity to Google.

few people will ever be able to tell, which domain is held by Microsoft or some other malicious entity.

A query of domain against the WHOIS service generally answers the question.
If the registrar is MarkMonitor, then you can guarantee the legitimate registrant is at least an enterprise if not Microsoft.

The bigger concern people should have is that any one legitimate domain can become compromised by a malicious entity.
Due to the legitimate entity failing to keep up to date all SMTP security requirements, etc, such as NS records, DMARC, SPF management
records, for all domains.

Or for that matter failure to manage what URL endpoints may exist behind every domain; allowing for exposures by way of some obscure outdated URL endpoint allowing an Arbitrary redirect or HTML content return. Such as the old https://example.com/?content=X... returns a document with exactly raw content XYZ; vulnerability.

I believe, for example "surveysitemail.com" was a domain actually owned by Microsoft which became compromised and got used by spammers.
Heck the "anti-phishing.org" domain registered by the Anti-Phishing Working group became susceptible to hijack due to neglected Authoritative nameserver entries.

It is more difficult to ensure that thousands of domains remain properly maintained, monitored, and secured at all times; rather than a maximum of 2 or 3 domains.

.

It sounds like an alias system which is basically what I would love. Aliases are simple database entries, and Ideally they should not even limit us to two.. I would love to have a bunch of alias slots that can be rotated out, so I can add and drop various email addresses on a regular basis in order to reduce spam.

Please google.. Let me change my Gmail account's login email address, but still be able to receive email at the address and manage it like a permanent email alias. In short, just because I have a Gmail account - should not mean that gmail address becomes a permanently valid login username for my account forever. We ought to be allowed to add additional addresses and login with a Private username, so people cannot guess details that can be used to start a login or recovery attempt on our account; based on details we share with other people (Email, Phone number).

More importantly the "Forgot password" link should Not allow entry of such secondary details.

Some arsehole out there keeps causing Unrequested Verification codes to be sent to my email addresses or SMS phone numbers for all sorts of accounts, and hammering bogus attempts, and it gets old fast.

For example I just got "Verify your identity" from cointracker.io. Then I get a password reset request email from tax@crypto.com, Etc. Never had accounts with any websites like those, but apparently someone wants me to have so they can break in. How would breaking into online accounts that help people track their portfolios even do anything useful; I don't know. But it seems like a good enough reason to make a new email address primary and start restricting how an old email address is used.