"It suggests" if you ignore that their confounder control is terrible. First, sugar wasn't the only restricted food in post-war Britain - there was also rationing of eggs, butter, cheese and meats that ended during the same timeperiod. So you're not actually testing the effects of sugar consumption, now are you? Also, the early 1950s was a period of rapid change in the US, including the maturation and expansion of the NHS (founded in 1948), the introduction of new childhood vaccines, major environmental shifts (for example, the Great Smog of London in 1952 vs. the 1956 Clean Air Act). Saying "all changes = sugar" just based on birthdate seems absurd.

It's also worth mentioning that there's also survivorship bias - anyone who died before the study couldn't be enrolled, and there's also no actual linking to any maternal / childhood dietary logs. Also, the ratios of cancer differences they're describing aren't small, they're massive. Are we to attribute a lung cancer difference on the order of smoking vs. nonsmoking households as being to sugar, or due to, you know, smoking (or pollution) trends not accounted for in their cohort?

BOTH screwed up. The system shouldn't have made the match and the human should have done a better job seeing that the match was wrong. I'll go one larger and say the people who created the procedures screwed up because they didn't make allowances for the possibility of the first two screw-ups.

Simply the Forbes link was enough to confirm this point

Nope. One link is not enough — from the very beginning I asked, that each citation consist of two links: one to the prediction being made, the other — to confirmation/discussion of it coming true. Another rule was, the two links must be at least 5 years apart.

The purpose is easy to understand. A person can privately record 20 predictions of, say, an average temperature somewhere changing from -10 to +9 degrees. Five years later one of them will have made a precise match, and Forbes will write about him. If you didn't know about his 19 other predictions, you'll be impressed... This is why I insist on the prediction to have been published — prominently — ahead of time.

you purposely ignore the arguments

Because I was not asking for arguments — I was asking for citations...

Way to out yourself as being American by being simultaneously loudly, assertively ignorant and racist at the same time.

** - Collective guilt is a fallacy; modern Germany is a highly democratic constitutional state with a commendable record on teaching against extremism; Marx and Engel drew heavily from French utopian socialists (e.g., Saint-Simon, Fourier), while it was the Russians who actually implemented communism; World War I began with the assassination of Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand by a Bosnian Serb nationalist, triggering a chain reaction of ultimatums and alliances involving Austria-Hungary, Serbia, Russia, France, Germany, and Great Britain, with any individual state bearing guilt for the war being a notion firmly rejected by modern historians; Hitler was born in Austria-Hungary and was an Austrian citizen until he renounced it in 1925, not gaining German citizenship until 1932; the East German government and the Stasi was forced on the people of Germany by the USSR, and it was not a global phenomenon "brought to the world", but rather dissolved with the GDR in 1990. TL/DR: Go fuck yourself.

If you let out apartments and houses, you're also going to have to make your properties "greener', or you get penalized in some way. For instance in Belgium you can't raise rent with inflation unless your property reaches a certain level of compliance.

Glad we don't have to deal with that type of overregulation over here in the US.

I mean, it's great if a property owner wants to do it and it is feasible for them.....but I don't like the govt mandating crap like that.

The problem is, people have been over-trusting technology since technology was invented. Consider the '70s when corporate representatives were so fond on the phrase "But the computer says...". Yes, you could hear the bold italics in their voice, as if it was the infallible final word on everything.

If THE COMPUTER says you shoplifted, rest assured, some dolt in a suit will treat that like God's own word booming from the clouds.

But every person who sets foot in that store probably "kinda" looks like someone who has shoplifted. And since shoplifters look like everybody else, everyone COULD be a shoplifter.

There are still a few primaries coming up: https://www.fvap.gov/guide/app... [fvap.gov] If you don't see a DSA candidate see who Bernie recommends https://www.youtube.com/@Berni... [youtube.com]

Sorry I'm just NOT for dismantling the US like the DSA is promoting.

I don't want to get rid of the senate (although I would vote for making them appointed by state governments instead of popular vote like they used to do)....

I don't want to get rid of prisons.

I don't want to get rid of ICE and open our borders to anyone....

I don't want to stop deporting people that are here illegally.

I don't want to get rid of the Supreme Court.

I don't support govt taking over the means of production.

There's a LOT I don't want to do that leads to the complete upheaval of the US and how it was set up by the founders.

There is only so much an individual 'needs" when the needs of others are considered.

Why should I consider the "needs" of others?

I mean, aside from myself, family and friends.....why should I give a fsck what others need when considering my purchases and the support of my preferred lifestyle?

I don't purposely try to hold anyone back, but I certainly don't pause to think "what do others need" when I'm saving for a necessity or even a fun purchase that will buy me something I WANT...not need, WANT.....

Who the fuck stops and ponders others in this manner in life.....?

the Facewatch system has a 99.98% accuracy rate,

So one in every five thousand people who walk into your stores is going to be falsely accused of a crime? Wow, thanks for making abundantly clear that people should NOT shop there...

Social media addiction is a subset of screen addiction, and screen addiction is destroying Gen Alpha at an alarming pace. I have so far found zero specialists who can help with this. It's not just a matter of taking screens away, we have literally turned an entire generation into junkies who will lie and cheat to get their fix. The adolescent mind never stood a chance; male or female.

If Meta wants a nicer spot in hell they can at least help with the mess they have profited off of. Help train the next generation of rehab specialists and help people find help. We made big tobacco do it, we can make these monsters do it as well.

That is not a trivial feat in the least. You don't have to give your kids smart phones, you don't have to have a PC at home. You can try to send your kid to a school that deemphasizes technology. And yet your kid will still end up with a screen addiction because it is that consuming. Kids don't have a chance. What today's kids face today is so far beyond what any of us grew up with that there really is no comparison.

My youngest siblings grew up on a heavy diet of Barney and Friends and it drove me up the wall. At least there was only a certain time of the day that was available on broadcast TV. And my 8 bit NES was not portable in any reasonable meaning of the word. Those barriers are gone now and the programming targeting kids makes Barney look like Mr Science.

My cell phone is pretty much blank since I barely use it for anything but phone calls. People don't even text me since they don't have the number and the ones who do know that I don't check it regularly and that it's often completely off. I have a ring group on my PBX which rings my cell phone as well.

Try with such a phone at a border crossing to see how much suspicion you will raise! They then go into more detailed questioning and verifications etc. I now have to put *some* stuff on it not to raise suspicion and get through more quickly.

If they buy the Mona Lisa and decide destroying it is what they want to do that is their decision.

Destroy the Mona Lisa? It's been done before. Nobody noticed.

The case against Big Tobacco was based on the fact, that their product was actually addictive. Nicotine is not just psychologically, but chemically addictive for humans.

There is no such case against software. Against marijuana-growers — maybe, but the same actors are surprisingly quiet about that.

Facebook has been pressured earlier into spreading government propaganda and then publicly testified about this pressure. Its current troubles are much more likely to be rooted in that, than in any actual "harm to children".