The way you write this implies that it is somehow an intrinsic fault of the DoJ and not the fault of monopolists like Google with the massive resources to slow walk these kinds of things, or the effective lobbying of the Obama administration followed by four chaotic years of Trump.
Never forget that corruption is always to blame for these failures, not the noble people who try and fix these things with flawed institutions.
> Never forget that corruption is always to blame for these failures, not the noble people who try and fix these things with flawed institutions.
This is dogmatism. You're implying that those working for the government are inherently more noble than the rest, and that only private enterprise is flawed. To the contrary, I am implying nothing, just pointing out that the DOJ is late to the game. This would have meant something a decade ago when Google absolutely dominated. But they're being nipped at by a thousand different companies right now.
It would probably be ridiculously illegal to put substances in products that are designed to counter the function of prescription medication.
It's the kind of thing that I hope would result in not only massive fines for the corporations but jail time for the people involved in the decision making and the R&D.
They don't need to be designed to do that. Companies don't really understand why things sell. They have a lot of ideas about what makes a successful product that are generally accurate. But at the end of the day, they just try stuff, see what sells, then do more of that.
If a sizeable portion of the market is on Ozempic, then this will naturally lead to there being a portion of the market that sells well to those people. At that will likely happen a decade before any human understands the mechanics by which that food sells well to people on Ozempic.
There are tons of common foods and food additives that are known to interact with medications. Grapefruit juice for instance has a large and diverse set of drug interactions, some potentially very dangerous: https://www.drugs.com/article/grapefruit-drug-interactions.h... but that doesn't mean it's illegal to sell or consume.
If you're intentionally researching and developing an additive that weakens the effect of a prescription medication and you're not telling people the. You're effectively poisoning them.
If they do find something that fits the bill, it will be referred to and marketed as “appealing to the cravings of folks on these drugs, and they personally need to be responsible about their choices”.
It’s helpful to remember that this is the same corporate landscape where (in the US) insurance companies can decline prescriptions in order to reduce their own costs.
someone that voted for them would argue that those regulations are what brought us to the current predicament. It’s currently very legal to make addictive unhealthy food
Processed sugar is glucose. Glucose is all except "quite unnatural" in our metabolism. Physiology in animals is based on energy provided by any stuff that can be converted into sugar. Our brains will die in a few minutes without glucose. This reminds me the lemon juice panic when used as additive.
We can talk about if this sugar has pesticides or other substances mixed with it in the post process that are toxic, but this trend of people saying that glucose is addictive is ludicrous. Unlike real drugs, we really need it to live. Would you trust somebody saying that oxygen is a drug and people should stop consuming it?
I think the parent is pointing out that supernatural amounts of refined sugar in food products is unnatural and that it is added in such high amounts because it is addictive (even going as far as to add other substances to reduce the symptoms of such supernatural sugar doses, p.s. I'm unsure if this is true or not just regurgitating his argument) and thus companies are adding as much refined sugar as possible to increase the sales of said products.
While you seem to be arguing against a strawman that the existence of glucose in our metabolic systems is unnatural, thus sugar is addictive? I think your counter points are a tad tangential compared to the actual points made by the parent comment.
Processed sugar is sucrose, also half-glucose, half-fructose.
Even though both are found separately in nature, it doesn't necessarily follow that their combination is just fine, especially in the volumes consumed in a typical Western diet.
If sugar isn't addictive at all, why do so many people have cravings for sweets? Cravings are a major hallmark of addiction.
What do you think processed sugar is? It's literally just natural sugar purified. Almost everything in nature which contain sugar contains both fructose and glucose combined.
our brain won’t die a few minutes without sugar, not even days. You should learn about ketones (which i’m sure you already know, why some ppl are addicted to spread misinformation?)
You would be incorrect https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroglycopenia if your blood glucose levels dropped to 0, you would die pretty rapidly. It’s analogous to unmanaged Type 1 diabetes in a vague sense.
There is no physiological requirement for dietary carbohydrates. There is a requirement for glucose, but your body can create it from non-carbohydrate sources including the acetone produced by ketones. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluconeogenesis
The point is our internal metabolic processes are largely unchanged and were developed over many millennia of evolutionary adaptation, despite vast external changes in how we live in the past few centuries.
i have a friend literally dying because he can’t stop being addicted to coke. Even with his kidneys and liver stopping working, he’ll still drink it. So what, you ask?
If coke stopped existing this very second, your friend would find something else to destroy their body with, because the cause of their problem isn’t coke and the prohibition of it isn’t a solution.
Nah, wokeness was zero-sum, interested in domination/submission and Power, and it sought to control others, particularly their speech. This is positive-sum -- your health comes at no-one else's expense, and indeed your example can quietly help others (and vice versa) -- and the only person you're really worried about controlling is yourself.
I think we can consider ourselves lucky if government(s) act quickly to prohibit things before they cause too much damage. I'd love to live in a world where these sorts of people are held accountable but unfortunately we weren't born in the right timeline to experience that.
Sometimes you have to question if they are in the wrong too frequently, for instance recalling 80,000 lbs. of butter (when it's already more than $7 lb. in most grocery stores) because the butter packaging didn't say "Contains milk". It's a recent example of something they did that only caused harm. Notify the company to fix their packaging, sure, but under no circumstances should they be recalling the butter.
First they came for my gas stoves and now my raw milk. Let's destroy the FDA and food safety that keeps people alive because pasteurization is the devil.
ya! just like we did with the sackler family right? they're doing hard time for creating the opioid epidemic. oh wait, they're billionaires so i forgot they get a different set of rules.
don't hold your breath on any jail time for food companies doing this is my point.
I mean, if you expand the acronym it isn't euphemistic at all!
I think it's actually a little too specific. It's trying to exclude "innocent" things like selfies or "simulated" things like drawings, but those are just as illegal in some or all countries.
> It's trying to exclude "innocent" things like selfies or "simulated" things like drawings, but those are just as illegal in some or all countries.
Selfies shared between teenagers are innocent! When an adult enters the picture is when it becomes a problem, because yes: it’s abuse and exploitation that we’re objecting to. Unless we think morality is a question of aesthetics, then yes, this also means drawings are not in and of themselves our concern.
The supposition that this is “more nuanced than I think” given the particular example you’ve chosen strikes me as quite bizarre.
Does “17 year olds collecting nudes of 14 year olds to gawk at and bully them over” not strike you as abusive and/or exploitative? Because it certainly does to me.
I think you’ve chosen to interpret my post in an excessively literal manner (i.e only adults abuse or exploit teenagers) rather than the far more obvious alternatives I intended (e.g a 16 year old “sexting” their 17 year old partner).
Or, put another way, if I say we’re opposed to abuse and exploitation, and then you present me with a situation involving abuse and exploitation, of course I’d be opposed to it. Certainly you’re capable of figuring out this isn’t the sort of thing I was talking about.
I'm glad that you agree that selfies shared between teens are not intrinsically innocent and that adults entering into the picture is not the only thing to worry about in this situation.
The ratios between 650AU, 165AU, and 0.01AU are somewhat moot.
In 1957 Sputnik 1 had an apogee of ~900km from the Earth.
By 1969 NASA was sending rockets ~385000km to the moon.
By 1979 Voyager 1 & 2 were reaching Jupiter ~5AU from Earth.
We went from 900km to 5AU in 22 years.
If SpaceX achieves their stated goals of lowering $/kg to orbit and rapid re-usability with Starship it will unlock things like asteroid/lunar mining and space based manufacturing which will allow the construction of the kind of infrastructure needed to make distances like 650AU achievable in reasonable time frames.
Low hanging fruit is easier to pluck. It might be that we cannot progress much further without consuming so many resources that Earth is left an uninhabitable husk.
That is precisely why we must transition to space based resource extraction and manufacturing.
There are practically infinite resources at our fingertips on the moon, the asteroid belts and eventually the gas giants.
What we need to unlock this are the means to economically launch a minimum viable self replicating infrastructure into space to take advantage of this.
The feedback loops that will ensue should we succeed will allow us to save Earth ecology, radically transform the human condition, and unlock the ability to explore the universe in ways that we can only imagine.
I bet that the maintenance costs on vehicles/computers is inversely proportional to their operators understanding of how they function.
If you hired a driver which would you rather hire, the one who knows which grinding sounds that a vehicle makes are good/bad or the one who just keeps using it with disregard for the grinding sounds because it isn't currently inhibiting their ability to drive?
Never forget that corruption is always to blame for these failures, not the noble people who try and fix these things with flawed institutions.
reply