Buffalox

They’re comparing actual exposure to estimated risk at that exposure.

Where? They refer to a 2003 study https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14600094/ with the conclusion:

Conclusions: Exposure to formaldehyde **may **cause leukemia, particularly myeloid leukemia, in humans. However,results from other investigations are mixed,

Apparently they were unable to find further studies to support their claim where they state as FACT that causes myeloid!!

It is a chemical so pervasive that a new analysis by ProPublica found it exposes everyone to elevated risks of developing cancer no matter where they live.

This is not true.

perhaps most worrisome, it often poses the greatest risk in the one place people feel safest: inside their homes.

This may be true, which is why you must always let the air out of your home twice a day. Still that formaldehyde is naturally occurring, and in homes come mostly from wood. So it's not an "industry" hazard, and it's not an artificially produced chemical.

We had the debate here in Denmark in the 70's, claiming this 40 year old problem is suddenly an emergency that kill more people than any other pollutant is sensationalist.

Outdoor air is often suffused with formaldehyde gas from cars, smoke, factories, and oil and gas extraction, sometimes at worrying levels

Conveniently not mentioning at all, that it is also naturally occurring!!!
This piece is more misleading than informative.

Again: https://www.epa.gov/formaldehyde/laws-and-regulations-concerning-formaldehyde

Categories which formaldehyde is regulated under the NESHAP:
Plywood and composite wood products
Vehicle emissions
Wet formed fiber glass mat production
Mineral wool production
Wool fiberglass manufacturing
Manufacture of amino/phenolic resins
Wood furniture manufacturing operations
Rubber tire manufacturing
Natural gas transmission and storage facilities
Synthetic organic chemical manufacturing industry
Organic liquid distribution operations
Taconite iron ore processing
Emissions for polyvinyl chloride and copolymers production

Notice that wood is included in those regulations.

Edit PS:
OK apparently some people think they know better, than someone who has followed this issue for 40 years.
Despite I'm pointing out decidedly dishonest reporting, including misrepresenting results of studies!!

I think it’s looking pretty grim

Absolutely, but for some reason Intel has a history of failing in new areas. Their attempt with Itanium for high end was really bad, their attempt at RISC which mostly ended up in SCSI controllers was a failure too. Their failure with Atom not being competitive against Arm. Their attempts at compute for data-center has failed for decades against Nvidia, it's not something that just happened recently. And they tried in the 90's with a GPU that was embarrassingly bad and failed too.

They actually failed against AMD Athlon too, but back then, they controlled the market, and managed to keep AMD mostly out of the market.
When the Intel 80386 came out it was actually slower than the 80286!, When Pentium came out, it was slower than i486. When Pentium 4 came out, it was not nearly as efficient as Pentium 3. Intel has a long history of sub par products. Typically every second design by Intel had much worse IPC, so much so that it was barely compensated by the higher clocks of better production process. So in principle every second Intel generation was a bit like the AMD Bulldozer, but where for AMD 1 mistake almost crashed the company, Intel managed to keep profiting even from sub par products.

So it's not really a recent problem, Intel has a long history of intermittently not being a very strong competitor or very good at designing new products and innovating. And now they've lost the throne even on X86! Because AMD beat the crap out of them, with chiplets, despite the per core speed of the original Ryzen was a bit lower than what Intel had.

What kept Intel afloat and hugely profitable when their designs were inferior, was that they were always ahead on the production process, that was until around 2016. Where Intel lost the lead, because their 10nm process never really worked and had multiple years of delays.

Still Intel back then always managed to come back like they did with Core2, and the brand and the X86 monopoly was enough to keep Intel very profitable, even through major strategic failures like Itanium.

You could also ask why we have sexuality at all, and since we do, why isn't it evenly spread across the spectrum?
Obviously there are mechanisms that guide our sexuality and gender identification, and they are not 100% the same for all men or all women.
It's simply a natural mechanism with some variance that occur in most things.
Why are some people introvert?, Why are some people tall? Why are some people strong and others fast?

It's like when you ask how magnets work, and it turns out they kind of work like everything else.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1lL-hXO27Q

Edit PS:
I don't understand why this question is downvoted? It's an excellent question. It's just hard to answer.

Yes, if Putin had embraced democratic values, and cooperated with the west. Russia could have had more than 30 years of steady progress, and be the biggest economy in Europe.
But apparently that wasn't good enough for Putin. Instead he wanted to recreate the Soviet Union?!
Talk about a wasted opportunity!

Absolutely, AMD was able to make Ryzen on the brink of bankruptcy, I fully expected Intel to make a comeback, with all the resources at their disposal.
But instead it's been a long string of failures and at most half successes since 2016.
I have a bit of AMD stock, but still I don't really want to see Intel fail.

I think you are misremembering the political theater

Maybe I do, but to be honest, the aid November and December is peanuts compared to the 60 billion package. Of course it's not nothing, but it's on a level comparable to a tiny country like Denmark, with only a 50th the population of USA.

So OK maybe not nothing, but very little.

You stop a bully by punching them in the face so hard they forget their name

Exactly, and honestly Biden hasn't managed this situation as well as he could IMO. For instance the nonsense of Ukraine not being allowed to strike into Russia never made any sense IMO.

IDK if that's meant as a joke, but I don't see a single reason why she would do that. She is doing very well at AMD, and the pay is better at AMD.

Trump, fuck that guy, had loaded them up with Small Arms and Javelin Missiles (stuff that Obama had refused to send) before the war kicked off.

I had to check this, and it seems you are right?

The US, the UK, and Canada, had also spent more than two years re-training the Ukrainian Armed Forces

Yes I know Ukraine had received some NATO training, and it was allegedly a major reason they did so well against Russia too.

I apologize for being imprecise, what I meant was that Ukraine hadn't received WAR assistance yet, all you write was from when we still thought we could reason with Putin, and make a sensible agreement.
When war was a reality, a lot of countries stepped up help a lot, but it took a while to arrive, and basically we've been pretty constantly behind on supplies, except when USA stepped in again, it helped a lot.

To be fair, I'm not sure 32 billion is enough to compensate for his inferiority complex.

Huh? The US has sent military aid nearly every month since at least April of 2024.

Yes that's when it was finally voted through, Ukraine got nothing from USA half of 2023 and start of 2024. For about 8 months total.
I think EU is also in a better position to help more now. Many EU countries have increased production and aid in the meantime.