Lutra

The implication is: that by it's nature -All Science Is Good® All science is cool. Is neat. But not all good. There a many genies, we suffer from that we can not put back in the bottle. Some of us 'Science for a living', and still don't think 'All Science Is Good'.

proven. there's a list of new inventions that were proven safe in 1950. Do we think they were just idiots back then?

Also its about directing cash from the sale of 'Golden rice' far more than about having these folks afford good food.

https://grain.org/en/article/10-grains-of-delusion-golden-rice-seen-from-the-ground

I'm no expert but these folk are almost

While many doubt the ability of golden rice to eliminate vitamin A deficiency, the machinery is being set in motion to promote a GE strategy at the expense of more relevant approaches. The best chance of success in fighting vitamin A deficiency and malnutrition is to better use the inexpensive and nutritious foods already available, and in diversifying food production systems in the fields and in the household. The euphoria created by the Green Revolution greatly stifled research to develop and promote these efforts, and the introduction of golden rice will further compromise them. Golden rice is merely a marketing event. But international and national research agendas will be taken by it.

The promoters of golden rice say that they do not want to deprive the poor of the right to choose and the potential to benefit from golden rice. But the poor, and especially poor farmers, have long been deprived of the right to choose their means of production and survival. Golden rice is not going to change that, and nor will any other corporately-pushed GE crop. Hence, any further attempts at the commercial exploitation of hunger and malnutrition through the promotion of genetically modified foods should be strongly resisted.

Nothing was taken away. It’s literally just combined with another port now. That's not how either Apple or Samsung adapters work. The converters to a bit more than change the shape of the plug.

I didn't respond to _any arguments you made. I thought you posed the question 'why?'

[ confirmation bias at play. you have switched to bluetooth. it meets or exceeds all your needs. you don't see much public indication to the contrary. you figure bluetooth is the best. ]

1. simplicity the cable just works. no configuration. no pairing .un pairing, figuring why it worked yesterday

2. Audio quality - bluetooth is lossy. we just were given AptX lossless in 2021 ( another confirmation bias ) "Sounds great to me" "I can't hear the difference".
   2 things are both possibly true though: I can't hear the difference. Other people hear a big difference. this seems impossible to some people. As if their senses are the apogee of human sense.

3. lag. new codecs lower latency, but lag lag lag. You couldn't possibly use your device as a synth/music instrument and 'play' the lag is far to great. Same with games.

4. whats the big deal. This is a bias for the plug users - would it hurt to keep it? we've always had it. The work is already done. Its already baked in the cake, why you gotta take it out?

5. Investment - I have really good headphones. I have really good earbuds. Yes there are adapters but they are finicky exactly when you want them to just work. They inevitably break. They often downgrade the sound - I have 3 usb to audio adapters for android that all hiss for no reason.

The issue is that when the marketers are selling us a 'clean vision of the future' they purposefully gloss over the things they are taking away. Then they paint the people who feel pain because of the change as neanderthals who wouldn't know better if it bit them. When they do know better. They had better (for them) and progress made it worse (for them). To which the marketers generally say - you should be someone else.

167532282 :-) good times

You are not the only one.

This weeks game of 'Internet pile-on'

its a good warning, but there's no new info here.

• the scanners are usually not technically x-ray, some are mm wave, some are xray backscatter.
• the technology can see through clothes and produce a grainy bw image of a naked person
• the tech is very closed, and the customers are NDA'd into not letting the public know anything
• the enhanced privacy changes don't change the device - its still taking naked pictures of people, its just doesn't show them to the operator.
• before you look, as of a couple years ago there are just about 6 images from these devices out there on the internet. (iirc, there is a researcher who bought one off of ebay to study, but lost track of their work. )
• its in use in border patrol type operations to see into the trailers, trucks and cars.
• no one can prove they aren't keeping a database of naked people. ;-)

https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/privacy/privacy-pia-tsa-ait.pdf

https://www.rapiscan-ase.com/resource-center/technology/z-backscatter-x-ray-imaging

**sorry, that's just being human. **

Which is a end-game around E2E. Saying 'the message is encrypted', but yes, I look at all messages before and/or after violates the expectation of E2E.

... its the scale.

we've had photograph manipulation since the photograph. we've not had the ease and scale which we are about to have. and its not the same.

anyone can open the box at the corner and mess with a traffic light. and has been able to since we had them. now give me the ability to mess with all the traffic lights in a city.

the difference is scale.

just some critical thinking notes.

The title says: "Findings Cast Doubt..." One might expect that the core of the essay will be .... findings. One might expect that as with most commonly taught English writing practices, the first paragraph would both outline the point, and give a brief summary of the point.

Seven, eight paragraphs in, the 'Findings' are still being teased.

This type of article ... accurate or not, is working through a 'Palm reader' technique, where they build up a series of 'connections with the subject', a long line of 'Yeses' then they slowly begin to introduce _their points. The technique is able to slip past some percent of critical thinking, because the person has been led down a path of agreements.

Again accurate or not, it couches the 'Findings' in a sea of 'everyone knows', 'modern scholars agree' , 'doubts have existed from the beginning'. These are not facts, they are well worded disparaging digs, which contextualize the subject to their bias.