They’re going into a serious recession, between real estate and interest rates elsewhere slowing investment and spending there’s no major growth engine anymore, their consumer spending is collapsing in anticipation of a severe downturn.
J&J didn’t tell the FDA that at least three tests by three different labs from 1972 to 1975 had found asbestos in its talc – in one case at levels reported as “rather high.” this is enlightning.
Scientists don’t publish “alarmist claims without data”. They publish scientific research which is reviewed by their peers and then built on or contradicted as needed. Scientists can’t just make stuff up - their papers are reviewed before they’re published and if they write crap, it doesn’t pass review. There have been several studies since the first paper on this so the link seems fairly robust.
Had you read the article and understood how science works, you’d have learnt that the the patients all had a form of cancer caused by asbestos, and their only exposure was via talc. You’d have also learnt that courts had already upheld the findings in previous litigation with expert testimony (this is where courts listen to scientists who provide evidence to support or refute the claims being made). So at this current stage there’s little doubt that the science is right, both in the scientific literature and in law (though of course there may be a missing piece of information that has not yet come to light).
Finally, I’d like to comment on your absurd remark “sometimes… was found to cause cancer”. Asbestos is an extremely dangerous carcinogen (thing that causes cancer), which is why we regulate it nowadays. The cancers are awful and often kill within 12 months of onset. It is frankly inhuman to suggest that any contamination of a product would be acceptable unless you’re the only one volunteering to die a horrible death.
If you’re not going to read the article or show any compassion for fellow humans then maybe don’t comment and let the mature adults discuss the issues instead.
The above has been known outside of commercial industry since the early 80’s at least
The NIH tested 50 talc containing products
All 50 of the tested products contained asbestos in concentrations ranging between 5%-20% asbestos
Application of the talc containing products was found to aerosolise the asbestos fibers in a manner that they could be inhaled
Any inhalation of asbestos is considered enough to cause mesothelioma
J&J has known since 1967 that talc products usually contain asbestos as well as the health risks and continued to market it as safe anyways (www.reuters.com/…/johnsonandjohnson-cancer/)
Some other studies have found asbestos contamination of talc at lower percentages such as 15% of market products. I don’t know about you but I don’t want to roll the dice for somewhere between a 0%-85% chance that my product isn’t contaminated with asbestos just so my taint will be dry. If there’s 100,000 asbestos containing products, then at least 15,000 of them will contain asbestos.
"BBC presenter had paid a young person 35,000 pounds ($45,000) for explicit photos over three years, beginning when the person was 17. The age of consent for sex in England is 16, but images of someone under 18 can be considered child pornography. "
The brits have to get clarity on what “adult” is. This is the gray area.
I’m really starting to think that Musk deliberately destroying Twitter is not a conspiracy theory.
I mean, with Twitter and Reddit gone, only Facebook remains.
Ah, well, there are also WhatsApp, Viber, Tik-Tok, Youtube, Telegram which need similar treatment.
Of these I casually use YT and Telegram.
The former is slowly being replaced by uploading videos to the platforms they are posted on.
The latter - well, there was a time Durov promised there would be no ads ever, there are ads everywhere now. And technically it’s junk (the protocol, I mean, while the QT desktop client itself on the contrary is notoriously CPU and memory efficient for my loads of subscribed channels, groupchats etc ; it does crash sometimes, but no Matrix or XMPP client would simply survive that amount of garbage perpetually updating, so).
I used to not think it was sheer stupidity, but when he’s literally challenging his chief rival to measure up penises on a public forum, I think it is, indeed, sheer stupidity.
Durov also went full NFTbro with his fucking username sales. I was a massive Telegram advocate until that moment. Destroyed my trust in him. Now we move to targeted ads inserted everywhere… the end of Telegram is near :(
I use Youtube more than any other service. If you like video essays, documentaries, and other medium- and long-form content, it’s the only place on earth to get it. Cable television ditched intelligent content long ago. Nebula and Curiousity are okay, but most of the content that I couldn’t already get on Youtube has that shitty cable tv vibe.
The only downside with Youtube is it’s huge and the algorithm is iffy. It can take a long time to build up a library of subscriptions that provide high level content every day. But now that I have that, it’s basically my exclusive streaming platform. I watch 1hr of Netflix/HBO/whatever with my wife every night, and all the rest is history, cooking, science, etc. on Youtube.
I just watched folding ideas video essay about the metaverse (focused on one company, but I think many of the points would hold up for any metaverse thing)… And I think there’s an important point - the metaverse is (so far) ill defined, but the “prototypes” I’ve seen are basically 3d chat rooms (that existed in the 90s) and sort of Second Life style services. Which, just… only appeal to a very small group of people apparently. VR tech still isn’t there, and I’m starting to think it might be awhile (we must be on v3 of a big launch by now, right?).
So big tech invests billions, and the EU is going to take the lead how exactly?
The scheme includes bringing together creators, media companies and others to create an industrial ecosystem, setting up regulatory sandboxes to help companies test out the metaverse and rolling out skills development programmes as well virtual public services.
They want to carve out a piece of the metaverse for European companies is basically the message. We’ve learned in the past 30 years that large firms dominate different aspects of tech space. Take a look at what they’ve done in aircraft manufacturing - they’ve elbowed into the space that Americans were dominating. Now there’s just 2 - Boeing and Airbus which is theirs. They are going to seek to replicate that, learning from the mistakes in tech in the past.
Boeing and Airbus bought up every competitor to create a duopoly, and Boeing’s 737 MAX issues have hurt them recently
I just don’t see how the EU regulating the metaverse will result in a competitive advantage over the billions that Meta for e.g. have invested in their headsets and software
They bought up the small ones because they were failing. That industry requires huge economies of scale and the smaller ones couldn’t cope. EU created Airbus out of the scrap pieces of dying European aircraft manufacturers and injected capital into it and gave it a captive market. In metaverse they are starting to behave this way - currently Threads isn’t allowed to operate in Europe. They are going to create regulatory barriers around it. Allow European alternatives to grow - i.e. Mastodon, etc. And provide any kind of support - regulatory, capital, incentives, etc. European governments have used their might to create industry giants so that their countries remain relevant and that wealth creation and innovation remains rooted in their countries. It will be the same in this case.
Well that’s just IT. They don’t have a significant presence in the tech space and they are trying to create barriers to develop home grown companies. (To answer your question SAP and some anti-virus companies top of my head but there isn’t a lot.)
Creating barriers isn’t a great way to go about it. Protectionist efforts just get returned with tit for tat exchanges in the exact same way that has happened with aerospace.
Boeing didn’t want competition in the US domestic market. They thought they could squeeze out Bombardier, but weren’t expecting that to come around and have the A220 get sold to Airbus (who are now doing really well with the A220, since the A220 is legitimately a really nice plane).
I mean… They have to do something with it. But this is also the issue environment activists have with nuclear energy. We don’t have a good way or dealing with the byproducts yet. If we didn’t it could be a great “green” energy until we develop something better.
reuters.com
Top