416 karma · joined March 17, 2019
Even in places like Bangkok a basic bespoke suit with decent construction is going to be starting at $1000, with the slightly better places charging significantly more.
The actually cheap custom suits are cheap because the quality is laughably bad, you're basically getting H&M/Zara quality for higher prices. The reason these products don't really exist in the west is primarily a lack of demand.
They're all dead or captured, you could make a new list like that every 10 years. Things do not improve.
> They make an actual step towards destroying the cartels, and you complain
That's a lie. If this was "an actual step towards destroying the cartels" the countless similar instances in the past would have taken us in that direction, instead the cartels keep growing and not shrinking. There's simply no way a reasonable person could conclude that this is a step towards destroying the cartels.
Well, sure! The crucial difference between cartels and ISIS is that the cartels are in it to make money, ISIS is an ideologically motivated nation-building project.
The cartels disappear when the activity becomes unprofitable, ISIS does not.
The cartels tend to use violence when it's profitable, ISIS will use violence because they believe that an imaginary man wants them to do so.
You could legalize and regulate their drug-related business, paying a small amount of taxes will probably be more attractive than maintaining a private military in the long term.
Alternatively you can fight like this, barely dent the cartels and instead cause massive amounts of suffering for the regular people who live in the middle of it all? If you actually cared about improving things rather than making a show, surely you'd want to pursue policies that (a) actually help you get rid of the negative influence of the cartels and (b) avoid collateral damage by not forcing the cartels to retaliate.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2025-06-11/israeli-lawmakers-...
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/black-fatigue-goes-viral...
Yes, unless they're doing so at a ludicrously small scale. Sending a 20t lorry load from Thessaloniki to Warsaw will cost less than 6000 euros. I suspect it can be done for around 2400, but I don't know the route very well.
>My understanding is EU first mile is fragmented/slow if you rely on national post and expensive if you rely on private couriers.
Yes, it sucks at ultra-small scale. But that's really what that is. The private couriers have super attractive volume pricing, even 80% off public (consumer facing) rates isn't unusual.
Look at how The Hut Group handles logistics for MyProtein for example.
Is it even physically possible to deliver at a significantly lower cost? Pizza ovens are both very large and very heavy, you can't fit many of them in a vehicle. They're also tricky to load and unload.
This is an awful experiment. Only consumers care about delivery costs on deliveries like these, and what you're looking at are explicitly not goods aimed at consumers.
Of course not, none of the sides are at all in the right here. But from the cartels perspective, they're almost certainly in the right.
Drug cartels are entirely the result of poor policies, and the blame for all the harms caused by them rests primarily on the shoulders of those perpetuating those policies. Surely the politicians that vote for laws that directly enable drug cartels to exist in the first place must be worse than the leaders of any individual drug cartel?
Any kind of serious analysis of who's more right would end up being a work at the scale of Rising Up and Rising Down, that's probably best avoided.
If we oversimplify cartels into innocent businessmen just looking to sell drugs, with governments being the ones that introduced violence into the equation in their effort to stop them? Surely it must be the cartels
If we oversimplify cartels into evil criminals just looking to wield power over other human beings, with governments just trying to liberate people from cartel tyranny? Surely it must be the governments
Prioritizing showy executions over actual progress, words that should describe the cartels, not the government.
> past-year cannabis use was associated with a significantly increased risk of incident psychotic, bipolar, depressive, and anxiety disorders by age 26 years
They claim correlation, not causation.
They also address this subject in the discussion:
>Existing research suggests that the relationship between adolescent cannabis use and psychiatric disorders is complex and bidirectional. Adolescents with mental health symptoms or diagnoses may use cannabis as a way to mitigate distress, cannabis may contribute to mental health symptoms and diagnoses through neurobiological changes, and there may be shared social and biological risk factors that contribute to both mental health symptoms and cannabis use.
>Despite potential use of cannabis to self-medicate mental health symptoms, ongoing use of cannabis is associated with worsening mood symptoms29 and poorer adherence to medication treatment and psychotherapy.
>While it is not possible to definitively determine causality, this study had a strong retrospective cohort design. The temporal order of cannabis use preceded incident psychiatric disorder diagnoses by a mean of 1.7 to 2.3 years, supporting the possibility of a contributory role.
>The findings remained significant even after adjusting for a history of psychiatric disorders and other time-varying substance use and excluding adolescents with any history of a psychiatric disorder in sensitivity analyses, indicating unique associations between adolescent cannabis use and psychiatric disorders that go beyond broader adolescent psychopathology or substance use.
>This was a conservative approach, as other psychiatric disorders might be mediators or confounders depending on the timing and the underlying pathways. Furthermore, E-values indicated that only a strong unmeasured confounder with HRs of 3.79 to 1.79 could explain the associations, suggesting that adolescent cannabis use may be an independent risk factor.
>However, reverse causation cannot be ruled out, as some individuals may begin to use cannabis to self-medicate prodromal symptoms of psychiatric disorders even before a diagnosis is made. Future research with more nuanced measurement of cannabis use, including frequency, mode of use, and product strength, alongside regular screening and assessment for psychiatric disorder symptoms and diagnosis would help to further elucidate the timing and mechanisms underlying these associations.
Even Krebs has switched to posting uncritical AI slop now.
https://krebsonsecurity.com/2026/02/starkiller-phishing-serv...
A rewrite of slop post at https://abnormal.ai/blog/starkiller-phishing-kit
In the meanwhile, the exploit.in thread where this phishing kit is advertised is just full of users making fun of the author for selling vibecoded garbage. One user seems to have paid for the phishing kit, and says it just doesn't work at all and says the author blocked him on telegram after he complained.
It's a marketing piece hyping up a phishing kit that doesn't exist. Krebs gave up a long time ago, if he gave a shit he'd be more than capable of going on these forums to try and verify this story before uncritically repeating AI company marketing materials.
Calling out clickbait isn't gatekeeping.
Clowns will buy extremely niche streetwear items like these https://www.depop.com/products/maxisepic-blue-jeans-with-mul... knowing very well that the real ones are reselling for upwards of $30k and then waste the time of people online asking them to "legit check" their garbage.
I mean just look at all these totally authentic clothes being sold at less than 10% their usual value! https://www.depop.com/search/?q=vetements
With other brands you'll find that most of the products on depop are from super secret completely unreleased collections, and have never been seen anywhere outside of depop https://www.depop.com/search/?q=loro+piana It's just an incredible opportunity!
Social media offers many more benefits than alcohol does, and it could certainly be banned for children. Alcohol is almost certainly less beneficial and more harmful to its users than social media.
You are correct that alcohol has been around for a while, but that hardly explains why it should be treated differently.
Do you know Zuckerberg well enough to be able to engage in an interesting conversation about whether or not he would continue to grant a specific person access to filters, knowing that they're harming that specific person?
I guess not. Speculating about it seems pointless at best.
I'm only pointing out that the headline is describing perfectly normal human behavior.
This seems like entirely normal human behavior at every level of society, no? Of course asking Zuckerberg is a bit like asking a bartender, but we know very well that it's not only bartenders who'd be against stopping alcohol sales.
It is strange to condemn Zuckerberg for doing this unless you're also willing to implement the all the other (vastly more important) advice from wellbeing experts that we as a society have pretty decisively rejected.
Even devices that don't suffer from planned obsolescence can and do become obsolete.