erentz

This is not true in the case where the newspaper knows it is a scam, right? So as soon as Facebook says "we've reviewed this scam ad you notified us of, but found it complies with our terms and conditions", they're pretty clearly knowingly participating.

Prior to being notified they could claim they were unaware it was fraud. But after being notified of it, they have confirmed back that they reviewed it. Yet they continue to show it, making them aware and participating in the distribution.

The concerned is one of consistency in how media is regulated. E.g. Facebook, is the worlds largest media company, and it truly acts and behaves as a publisher now. It acquires its content from an army of paid and unpaid providers. They may be individuals, often they are influencers, often they may be nefarious agents and companies. It then decides how to place that content in it's "publication", which just happens to be an app and website. It goes out and tells the market, "I have this great publication in which you can place ads!". It then sells ads to those people, and makes a decision on how to place those advertisements inside its publication alongside that content that it acquired.

So how is it not a publisher? And why should it be regulated to any kind of different standard from other publishers?

All he has to do is spend the money himself, as a private, real person, without any coordination with a campaign, and he can spend as much as he likes.

CU let companies donate to campaigns and PACs. This talk about state by state changes to put a stop to that is nice (Montana, Hawaii). But Elon Musk is not a company, he actually is a person.

You can give unlimited to a super PAC. Ok, next you get rid of super PACs, which came after CU, fine.

But now still, how does that stop an Elon Musk going out and spending $100m on political advertising as a private individual? That’s what the Musks of this world can still do after you get rid of super PACs.

Wealthy people like Elon Musk can still go ahead and spend hundreds of millions on campaigns like they just did. There is no cap on that.

Have you noticed how many people already use AI to do their thinking for them. They just ask it what to think, what to do, for everything. They want that for as many people as possible. They don’t want people going outside of Google to other websites to decide what to think. Yes they will put ads in it eventually. But in the end they will also use it to influence what the population thinks.

We already have some leaders and politicians outsourcing their thinking in this way. It will make these companies incredibly powerful.

That is such incredibly bad advice. DO NOT WAIT until a CAC tells you to start a statin. You know you need to start if your LDL is high right away.

My doctor referred me to get a self pay ($100 at the time) CAC 9 years ago. It was completely clear.

However last year I had a cardiac ultrasound and it showed calcification.

In reality the CAC caused a false sense of security. My LDL had been high the whole time and not managed with any intervention despite having been tested multiple times and showing high over that time. This was a failure by my doctors IMO. (No it’s not diet or weight related before people give advice).

I didn’t need a CAC to tell me everything was fine. I needed to be on a low dose of statin that whole time.

A clear CAC doesn’t mean you are safe. And a positive CAC is already too late and is not really telling you anything useful.

What people need to do is just watch your LDL regularly starting from any age (yes even some 20 year olds need to check this). Don’t wait to middle age. And no matter your age use whatever methods you prefer to get that down as low as possible. Think of it as cumulative exposure over time that matters.

(There are new oral PCKS9 inhibitors out now which is cool, but the reality is all the misinformation about statins has been bullshit, don’t be afraid of them.)

This kind of thing shows up all over the place in all fields of research. It’s why for example although you can see immune system differences at a population level between patients with disease X and healthy controls, you can’t in any way use it as a biomarker for an individual who might have disease X.

[1] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13293-026-00976-9...

It doesn’t sound like that much changed. If one engineer can really review all the changes in under two weeks, the original estimate of 5 years of engineering work has to be waaaaaaay off.

I don’t understand though: Why would any company find it difficult to register their owners? That seems like a pretty basic thing any company should know and it’s a perfectly normal thing in most countries.

But for who and where is it realized? Ireland’s massive data centers aren’t there to serve Ireland’s tiny population. The value is exported overseas and profits realized overseas.

So what really matters for Ireland (and any country/region hosting these data centers) is whether the benefits in terms of capital spending + the few ongoing jobs created outweighs any increased electricity and environmental costs faced by everyone else.

Absolutely. I assumed the parent was talking about the US because that's the only place in the world I've encountered this.

I don’t know how you decide what companies are targeted though. OpenAI/Anthropic are pure AI plays. But what about an AMZN or AAPL that have AI as only a part of their business.

So in order to make it pan out the forces at play are trying to make everyone believe we now have to accept wrong, even dangerous results.