Ah, you replied while I was reading and writing my edit. It works better as a reply here.

Out of curiosity, I’ve even given you the benefit of a doubt and looked through your reddit link you provided to someone else. Some of the examples provided there I have even heard of like the resulting AARoads wiki and the “definition of recession” controversy, but it does seem overshadowed by a mountain of spurious sources and examples.

I see references to bad moderation, and examples of incidents, some verifiable. This isn’t surprising, nor would I try to dispute it.

I see claims of manipulation of the rules, that there are people who try to goad others into enforcement traps. And while there’s no solid evidence, I don’t doubt that.

What I’m not seeing is any suggestion of a solution. Wikipedia has a slew of rigorous mechanisms to allow for community moderation, resolution/stoppage of edit wars, and well documented escalation paths. It has flaws, and it is a work of volunteers with inherent biases, hence the systems to address them. Instead of curating a list of deficiencies, it may be more effective to start building a list of potential solutions to the deficiencies at hand. If you were to take the existing model of Wikipedia, it’s rules, it’s moderation… What would you change to improve it? And more importantly, how?

Do you have a reliable source or examples for this toxicity, or is not being able to spread misinformation due to the rule of sourcing your claims the toxicity you’re alluding to? No human structure will ever be perfect, but Wikipedia is a whole lot more credible than the organization that’s currently threatening them, and the wackos celebrating it.

Edit: Out of curiosity, I’ve even given you the benefit of a doubt and looked through your reddit link you provided to someone else. Some of the examples provided there I have even heard of like the resulting AARoads wiki and the “definition of recession” controversy, but it does seem overshadowed by a mountain of spurious sources and examples.

I see references to bad moderation, and examples of incidents, some verifiable. This isn’t surprising, nor would I try to dispute it.

I see claims of manipulation of the rules, that there are people who try to goad others into enforcement traps. And while there’s no solid evidence, I don’t doubt that.

What I’m not seeing is any suggestion of a solution. Wikipedia has a slew of rigorous mechanisms to allow for community moderation, resolution/stoppage of edit wars, and well documented escalation paths. It has flaws, and it is a work of volunteers with inherent biases, hence the systems to address them. Instead of curating a list of deficiencies, it may be more effective to start building a list of potential solutions to the deficiencies at hand. If you were to take the existing model of Wikipedia, it’s rules, it’s moderation… What would you change to improve it? And more importantly, how?

I believe the Canadian cost for the name brand drug is around $300-400/month, and some articles indicate a cost of $319/mo in Japan. Apparently the costs for a similar drug, ozempic, are even more of a stark contrast, at around $1000/mo domestically, and $100/mo internationally.

This is a black market created entirely due to the greed of Eli Lily and Novo Nordisk. That if this class of drugs were priced fairly in the United States, the black market would not have had a chance to take root. Pricing them fairly would reduce the reliance on sketchy compounding pharmacies, and would improve the safety of American patients. Failure to do so at this point is actively harming people out of pure greed, which is nothing new.

I can’t help but cheer for compounding pharmacies for fighting these greedy goliaths, and I hope their actions harm Eli Lily and Novo Nordisk as much as possible. I hope it ushers in an era of pirate medicine that erodes drug maker profits permanently.

I’m honestly a little surprised he hasn’t started promoting snake oil treatments for autism. Ivermectin, now for autism.

It very well could be an expensive gimmick, their last Zima boards certainly were. As for the selling of your information, thank you for the warning.

External PCIe seems to be their selling point. Also, why not welcome competitive form factors and options? That is, of course, if it’s competitive. No pricing in this article, but if I had to imagine they’re probably going to retail near $300, but I don’t think they’ll be competitive with sub $150 n150 machines at that price point.

I mean… Trump said there wouldn’t be positive COVID tests if we didn’t test, so maybe RFK is going to borrow that method of preventing autism by not testing and documenting.

This is the dumbest circus show ever.

Exactly. They are by definition unauthorized government contractors accessing sensitive data. Neither executive order nor the words of dictator Donnie can authorize them.

There are no oversight bodies, and the collection, storage, and use of this data is an infosec disaster that they hope is outshined by the infosec disasters their actions have enabled.