![](/static/61a827a1/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://fry.gs/pictrs/image/c6832070-8625-4688-b9e5-5d519541e092.png)
LLM can be used for unclogging a shit pipe if you wish. doesn’t mean it’s gonna be a good idea
LLM can be used for unclogging a shit pipe if you wish. doesn’t mean it’s gonna be a good idea
we’re talking about genAI here not AI in general. let’s not kid ourselves…
this is a masterclass in polite racism
except calculators function as a disability aid if you have discalculia and actually foster your math skills instead of hallucinating a wrong result for your input
Black Desert Online, as if real life wasn’t pay-to-win enough
insert virgin Meta employee vs Chad seedbox nerd meme
hey, I remember this loser! Dessalines banned me from [email protected] for linking sources disproving his genocide denialism about Uyghurs
I can’t find any sources saying Red 40 has been banned. You’re probably confusing it with the recent Red 3 ban by the FDA?
Speaking of the FDA Red 3 ban, this decision was motivated by the Delaney Clause, not by any scientific evidence showing harm to humans. The FDA’s own studies found it safe for human consumption, yet the aforementioned outdated legislation gives them a legal obligation to deem said ingredients unsafe. source:
Studies showed that male rats exposed to very high levels of Red #3 developed thyroid tumors. Here’s the crucial context: this occurred through a hormone mechanism specific to male rats that doesn’t exist in humans. The FDA’s own analysis shows a 210-fold safety margin between typical human exposure (0.25 mg/kg body weight per day) and levels causing effects in rats (35.8 mg/kg per day).
Even more telling: studies in other animals - including female rats, mice, gerbils, and dogs - showed no cancer effects. Human studies have consistently failed to show evidence of harm at normal exposure levels.
Some additional context you might find useful.
For the same reasons, Red 40 causing cancer in mice in really high roses doesn’t imply a causation of harm to humans
totally normal way to respond to a scientific critique of misinformation
what’s the source for your candy being carcinogenic?
we use antibiotics in the EU as well. it also doesn’t affect meat taste, the reason why it’s regulated is to prevent antibiotic resistance
CR uses shit science, doesn’t open source their papers, isn’t peer-reviewed and goes against WHO and FOA recommendations. source
CR’s latest article on heavy metals in chocolates advised readers that “kids and pregnant people should consume dark chocolate sparingly, if at all, because heavy metals pose the highest risk to young children and developing babies.”
But medical toxicologists who spoke with Ars disagreed with the “sparingly, if at all” suggestion.
“I don’t see evidence that pregnant people or children will be harmed from eating food from time to time with concentrations at the levels described in the article,” Stolbach told Ars.
he’s a US citizen that lives in the US, that’s how
anyone who supports China isn’t a communist, end of discussion. you couldn’t define communism even with Das Kapital in front of you
tankies aren’t communists. Marx would’ve laughed at authoritarians calling themselves communists
calling tankies communists is like calling Scandinavia socialist
slrpnk.net looks cool, haven’t tried it yet
you could argue machine learning like Google translate is useful. it’s still evil though because Google.
generative ai though? absolutely not, we need to burn it down.
it doesn’t matter whether abolition is realistic or not. the same thing could be said in 1980 about owning a supercomputer that fits in your pocket
Gilmore Girls