florencia

Florencia (she/her) @lemmy.blahaj.zone 4w ago

If you have to force it down my throat then it is the same as any religion and the all the above points apply.

Grandpa when I tell him it's time for his annual Covid shot.

Florencia (she/her) @lemmy.blahaj.zone 4w ago

If you don’t use Tor

Nice try NSA /s

2

Florencia (she/her) @lemmy.blahaj.zone 4w ago

Privacy guides - http://www.xoe4vn5uwdztif6goazfbmogh6wh5jc4up35bqdflu6bkdc5cas5vjqd.onion/en/

Techdirt is a good independent site

Florencia (she/her) @lemmy.blahaj.zone 1mo ago

The better take is the Geth mission in Mass Effect 2, where a small change results in a big chunk of robots worshiping actual god machines who plan on wiping out all life and the robots worshiping them.

2

Florencia (she/her) @lemmy.blahaj.zone 1mo ago

Rust

Florencia (she/her) @lemmy.blahaj.zone 1mo ago

5

Florencia (she/her) @lemmy.blahaj.zone 1mo ago

Regarding safety, if somebody could check my understanding:

Wear full body PPE and a respirator mask when spraying pesticide or you'll get cancer.

Florencia (she/her) @lemmy.blahaj.zone 1mo ago

The retraction notice is a lot better lol - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273230099913715

Best quote below:

I, the handling (co)Editor-in-Chief of Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, reached out to the sole surviving author Gary M. Williams and sought explanation for the various concerns which have been listed in detail below. We did not receive any response from Prof. Williams.

This article has been retracted: please see Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal (https://www.elsevier.com/locate/withdrawalpolicy)

This article has been retracted at the request of handling (co)Editor-in-Chief, Prof. Martin van den Berg, Ph.D.

Concerns were raised regarding the authorship of this paper, validity of the research findings in the context of misrepresentation of the contributions by the authors and the study sponsor and potential conflicts of interest of the authors. I, the handling (co)Editor-in-Chief of Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, reached out to the sole surviving author Gary M. Williams and sought explanation for the various concerns which have been listed in detail below. We did not receive any response from Prof. Williams.

Hence, this article is formally retracted from the journal. This decision has been made after careful consideration of the COPE guidelines and thorough investigation into the circumstances surrounding the authorship and content of this article and in light of no response having been provided to address the findings. The retraction is based on several critical issues that are considered to undermine the academic integrity of this article and its conclusions:

1.Carcinogenicity and Genotoxicity Assessments The article's conclusions regarding the carcinogenicity of glyphosate are solely based on unpublished studies from Monsanto, which have failed to demonstrate tumorigenic potential. The handling (co) Editor-in-Chief also became aware that by the time of writing of this article in the journal, the authors did not include multiple other long-term chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity studies, that were already done at the time of writing their review in 1999. In their article the authors state that they are aware of other studies, that were unpublished and not available. However, the authors do not specify to what extent they tried to incorporate the findings of these (unpublished) studies. The reasons for this remain undisclosed but bring into question the broader objectivity of the conclusions presented. The handling (co)Editor-in-Chief identified the following additional publications:_Atkinson C, Martin T, Hudson P, Robb D. Glyphosate: 104 week dietary carcinogenicity study in mice. In: Inveresk Research International. Tranent: IRIProject No. 438618; 1993.__Sugimoto K. 18-Month Oral Oncogenicity Study in Mice, Vol. 1 and 2. Kodaira-shi: The Institute of Environmental Toxicology; 1997. Study No.:IET 94-0151.__Takahashi M. Oral feeding carcinogenicity study in mice with AK-01. Agatsuma: Nippon Experimental Medical Research Institute Co. Ltd.; 1999.__Enemoto K. 24-Month Oral Chronic Toxicity and Oncogenicity Study in Rats, Vol. 1. Kodaira-shi: The Institute of Environmental Toxicology; 1997.__Suresh TP. Combined chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity study with glyphosate technical in Wistar rats. Syngenta: Toxicology Department Rallis Research Centre, Rallis India Limited; 1996._While it is recognized that these publications were not featured in peer-reviewed journals, the review by Williams, Kroes, and Munro did extensively utilize unpublished studies, which did not seem to impede its publication. Therefore, the conclusions about the non-carcinogenicity of glyphosate or Roundup in this article are limited to the Monsanto studies alone and hamper a general conclusion as suggested by the authors.
2.Lack of Authorial Independence Litigation in the United States revealed correspondence from Monsanto suggesting that the authors of the article were not solely responsible for writing its content. It appears from that correspondence that employees of Monsanto may have contributed to the writing of the article without proper acknowledgment as co-authors. This lack of transparency raises serious ethical concerns regarding the independence and accountability of the authors of this article and the academic integrity of the carcinogenicity studies presented.
3.Misrepresentation of Contributions The apparent contributions of Monsanto employees as co-writers to this article were not explicitly mentioned as such in the acknowledgments section. This omission suggests that the authors may have misrepresented their unique roles and the collaborative nature of the work presented. The failure to disclose the involvement of Monsanto personnel in the writing process compromises the academic independence of the presented findings and conclusions drawn in the article regarding carcinogenicity.
4.Questions of Financial Compensation Further correspondence with Monsanto disclosed during litigation indicates that the authors may have received financial compensation from Monsanto for their work on this article, which was not disclosed as such in this publication. The potential financial compensation raises significant ethical concerns and calls into question the apparent academic objectivity of the authors in this publication, which concerns and questions have not been answered.
5.Ambiguity in Research Findings This article has been widely regarded as a hallmark paper in the discourse surrounding the carcinogenicity of glyphosate and Roundup. However, the lack of clarity regarding which parts of the article were authored by Monsanto employees creates uncertainty about the integrity of the conclusions drawn. Specifically, the article asserts the absence of carcinogenicity associated with glyphosate or its technical formulation, Roundup. It is unclear how much of the conclusions of the authors were influenced by external contributions of Monsanto without proper acknowledgments.
6.Weight-of-Evidence Approach The authors employed a weight-of-evidence approach in their assessment of glyphosate's carcinogenicity and genotoxicity. While this methodology is sound in principle, the potential biases introduced by undisclosed contributions from Monsanto employees and the exclusion of other existing long-term carcinogenicity studies may have skewed the interpretation of the data. The authors' critical analysis of both unpublished and published studies must therefore be viewed with caution.
7.Historical Context and Influence The paper had a significant impact on regulatory decision-making regarding glyphosate and Roundup for decades. Given its status as a cornerstone in the assessment of glyphosate's safety, it is imperative that the integrity of this review article and its conclusions are not compromised. The concerns specified here necessitate this retraction to preserve the scientific integrity of the journal.
8.Conclusion In light of the aforementioned issues, the handling (co) Editor-in-Chief lost confidence in the results and conclusions of this article, and believes that the retraction of this article is necessary to maintain the integrity of the journal. The scientific concerns regarding the lack of carcinogenicity only derived from Monsanto studies, concerns regarding (ghost-) authorship(s) and potential conflicts of interest, none of which have been responded to, are sufficient to warrant this action. We appreciate the understanding of the scientific community regarding this matter and remain committed to upholding the highest standards of integrity in published research in Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology.

Disclaimer: As handling (co)Editor-in-Chief, I emphasize that this retraction does not imply a stance on the ongoing debate regarding the carcinogenicity of glyphosate or Roundup, but originates from directly following the COPE guidelines.

Correspondence: martinvandenberg@editor-regtoxpharm.com

5

Florencia (she/her) @lemmy.blahaj.zone 2mo ago

If the EFF de anonymization tool can de anonymize your browser, then the ad network can too.

Try searching for something with tor browser - no javascript

Florencia (she/her) @lemmy.blahaj.zone 2mo ago

Crying every night before sleeping. Still trans tho

Florencia (she/her) @lemmy.blahaj.zone 2mo ago

Yes.

Simplified and probably inaccurate explanation: 100% & 0% wears at the "membrane' that keeps the two energy compounds apart. Charges afterwards don't reach 100% as easily, or not at all. Charging to 80% puts less strain on the membrane as it keeps the two energy rich compounds apart. 50% is best, especially if device is always plugged in. At 50% the membrane is under the least amount of stress.

*Molten batteries *are the only ones I know that solve the problem, but they're the size of a house and meant to power cities.

Also we're finally starting to see devices acknowledge this issue. Phones now only charge to 80% overnight then go to 100% shortly before your alarm goes off. And always plugged in laptops can be set to 60% charge to preserve the lifespan of the battery.

Florencia (she/her) @lemmy.blahaj.zone 2mo ago

The house isn't fillibuster proof. Even if every Democrat voted together the Republicans don't need their vote.

1

Florencia (she/her) @lemmy.blahaj.zone 2mo ago

I hate the collaborator take. Now if I could only find evidence to prove you wrong.

1

Florencia (she/her) @lemmy.blahaj.zone 2mo ago

CICO (it's not going well)

Florencia (she/her) @lemmy.blahaj.zone 2mo ago

Also:

https://bsky.app/profile/jojofromjerz.bsky.social/post/3m5aempxrx227

JoJoFromJerz - @jojofromjerz.bsky.social‬ - The Democrats who caved just taught Republicans that using mass starvation as a weapon works.

Florencia (she/her) @lemmy.blahaj.zone 2mo ago

Torrentio seeds. It's using torrent technology. It will be sharing copies of the movie with others. Illegal.