The "interview" format is a bit difficult to read.
Assuming they did keep it a secret, we had so many other hazards that were (and still are) in common use: lead, mercury, tobacco, chlordane, asbestos, etc... So even if true; even if you accept this as some conspiracy, it would seem to pale in comparison to the list I just gave. We seemingly survived and thrived with with substances far worse than a little plastic running around in our bloodstream, yet this remains the topic of the day and it makes me wonder how real the outrage is (proportionate to other hazards) or if this is just liberal minded "see the big companies are out to get us and this is just the current example". It would be far more persuasive imho to just argue the later point independently, because the plastic (using the term loosely) topic comes up so frequently that to some of us it is just repetitive and not really constructive.
> lead, mercury, tobacco, chlordane, asbestos, etc... far worse …
Lead, mercury - this is exactly the level of harm being asserted.
The claim that these are “far worse” is doing a lot of work here.
> assuming they did keep it a secret
So now this comment is denying the facts in the reporting? I was taking you seriously until I realized that you are claiming the whole narrative is false from the start.
>or if this is just liberal minded "see the big companies are out to get us and this is just the current example".
Of course, as opposed to the objective minded "there is no conspiracy ever, when it is repeatedly demonstrated that corporations will poison, experiment on and destroy human lives if it favors their bottom line and they think they can get away with it, this is not to be interpreted as a pattern or structural issue, it's just coincidences and 'bad' individual actors all the way down".
The principal is it's OK if a democrat does it. For example:
It's OK to rename something named after a Republican president who was shot (Mt Mckinley).
It's not OK to rename or change something about a Democratic president who was shot (ie. The Kennedy Center).
Man, give me an effing break, do you honestly believe that is the correct analogy?
As another commenter said, Obama was reverting a previous name change - he didn't change the name to "Mt. Obama and McKinley" and paint the whole thing gold.
So it’s an overpriced middle of the road phone to signal ones devotion to Trump and doesn’t actually deliver on several of its core promises (like made in USA).
Just to be accurate, they don't say that it's made in the USA. They only say its assembled in the USA. Perhaps in the past they made some statement that it would have been, but the current box and marketing don't.
Yeah they updated it way late in the game when they couldn’t hide it anymore, well after money had exchanged hands. That certainly qualifies as a broken promise.
My Nexus 5 had that feature and it was really useful to see if the phone had a message pending. They also did the same thing for wireless charging, dropping it and then bringing it back. The PM probably gets paid good money to go in circles.
It didn't start out as liberal/left, so a lot of the people that have been here since 2010 want to keep most politics out it entirely. After all the name of the group is "Hackers". Most of the people in compsci/engineering were libertarian prior to 2007 anyway. It's really undergone a shift which is fine, but it actually adds absolutely nothing, from an intellectual point of view imho.
It would be nice to at least send a warning note, to any accounts that solely post political stuff here - or give them their own subgroup.
For God's sake if you are going to talk about Hepatis-C then talk about here, rather than using it to bring up issues with an administration you don't like.
In 2010, vaccines weren’t really a divisive topic that was politically aligned. That’s come later as the right started to take an interest, and then accelerated via COVID and disagreements about the various approaches implemented to manage the epidemic by the government that caused controversy - masks, lockdowns, and vaccines.
Which is to say, it’s not so much the liberal/left causing a problem here - I think they’re just holding the ground they’ve always had - that vaccines are generally safe and generally a good thing.
I think before it was mostly a nonpartisan topic, but after COVID it was kind of a thing where if you're on the left, you'd be on the side of science and thus vehemently defend vaccines while assuming the other side is a bunch of antivaxxers
and then the other side doesn't want to be associated with the other and thus ...
it should've never been politicized in the first place
reply