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

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

thanks for the rec

this is simply the liberal “if you don’t vote then you deserved it” rhetoric repackaged. we’re not interested since our goal isn’t to work inside the system as abolitionists

anyone who calls AI a form of life is too far gone to collaborate with