FauxPseudo

Definitely. At the last corporate job I had I was told at the very beginning of the interview that I was overqualified and that the only reason I was there was because their trainer (a former coworker of mine) said they had to interview me.

I got the job. I was thinking about quitting when they fired me because I didn’t park my car on the property because I was following the rules.

I was thinking about quitting because the place was a total mess. The first clue was during the interview they warned me they didn’t have KPIs at this call center job. When I actually started working I noticed that I had no one person to report to, massive inefficiencies, I could have spent a day or two creating from scratch their much needed IVR and that after three months on the phone not one person I started with had had a review of any kind. I had 20 years of call center experience and 20 years of Linux administration and I was fighting back every urge to rearrange the furniture because this major company was a complete shit show. I was over qualified. I should have never taken the job. They should have never hired me.

I haven’t seen the data on all but the nonstick is trash in a way that shows zero potential for their other stuff. Crap materials, uneven heating, etc. The very worst in almost every category.

We can add Made In pans to this.

And time served. Guilty but free.

The Hague would like to know your location.

We all pay. That’s how it works. Gas taxes and registration fees. The driver paid for a license. The truck had sales tax. It’s a distributed payment method. Not a pay as needed system. Unless they go on a toll road. But that’s a separate rant.

Old habits die hard.

New mirror test. Who dis?

So was polio, measles and American citizens supporting Russian politicians. Once you think something is history you are dealing with a whole population that is naive to it and the process starts all over again. The only thing we have successfully consigned to history is small pox.

“Let us honor the memories of those we lost by fostering a spirit of solidarity and kindness.”

They were lost by fostering a spirit of solidarity and kindness? No, they were lost by inaction. They should have run this by an editor because that doesn’t say what they think it says.

The data is conflicting. I think they had already made up their mind on that topic before messaging me. My reply just reinforced their decision. It’s hard to separate causation and correlation in that case.

My standard reply was “hailing frequencies open.” Needless to say it was the opening line that let multiple women know that I was single. Surprisingly it had a 100% success rate. I was the best nerd.

66618055 I never tried to get a better number because 666

You ever see an article about a “this changes everything” study but when you look at the study you start seeing all kinds of problems?

There is an untested assumption here. Just because glyphosate is present doesn’t mean it’s having an effect. That’s like when we found aluminum plaques in Alzheimer’s brains and assumed the aluminum was causing it.

I know that this article mentions new research showing DNA harm. This is counter to all previous studies so it will require a bit of replication to confirm that. The study they are depending on doesn’t do a very good job showing it. The DNA damage they focused on was exclusively oxidative stress [OS] and at least twice that I saw they suggested looking to see if this could be counted with antioxidants. I expected it to be mentioned once because I had the same idea myself by the second time I had to fight the impulse to check and see if this was funded by Big Antioxidant.

Prior studies have shown that if you give super doses of GLY to sperm that it does effect motility for up to an hour, but a) this hasn’t been shown in realistic dosages or in vivo. Just in vitro. b) hasn’t shown to effect DNA. I don’t think this study did a good enough job of countering the prior data. As can be seen in these key graphs below. c) they only tested for GLY. By not testing for anything else they get to attribute all variances to the one thing they tested for when it could have been something else. That alone should disqualify the study from being taken seriously without replication with better controls. This is exactly the kind of thing that gets weeded (no pun intended) out in replication and where Regression Towards the Mean rears its omnipresent head.

Only infertile couples were selected to be in this study. That creates a Texas Sharpshooter problem. There is no control group. Without s control you don’t have a valid study.

The study found that eating an organic diet had no impact on GLY levels. That’s worrying. Either their tests failed to find a difference, the study participants lied about their diet, or GLY is everywhere in the environment (both cities and farms). The study does not tell us how it was determined that the people included that only eat organic are, in fact, organic only eaters. It doesn’t tell us if this was a check box or observation. If it was a checkbox what was the wording? Because self reporting and question design is important. “Do you eat only organic?” “Do you eat only certified organic?” “Have you had an diet that consist of only certified organic foods for at least 6 months?” Those are all going to give very different answers and because they didn’t find any GLY variation between organic and non-organic diets the way they determined who had an organic and non-organic diet really matters.

There is definitely some shadiness going on with GLY. Bayer said that it was going to stop selling GLY to filthy casuals by January 2023. It is still very much for sale and shows no signs of going away.

Two asides.

1. according to this study being a smoker has a much larger impact than GLY. Given that a third of French people (all subjects in the study were French) smoke this seems like a much bigger concern than GLY.
2. The antinatalist in me is kinda fine with the whole situation because if it does actually reduce births then, sarcastically, this is a self limiting problem. Eventually there won’t be enough people to mess things up and this is just a tool to get us there. The unspoken premise behind this study is that not having kids is bad.

Roundup acid? Now there’s a phrase I’ve never heard before. Depending on if it’s buffered or not Roundup can have a pH of 3.5 to 9. But it’s not the pH of glyphosate that makes it an effective herbicide. I’d probably not use that phrase in the future because it’s a distraction that undermines your point.

The article doesn’t explicitly state it but it’s obvious from that fence and the nails through the hands that this was a literal crucifixion. Which sounds like something that should be said out loud instead of dodged.

That was my third thought as well. That’s a lot of people to band together and make Tesla’s number one asset a viable stand alone company. Even if Musk doesn’t want that.

Does anyone have an alternative title for this that doesn’t sound clickbaity as f***? I’m kind of afraid to feed whatever media organization came up with that headline.

Ladybugs supporting Praying Mantises in massive predatory expansion Aphids say.

I’m having flashbacks from living in California and I know that Australian readers will also recognize that this is not the first time this has happened