Nobody Cares: PRS

[Dakota Tebaldi]

I thought this was a joke or AI.
The comments on BS ha ha

Athens Grease (@athensgrease.bsky.social)

This author has chosen to make their posts visible only to people who are signed in.

bsky.app

So this is basically just another Magic Spoon, I'm guessing? Except instead of "get your childhood back but healthy" it's "eating this cereal validates your masculinity". Fine, but FWIW Magic Spoon and other "adultified" cereals are stupidly expensive and taste freaking horrendous on top of it.

 

[Noodles]

So this is basically just another Magic Spoon, I'm guessing? Except instead of "get your childhood back but healthy" it's "eating this cereal validates your masculinity". Fine, but FWIW Magic Spoon and other "adultified" cereals are stupidly expensive and taste freaking horrendous on top of it.

(Hides away her boxes of Cascadia Farms cereal)

Totally only regular Froot Loops and Sugar Smacks for me here, like a proper irresponsible adult.

 

[Dakota Tebaldi]

(Hides away her boxes of Cascadia Farms cereal)

Totally only regular Froot Loops and Sugar Smacks for me here, like a proper irresponsible adult.

lol - nah, that's not the same. Looks like that's basically regular bran and oat cereals and such, just organic.

Magic Spoon et al are something else entirely.

 

[Isabeau]

I love how there‘s only one ball in their marketing image

 

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

I love how there‘s only one ball in their marketing image

“You too can be like Hitler!”

 

[Innula Zenovka]

ChatGPT has designed a tactical washing up sponge

 

[Innula Zenovka]

RFK Jr comes for Dunkin’: ‘MAHA’ health secretary wants chain to prove iced coffees are safe for teens

“We’re going to ask Dunkin’ Donuts and Starbucks, ‘Show us the safety data that show that it’s OK for a teenage girl to drink an iced coffee with 115 grams of sugar in it,’” Kennedy said. “I don’t think they’re gonna be able to do it.”

Flavored iced coffees at Dunkin’ can have between 18 and 67 grams of sugar, while the chain’s frozen beverages can range from 100 to 180 grams.

Meanwhile, adding a flavored syrup to a Starbucks iced coffee adds approximately 20 grams of sugar to the drink. The chain’s frozen offering, known as the frappuccino, can have between approximately 40 and 80 grams of sugar.

While I'm no fan of Mr Kennedy's, I can't help but think he has a point. This is the official guidance over here:

• Adults should have no more than 30g of free sugars a day, (roughly equivalent to 7 sugar cubes).

Sugar: the facts

Most adults and children in the UK eat too much sugar. Cut down by eating fewer sugary foods, such as sweets, cakes and biscuits, and drinking fewer sugary fizzy drinks.

www.nhs.uk

 

[Casey Pelous]

While yes, there's certainly a case to be made for shoveling less sugar into humans, the whole "prove this is safe" tactic is bullshit. You can't prove that steamed broccoli is safe. You can't prove anything is safe, especially if the people to whom you are trying to prove it keep moving the goal posts on what "safe" means. It's the Health & Safety equivalent of "prove Bigfoot doesn't exist."

Pure anti-vaxxer crapola.

I suspect Dunkin' and Starbucks failed to adequately grease someone's palm or kiss someone's butt.

"Isn't all food bad for you, though? I mean, I've been eating nothing but lasagna and muffins for my entire adult life and I feel awful."

-Parks & Rec​

 

[Free]

House kills effort to release all congressional sexual misconduct and harassment reports

Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., had forced the vote in light of allegations that her Republican colleague Tony Gonzales of Texas sent sexual text messages to a subordinate.

www.nbcnews.com

The House on Wednesday voted to scuttle an effort by Republican Rep. Nancy Mace to shed more light on sexual misconduct allegations against members of Congress.

Mace, a conservative Republican who is running to be governor of South Carolina, forced a floor vote on her resolution directing the House Ethics Committee to make public all reports on allegations of congressional lawmakers and aides engaging in sexual misconduct or harassment.

But in a 357-65 vote, the House voted to refer the Mace resolution to committee — a move that effectively killed it.

That 357 yeas includes 182 Democrats, which is a tad more than the 175 Republicans. I find that to be a ginormous fucking problem.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

House kills effort to release all congressional sexual misconduct and harassment reports

Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., had forced the vote in light of allegations that her Republican colleague Tony Gonzales of Texas sent sexual text messages to a subordinate.

www.nbcnews.com

That 357 yeas includes 182 Democrats, which is a tad more than the 175 Republicans. I find that to be a ginormous fucking problem.

Not that I know anything about the background to this, but during an election year might not it be reasonable for anyone, and particularly for her political opponents, to view any measure proposed by "a conservative Republican who is running to be governor of South Carolina" with a degree of suspicion about her ulterior motives?

 

[Innula Zenovka]

While yes, there's certainly a case to be made for shoveling less sugar into humans, the whole "prove this is safe" tactic is bullshit. You can't prove that steamed broccoli is safe. You can't prove anything is safe, especially if the people to whom you are trying to prove it keep moving the goal posts on what "safe" means. It's the Health & Safety equivalent of "prove Bigfoot doesn't exist."

Pure anti-vaxxer crapola.

I suspect Dunkin' and Starbucks failed to adequately grease someone's palm or kiss someone's butt.

But when there's plenty of evidence to suggest that excessive sugar consumption over the long term is bad for you, because of the increased risk of obesity and of tooth decay, I don't think it's unreasonable to as food manufacturers whether they accept this evidence and, if they don't, why they don't.

I'd say it's more akin to "prove that the risks to children's health caused by leaving them unvaccinated against measles, mumps and rubella, as documented by countless studies and accepted everywhere but the US, are not massively greater than those of any potential harm vaccination may cause them" than it is to "prove Bigfoot doesn't exist."

 

[Casey Pelous]

But when there's plenty of evidence to suggest that excessive sugar consumption over the long term is bad for you, because of the increased risk of obesity and of tooth decay, I don't think it's unreasonable to as food manufacturers whether they accept this evidence and, if they don't, why they don't.

I'd say it's more akin to "prove that the risks to children's health caused by leaving them unvaccinated against measles, mumps and rubella, as documented by countless studies and accepted everywhere but the US, are not massively greater than those of any potential harm vaccination may cause them" than it is to "prove Bigfoot doesn't exist."

Fair point. I may have drifted into hyperbole.

First time that ever happened.

Again.

 

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

The problem lately with hyperbole is how often a week later it turns out to be understatement.

 

[Free]

Not that I know anything about the background to this, but during an election year might not it be reasonable for anyone, and particularly for her political opponents, to view any measure proposed by "a conservative Republican who is running to be governor of South Carolina" with a degree of suspicion about her ulterior motives?

We are talking about Democrats here. They're often prepared to forgive an opponent for killing their pet parakeet at the drop of a hat. Ro Khanna has aligned himself with her on this vote, and praised her in committee. And he's been rabidly anti-Mace for a long while.

There's also the issue that, even if they were basing their votes on doubting Mace's intentions, etc., there was no need to weigh it down so deeply just to block it. Several dozen votes would have been enough. 182 votes out of a total of 209 Dems on the floor is pretty damn lopsided.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Fair point. I may have drifted into hyperbole.

First time that ever happened.

Again.

And it's very unusual for Kennedy to be right about anything health-related.

 

[Free]

And it's very unusual for Kennedy to be right about anything health-related.

He's known to be worse than a broken clock.

 

[Soen Eber]

House kills effort to release all congressional sexual misconduct and harassment reports

Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., had forced the vote in light of allegations that her Republican colleague Tony Gonzales of Texas sent sexual text messages to a subordinate.

www.nbcnews.com

That 357 yeas includes 182 Democrats, which is a tad more than the 175 Republicans. I find that to be a ginormous fucking problem.

Note that it is about allegations, not proof. I believe her, but once the bar reaches the point where baseless allegations can be weaponized, it becomes even more scary. Not that I doubt that any of the current allegations are baseless, but there's still the "innocent until guilty" thing, and imagining what people like O'Keefe and his ilk could trawl up to pollute our news feed and drive out good people in public office.

 

[Dakota Tebaldi]

But when there's plenty of evidence to suggest that excessive sugar consumption over the long term is bad for you, because of the increased risk of obesity and of tooth decay, I don't think it's unreasonable to as food manufacturers whether they accept this evidence and, if they don't, why they don't.

I don't think the question is that simple though, because you can accept that excessive sugar consumption over the long term is unhealthful, but how does that translate when you're talking about an individual food item? Because Dunkin Donuts sells its drinks one at a time, and one excessively sugary drink isn't provably bad for you.

Put another way, if the amount of sugar in it is reason enough to ban Dunkin Donuts from selling coffee, then it's reason enough to ban any product with the same or greater amount of sugar in it from being sold by anyone else, because there's no way the local bakery knows you're not eating ten macaroons a day every day either. So suddenly you're not just talking about iced coffee, you're also talking about pies, jams and jellies, cakes, ice creams, tiramisu - practically any kind of sweet or confectionery.

 

[Soen Eber]

I don't think the question is that simple though, because you can accept that excessive sugar consumption over the long term is unhealthful, but how does that translate when you're talking about an individual food item? Because Dunkin Donuts sells its drinks one at a time, and one excessively sugary drink isn't provably bad for you.

Put another way, if the amount of sugar in it is reason enough to ban Dunkin Donuts from selling coffee, then it's reason enough to ban any product with the same or greater amount of sugar in it from being sold by anyone else, because there's no way the local bakery knows you're not eating ten macaroons a day every day either. So suddenly you're not just talking about iced coffee, you're also talking about pies, jams and jellies, cakes, ice creams, tiramisu - practically any kind of sweet or confectionery.

I think it's more an issue of disclosure, or not disclosing the amount of sugar in a single item.

 

[Free]

Not that I doubt that any of the current allegations are baseless, but there's still the "innocent until guilty" thing

If in the future I'm arrested and charged, whether or not I'm guilty of anything, that information typically becomes a matter of public record. I'll likely be able to read about it in a newspaper or two - if they're still around - the very next day.

I'm never provided the option of having that information kept secret.