Fuck advertisers.

Because we normalized self-censorship to make it more palatable to everyone. Which is stupid.

Eh, that's actually crafty :D

I miss netiquette.

No, they won't. They might try, mind you, but that's not happening. I'll sooner adapt to a piece of tape at the top of my screen than to this.

So, nothing broke, except the thing that broke. Gotcha.

There are studies that cleared the red dye in question. If you still consider that "muh risk prevention" in this situation, I suggest you stop ingesting anything.

There's a difference between having no idea, and having data that goes against something. Most people can grasp that concept.

Be sure of whatever you want. Don't let yourself be stopped by facts and actual studies. After all, what's reality in the face of a strong, uninformed gut feeling.

Man I wish. We're all bland flavor, non-furry, (supposedly) non gay, people at work.

Red cheetos weren't killing people, that's why they looked into that. Cancer-can here, with a proven history of being deadly, would look a-ok to them if they were still made. They'd probably issue a fake commercial made under the name of whatever agency should definitely not approve of this where whey literally spray this on burning meat on a bbq then gobble it with a glass of old refried grease.

Cancer… in a can. That would make a banger ad.

Yes, that was… my point? You'd need to ingest so much food for this to reach a level that's still considered safe that you'd probably have a lot of other issues before reaching that point.

All I can find is a 1983 study on rats that show some negative effect on reproduction and physical activity with significant amount of it in their diet, while non-dose dependant effect where also measured. The sample was less than fifty rats for each group, and the results where all over the place (2.5% of the diet caused similar to more damage than 10% of the diet).

You'd have to eat ton of the stuff, almost exclusively, to even reach levels that are considered still safe for humans. Beyond that, it's not more dangerous than chili.

We can. Plenty of good stuff. Or at least, not terrible stuff. But it makes more profit to get something out quick and see how it goes than do long, serious, costly research before releasing a product.

It's not even that. Porn is just a bystander here. The first step is put in place a very large framework for making some form of verification mandatory on arbitrary services and sites under the guise of whatever (terrorism, child protection, and extremely niche content are good candidates). Once it's in place, it becomes the new normal very quickly.

Then, as the government, you suddenly have the power to extend the provision of said system to whatever the fuck you want. That's where things gets funky, and not the good kind.

I'm sure the evil intolerant mechanic guy wanted to remove them for some fake, made-up reasons like "you're gonna die if you ride with these".

Just checked the part about self-hosting. While it's probably possible to handle things with a less heavy approach, their only "easy to use" example right now is to have a full-blown kubernetes cluster at hand or run locally in the source directory. That's a bit much.

From the outside it really seems that a large amount of the USA administration is actively working against the USA's interests. Which sounds weird.

Remember when we told people "they'll make it illegal to use a VPN" and we got snarky replies like "it's not enforceable LOL".

The fuck it isn't. Traffic coming from a VPN? That's a paddlin', kiddo.

They're not even trying to masquerade it as… oh, yes, they're still trying to masquerade as a "think of the children!" measure. Those fuckers.