* There were far fewer tech billionaries.

* The tech billionaries were not publicly associating with far-right figures or cryptofascist belives, or at least were doing so quietly while promoting ideas of technology as social progress

* A lot of the tech startups were seen as fighting entrenched interests grounded in regulatory capture and people had the illusion that the next generation of companies supplanting these wouldn't succumb to the same factors.

* Donald Trump as a phenomenon of current politics did not quite exist yet, so we didn't have to witness these people sucking up to him

That's just for starters.

In my jurisdiction no such warnings exist. You should check what level of paranoia your region handles because it may be based on evidence or in scaremongering.

> Why do large fish carry massive, measurable mercury traces?

Because large fish are apex predators and apex predators have always had a large amount of contaminants. This holds true now and throughout history, it's not a modern phenomenon.

> By your logic, you could pour chlorine into a plant's soil, wait a week, and eat it without an issue because "contamination might not have an effect."

This is what happens with pesticides, we spray crops and then wait days to weeks for the offgassing or biodegradation. For the record continue to spray crops with water with human and animal feces for nutrition as has been the case throughout human history

> futhermore, cattle are ruminants, pigs, chickens, and fish are not. they have a completely different digestive system that filters out significantly more toxins before they ever reach the meat, followed by pigs, chickens, and lastly fish.

You need to show some evidence of solid studies that show bioaccumulation of toxins because mechanistic effects (or your random theorizing as a layman) are not sufficient proof.

> vitamin d supplements are not the same thing as getting direct sunlight.

You need to show proof of this.

> also their food is mainly genetically modified. you know there are different kinds right? cage free, free range and pasture raised. which one do you think has the better nutrient dense meat and eggs quality?

You need to show proof that the nutrition profile is drastically better. Some free range food tastes different for sure but you need to show me that there's a large enough difference. I am not arguing about the ethics of modern factory farming though.

> 1. never ever go outside. stay indoors and only consume vitamin d pills 2 only eat ultra processed, genetically modified foods, and high sugar snacks 3. only use vegetable oils! never ever consume natural oils/fats 4. if you have a garden, pour chlorine on your garden vegetables and eat them a few weeks later. (if they survive it) 5. never fast. eat 6+ times a day to keep your insulin spiked at maximum capacity

I mean hundreds of millions of people do this and most of these things have been studied, quite literally to death.

* We know the effects of vitamin D supplementation (favorable compared to more than moderate sun exposure as direct sun exposure brings risks of melanoma)

* We know the effects of GMO: no known effects at all, no specific mechanism of action of because GMO is meaningless unless you can tell me of specific genetic changes that trigger the creation of some toxin in the target organism

* We know the effects of ultraprocessed foods: largely attributable to high palatability that leads of greater body mass and spikes in glycemic index if not supplemented with fiber or physical activity.

* There have been hundreds of studies on vegetable oils and not a single one has shown negative effects beyond what you might get from excess calories. Have you actually read these studies? You talk about "natural" oils, which is a completely meaningless term.

* The garden thing is a stupid analogy and dependent on the chemistry of whatever chemical in question you're talking about. You know that chemistry is an exact science and we can know empirically how different substances biodegrade right?

* Fasting has some marginal health benefits but is ultimately just a method of calorie restriction, which is healthy overall. No human randomized control trial has shown fasting to be better than alternative methods of dieting.

* Likewise, the number of times you eat does not have and known impact when you equate for calories.

This should remind us that progress is very much a political choice and a confluence of factors beyond the specifics of the economic systems.

A decade ago I left a job and spent the last week thoroughly documenting every flow and code section of an app that I worked with, which was the core value proposition of the company. A couple years later I ask around and nobody even took a look at that.

People just don't read, and there are actually good reasons for that, one of them being that documentation is outdated in most orgs and the effort to keep it up to date is greater than reading the code.

I’m all for the hundreds of reasonable objections but this sort of trash mindless critique is as useless as what it denounces.

That's true but it doesn't mean that the contamination has an actual effect, so vibes. This is not a minor point at all.

> eating meat from cattle is going to yield less contamination, because it has been filtered by nature (grass) + cattle (liver) and so on... there is a chain of filtering..

Assuming your argument of contamination is true does not make this assertion true. Why do you assume their livers do filter things instead of going through bioaccumulation?

> if the chicken doesn't get sunlight (vitamin d), the eggs will be depleted of vitamin d, and so on...

Chickens get supplemented with vitamin D in their feed.

> in the 1900s one chicken would took 4-5 months to be ready to be killed.. today it's ready within 5-7 weeks... you can ask old folks how the taste of chicken has changed from when they were young to today...

This is true. You still need to prove how the dietary profile has changed.

I mean for a lot of spec code people define the API signatures and let the llm run with it which is an excellent tradeoff.

But this isn't an LLM problem; this is a problem of undisciplined engineers who feel they need to cram extra stuff in a PR. If an engineer doesn't look at the output of the LLM and generate extra work then it's still on them, right?

> The only way I can describe the latter is that an AI-only PR feels to me like a painting where everything is high detail - and you have to comb over each part before you understand why it's there because so much is superfluous

This just indicates that the engineer doesn't know how to use the tool. Hell they can ask the LLM to split the work into focused PRs and Claude will be happy to do it and the results might no even be half bad.

> Also when I'm _using_ the agent; at least 50 percent of my time is spent telling it to stop with it's approach so it doesn't go down a useless rabbit hole and waste tokens.

If this is happening often then the tool is probably not fit for the job.