> Like what?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_foodborne_illness_outb...

If a product isn't nationally consolidated, it can't have a national foodborne illness outbreak.

>it can't have a national foodborne illness outbreak.

Which is bad for PR and great for clicks, but it's entirely unclear whether we're better off on average. What about all the years where we didn't have a mass outbreak? Would it be better if every state/county had separate food supply chains, and they had the same rate of illness, but it's more randomly dispersed so it doesn't make it to national TV? Think the difference between airplane crash (maybe one incident per year, hundreds of deaths per incident) vs car crashes (40k/year)

Hmm yes. Two deaths, over a thousand hospitalizations, and not a single state in the US with zero cases, but those are just things that are real and happened which means they do not take into account things that didn’t happen or things you could imagine in your mind.

If we simply envision a nation without diarrhea have we not eradicated it in our hearts, where it matters mos

Nobody said that, nor is it relevant. The point is if the food supply is more diversified, we are less exposed to single points of failure.

It’s absolutely relevant because a diversified food supply would result in smaller farms, other things held equal.

You have fewer single points of failure, but more opportunities for failure and a tougher time addressing it via inspection, and less capital available to implement compliance.

Imagining a guy gasping out his last words as he succumbs to life-ending diarrhea in the back of an ambulance that’s long since cut its lights and sirens, “This is the best of all possible capital allocations for hygiene compliance”

I would love to see your analysis that proves this is unequivocally worse than the current state.

Ironic, given the title of the post.

just sort of a general complaint about how much the internet relies on cloudflare and what that means. massive point of failure, erratic browser checks & outright blocking, surveillance

Under US law, you have a nearly absolute right to not answer police questions.

Yes of course. But their use of the PIN will likely only occur if you answer, which many people will. This is a common setup in interrogations.

the utah cops definitely would, based on whats been released from the rwckless ben bodycam footage

I belive this only applies if you are a US citizen and not a visitor.

Up in the air. SCOTUS didn't decide on this specific right. They did rule on other constitutional protections though, sometimes granting, sometimes denying them to non-citizens. It also depends if you're just arriving or already are in the US. For example, illegal immigrants who jumped the border fence have more rights than legal immigrants who didn't leave the airport yet.