These articles are often misleading. With the modern detection methods, we can find seemingly anything in everything. Mass spectrometers can detect individual atoms and molecules, after all.

It's always important to check the quantities detected and the corresponding safe limits.

Since the article does not make any claims about exposure levels, no, it's not "misleading." You (wrongly) assumed there's no research on safe limits, or that there even ARE 'safe limits.'

Meanwhile you're making a nonsense claim about the capabilities of the sort of mass spectrometer used for this sort of study (like you know anything about mass spectrometers), while also ignoring the well established evidence these chemicals are causing harmful effects to human health.

Probably because you didn't bother to actually read the study summary, yet you felt qualified to whine about it being misleading while hiding behind weasel words like "often" and "seemingly."

Skepticism not a substitute for being informed and educated. Stop doubting and questioning things you're not qualified to doubt or question...especially when you clearly haven't read the material you're so smugly questioning.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S02697...

"A significant body of research supports the conclusion that current exposures to BFRs are having an adverse effect on human health and that early-life exposures are of greatest concern. PBDEs have been particularly well-studied and human exposure has been associated with harm to neurodevelopment, especially reduced IQ, as well as reduced fecundability, reduced birth weight, reproductive abnormalities, reduced fertility, papillary thyroid cancer, and alterations in thyroid function (Chevrier et al., 2010; Goodyer et al., 2017; Hoffman et al., 2017; Kim et al., 2014; Lam et al., 2017; Stapleton et al., 2011; Zota et al., 2011). Bromophenols are structurally similar to thyroid hormone, and evidence from in vitro, in vivo, and epidemiological research indicates that, like PBDEs, bromophenols can affect thyroid function (Michałowicz et al., 2022). The effects of brominated flame retardants on thyroid homeostasis may explain their ability to harm neurodevelopment, particularly via disruption of thyroid-hormone mediated development that occurs during fetal development. Several mechanisms for disruption of thyroid homeostasis have been elucidated. In human liver microsomes, 2,4,6-TBP and hydroxylated metabolites of PBDEs were found to inhibit deiodinase, key to regulating levels of active thyroid hormones (Butt et al., 2011). In vitro binding assays found 2,4,6-TBP bound transthyretin (TTR), which transports thyroid hormone, with ten times the potency of the natural ligand, T4, and that a number of BFRs, including some PBDE congeners, increased the response to T3 (Hamers et al., 2006). Results from a placental cell line found that among BFRs, 2,4,6-TBP was the most potent inhibitor of thyroid hormone sulfotransferase (TH SULT), which regulates intracellular levels of thyroid hormones (Leonetti et al., 2018). Mice exposed to 2,4,6-TBP had lower thyroid activity and levels of free T3 and T4 (Lee et al., 2016). Epidemiological research suggests sex-specific effects on thyroid hormone: in placenta samples from 95 North Carolina, USA women, accumulation of 2,4,6-TBP in the placenta was significantly associated with higher levels of T3 in females (Leonetti et al., 2016b). Male infants with higher levels of 2,4,6-TBP had lower T3, though the association was not significant. Evidence indicates that other BFRs affect the endocrine system, including antiestrogenic and antiandrogenic effects, increased production of testosterone and estrogen, and disruption of thyroid function (Chen et al., 2019b; Johnson et al., 2010; Mankidy et al., 2014; Saunders et al., 2013). Because of concerns regarding persistence, bioaccumulation, and toxicity, along with high production volume, BFRs have been the target of regulatory efforts. These include a ban on their use in enclosures for electronics displays in the European Union and in New York State and in all enclosures for indoor electric and electronic products in Washington State (European Commission, 2019; State of New York, 2022; Washington Administrative Code, 2023). A number of product manufacturers, including Apple and HP, also restrict the use of organohalogen flame retardants in their products."

Yes, and that's exactly why I said that such articles are misleading. Without listing the detected levels, these articles are entirely useless.

The quoted study found median concentrations of ~1ng/g of dry samples, so far below any reasonably dangerous levels.

I can very easily fear-monger too: "There's detectable URANIUM in every tested sample of mothers' milk!" And this is true, most of this uranium is from natural dust.

> Meanwhile you're making a nonsense claim about the capabilities of the sort of mass spectrometer used for this sort of study (like you know anything about mass spectrometers)

I worked with mass specs.

> while also ignoring the well established evidence these chemicals are causing harmful effects to human health.

In what quantities? And how do they compare with the detected ones?

The guy who invented leaded gasoline said the same thing.

probably not only Americans. The EU imposes fire retardants on furniture and clothing. It is not a health hazard in the long run because these might be the last human generations to be born due to GW

You should read A People's History of the United States!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_People%27s_History_of_the_Un...

I read this for my AP USH class. It's an interesting read that gives a little bit of very _interesting_ point on stuff. It's a fun book to read.

Microsoft should have never been allowed to buy github. A functioning government would have prevented the acquisition.

The entire US economy is tottering due to a lack of anti-trust enforcement.

Even The Economist, an oligarch-friendly magazine, has been hitting the alarm bell on this for over a decade: "America needs a giant dose of competition" https://www.economist.com/briefing/2016/03/26/too-much-of-a-...

The main concern is who should bought Github? Or maybe the founders should opened an IPO or went to the VC route.

I am a former lawyer who clerked for 2 different federal judges. This is what I think:

The author should sue Nvidia & try to at least force a settlement. What the F are these lawyers doing? When a billion bucks is what you're trying to legitimately claim, the unpredictability of a trial is going to get them to toss you some millions, which is pocket change to Nvidia. At least go get those millions.

It is possible it doesn't work out, but jeez, I'd definitely take the next step. Go consult some more creative lawyers.

Reminds me of penicillin research, where random cantaloupe from Peoria yielded the best penicillin mold.

Ah yes, bad design, something Apple is famous for.

This is obviously intentional.

I mean, this is also Martin Fowler, a luminary in the field. His site should be able to handle the HN hug of death, particularly if he's bashing the latest-and-greatest tools. As is, he looks like an old man shouting about cars being bad while his horse drops dead at the side of the road.

I personally don't see the correlation between what he's been saying about AI and his blog site's reliability requirements. It's a blog, not some high availability service.

Also, was Henry Ford asking for regulation because his cars may destroy our civilization as we knew it?

Sounds like she was undervaluing her previous employee's artistic skills.

Indeed, artists provide a very valuable service. It's a shame the AI industry feels they're replaceable when they're obviously not.

But...they really don't? Everyone is replaceable, there's nothing special about artists.

Their price is based on supply and demand just like everything. If AI decreases demand or raises supply then their price will go down.

Basic economic theory states that only holds if the goods / services being provided are equivalent in the eyes of consumers. It seems self evident here that consumers do not consider them equivalent.

You said that the AI industry feels they're replaceable. I'm not saying that AI does equivalent work, I'm saying that AI companies don't choose the prices for art, they just play in the market.