131–140 of 192 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you are not using roundup, you are still using something. "Organic" pesticides do not work better so you will generally be using more and that goes to the same places roundup does.
I like those field-crawling robots that use AI-assisted vision to identify and laser-blast the weeds early in their growth stages. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26841519
Earlier quoted context omitted.
+1 I’m a biochemist and while I’m not interested in sticking my neck out to defend any company, a lot of the criticism directed at Monsanto is unfair, uninformed and/or unintelligent. This is particularly true of criticism levied against glyphosate (one of the least-bad herbicides I know of) and GMOs (which people are usually just super confused about). Disclaimer: zero conflict of interest, I make all my money build…
Quoted post unavailable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
+1 I’m a biochemist and while I’m not interested in sticking my neck out to defend any company, a lot of the criticism directed at Monsanto is unfair, uninformed and/or unintelligent. This is particularly true of criticism levied against glyphosate (one of the least-bad herbicides I know of) and GMOs (which people are usually just super confused about). Disclaimer: zero conflict of interest, I make all my money build…
Quoted post unavailable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
+1 I’m a biochemist and while I’m not interested in sticking my neck out to defend any company, a lot of the criticism directed at Monsanto is unfair, uninformed and/or unintelligent. This is particularly true of criticism levied against glyphosate (one of the least-bad herbicides I know of) and GMOs (which people are usually just super confused about). Disclaimer: zero conflict of interest, I make all my money build…
Neat, I have a kid graduating with a biochem undergrad degree right now. Reassure him about his job prospects! :P
I think a more effective strategy might be shaming individuals who make up the company. Just start buying internet ads with a persons name and how they wrote reports to try and convince people something that caused cancer didn’t cause cancer.
How's that strategy working out for the antivax movement?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How's that strategy working out for the antivax movement?
[flagged]
The problem is that "antivax" means just about anything these days, from people who think vaccines cause autism to people who don't agree with vaccine mandates for Covid.
Funnily enough, Merriam-Webster infamously updated the definition recently to include people who oppose mandates: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti-vaxxer
Though I think mentioning this subject on HN risks it going off the rails.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm googling around as well, and they seem to be an umbrella for a large number of publications. I just can't believe that every iota of information under their purview is of perfect veracity, regardless of their level of rigor and process. No entity is that perfect.
>No entity is that perfect. I think people are suggesting not perfection, but a higher standard and thus increased likelihood of it being correct and requiring a higher standard for proving it incorrect or biased. Do you have an organization that, if they publish something even if it runs counter to your own opinions, you assume that it is fair and likely to be correct?
I think a more effective strategy might be shaming individuals who make up the company. Just start buying internet ads with a persons name and how they wrote reports to try and convince people something that caused cancer didn’t cause cancer.
Monsanto also pays shills to comment positively about pesticide use and try to brow beat anyone who is has a negative opinion their products. It's crazy how aggressive it is. Basically any thread on Twitter or Reddit the same users will defend Monsanto. You see the same thing about other controversial products, such as BPAs. It seems like some tactic they learned from Big Tobacco and Big Oil to just push as much doub…
I've defended Monsanto repeatedly on HN (there are some extraordinarily popular beliefs about Monsanto that turn out, from what I can tell, to be just completely false, and they used to wind up here a bunch). I'm not carrying any water for them. I'm pro-GMO just in principle, but neutral-to-skeptical about any company of Monsanto's size. I'm sure the company itself is perfectly amoral. I'm just calling actual issues…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Funny thing about the Monsanto cancer case is that they know that the problem is in the Roundup formulation (including surfactants that are required to get the glyphosate across the waxy plant cell wall barrier) yet Monsanto financed studies on purified isolated glyphosate to demonstrate it didn't cause cancer. Sneaky and dishonest, isn't that? Why not just do the study with the Roundup formulation? > Mike DeVito, ac…
If you are not using roundup, you are still using something. "Organic" pesticides do not work better so you will generally be using more and that goes to the same places roundup does.