throw10123213

I've also heard legends about such stimulants but it would be quite surprising if this was a 'fairly high percentage'.

Zinc oxide eugenol has been used by dentists since forever but is now being replaced by other (more expensive) materials.

> They want to develop a product, but discourage an existing remedy.

They can't sell that remedy so they must find something else (patentable).

> They also want to develop a product but say you should see a dentist to get the damage repaired.

Maybe the product is for dentists. It's a big lucrative market with products you literally can't buy over the counter. (Especially since dentists deal with some forbidden substances too).

I'd be quite afraid to go in many US places. And many US places experience some poverty that's the stuff of nightmares.

I think it's about time to stop calling the #1 world economy, #1 world manufacturer, a country that's expanding it's sphere of influence across the globe (see Africa) plus having a growing in well equipped military as 'underdeveloped'.

This is nothing more than a continuation on the attach that FSF and RMS is getting these days.

How this thing got on the front page is amazing.

The techno-maoists like nothing more than destroy institutions and reputations.

> "Not only is a company responsible to do what the party demands, but they also can't admit to doing that if they're asked." > > But others have suggested it is unfair to judge China's tech giants on the same basis as those from developed countries.

I found the ending of the article delightful. First, because the US has secret warrants for IT companies too, so hearing this out loud wouldn't really be a big surprise. Second, because China still pretends to be an "undeveloped" country? Come on! How long can this card be played.

On the contrary, the dubious secrecy is worrisome. The pandemic of the century and all this is done in the secret?

Why isn't the data entirely public with every stats student giving it a go?

Communism was also like this. People has the public persona, the party tasks, things they had to do and say.

Then they went home and listened to Radio Free Europe and talked with select people what they really had on their mind or used coded language to transmit messages.

What I hope this achieves is a parallel society and when it's big enough there will be some public battles.

Little League whistleblower coming in 3... 2... 1.

> It's OK for you to acknowledge that the agreement probably doesn't have malicious intent. It's not OK for someone to argue that not having malicious intent makes the agreement acceptable.

Indeed. And attorneys and "template documents" are the biggest culprit here. Every legal person gets a thrill writing the most evil one-sided legal document then pushes it to the company which uses it since "it comes from legal". 99% of the people just sign it since "legal" doesn't agree to changes.

I've had multiple companies/people utterly confused as to how I wouldn't sign their one-sided "standard" agreement contract.

I was asked for my email while paying at a sports store. I declined. The sales person was confused as to what to do next since "the system" wanted an email address. I asked her if she wants to sell me those products or not? Turns out the system works without an email address too. Who would have though?