|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Right, there were faked things included in the huge trove that was released recently. But, I don't think they ever actually confirmed he was faking those documents. They didn't know who he was until today and the documents he had been leaking were in a Discord over a period of time. He didn't drop all of them yesterday. I found & posted three links sourcing Ukraine officials claiming the documents had been altered, and this was the take I recalled from the U.S. press covering it. I'm not contesting your current diminution of the fakery claims; I'm backing up that this is what the U.S. press led readers to believe. I can find more sources if you need them. eta: I'm p. sure we were told (or it was intimated) that it was Russia's forgeries, not the guy who was charged. Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 20:43 on Apr 13, 2023 |
#
?
Apr 13, 2023 20:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 23:59 |
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:I found & posted three links sourcing Ukraine officials claiming the documents had been altered, and this was the take I recalled from the U.S. press covering it. Yes. The Ukrainian Defense spokesperson says they are blaming Russia. This guy had been leaking documents in this discord they started in late 2020. The large batch of all of them was recently released all together. It contained some faked info (the swapped casualty counts), but the original leaked document was also out there. I think the implication is that Russia/Russian-sympathetic people were responsible for collecting all of them and releasing them in one big pack/modifying them. I don't think anyone has confirmed that the 21-year old guy from Massachusetts was the one falsifying them. The original post was someone saying that this guy had personally been editing and releasing the fake ones. Edit: Willa Rogers posted:eta: I'm p. sure we were told (or it was intimated) that it was Russia's forgeries, not the guy who was charged. Yes. This is what I am saying.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2023 20:45
|
|
|
Yes, you need more sources or Yes, something else?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2023 20:47
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:Yes, you need more sources or Yes, something else? Yes, we are agreeing and saying the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2023 20:48
|
|
|
i mean let's be honest, all of these chuds would burn the country to ashes to "own the libs". i guess you can give them the benefit of the doubt that "owning the libs" only helps the country but in truth they don't care who gets hurt as long as cnn is angrily shaking their fists Willa Rogers posted:“In recent decades, the most successful operations of the Russian special services took place in Photoshop,” Ukrainian Defense Ministry’s intelligence directorate representative Adriy Yusov said"
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2023 21:09
|
|
|
InsertPotPun posted:i mean let's be honest, all of these chuds would burn the country to ashes to "own the libs". Are you talking about the media take on the "Russian forgeries" or something else? Because it was p. much all mass media taking their cue from the Ukraine spin. (eta: or Pentagon, perhaps)
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2023 21:12
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:Are you talking about the media take on the "Russian forgeries" or something else? if this guy was a chud he wasn't thinking "lol this will take america down" he was thinking "lol this will prove those online lefties are dorks" or whatever
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2023 21:17
|
|
|
Cpt. Mahatma Gandhi posted:What I specifically heard on a podcast yesterday was that some of the counts for Russian and Ukrainian casualties had been altered by the leaker prior to being leaked. For what purpose wasn't made explicitly clear, though (or I've forgotten what it was). Could be they made more alterations, too, but I don't know if that's been disclosed yet. someone, probably russia, got their hands on some of this leaked material and poorly photoshopped it to make it look worse for ukraine and better for russia. that is distinct from the guy who leaked it, who apparently did so for no more noble reason than internet cred on a horrible little discord
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2023 21:17
|
|
|
Google Jeb Bush posted:throwing the bolded on the pile of "probably reasonable agency rules that sound silly when described in a vacuum"  Here's the example I like to go with for things like this. Look at the size of Sweet & Low. Each packet is exactly 1g. A gram of 100% glucose is ~4 calories. Now, don't get me wrong... Sweet & Low is substantially sweeter than one gram of sugar. It serves its purpose as an artificial sweetener that is equivalent (in sweetness) to far more calories of sugar than are in Sweet & Low. However, that doesn't stop them from lying on the label anyway. Look at the front of it and the nutritional info on the back. "A ZERO CALORIE SWEETENER," then Calories: 0, and then next Sugar: Less than 1g. The first (most abundant) ingredient of Sweet & Low is Dextrose. Dextrose is D-Glucose. Sweet & Low is majority sugar. The entire zero-calorie concept for Sweet & Low is based on them not having to report calories < 5, which (good news!) a gram of even pure sugar would not report when you make your packets exactly 1g. Each packet, on its own, is [per the rules] 0 calories. Therefore, you can have twenty packets during the day and still be at zero, right? Right? Why not buy it in the bulk containers and use it in your baking! There's even a handy recipe guide from them that you can use. Zero calories! Put it in all your drinks, in your cakes, etc! Go hog wild and don't even think about how much sugar you just put in your sweet tea with those eight teaspoons of Sweet & Low. That's the sort of horseshit labeling that plays around the edges of the "< 5 calories = 0 calories" rule. The whole rule is trash in the first place IMO, but there ya go.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2023 21:19
|
|
|
tic-tacs are 95% sugar but weigh less than a half a gram so the sugar doesn't need to be reported thus they label them as "sugar-free"
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2023 21:23
|
|
|
Morrow posted:https://twitter.com/propublica/status/1646581401167298564 Also, the noisy house that was next door to his mother’s house and used for parties? Bought and torn down too. https://twitter.com/lrozen/status/1646590189991612436?s=20
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2023 21:51
|
|
|
Sundae posted:
This is why if you want to go with a non-calorie sweetener you should use those liquid dropper ones, (which I am going to assume with no research) does not have all of that filler. I don't know if those little tablet dispensers (which I don't usually see around in the US but were more common to see in the EU) are just like the whole packet squished together or also have less dextrose filler.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2023 02:15
|
|
|
Is putting sugar into your sweetener really filler? Or is it an active ingredient? A philosophical question.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2023 02:20
|
|
|
Sundae posted:That's the sort of horseshit labeling that plays around the edges of the "< 5 calories = 0 calories" rule. The whole rule is trash in the first place IMO, but there ya go. That isn't really correct because Sweet and Low is supposed to contain enough saccharin to be the equivalent of two teaspoons, or *8.4* grams, of sugar. So yes, a packet has 0.9g of sugar in it, but it's still way below the mark. The thing about the law is that it's based around reasonable amounts. You can put the same amount of sweet and low in a cake as you would sugar, but it would be disgustingly sweet. You could eat fifty tic tacs and consume an appreciable of calories, but you aren't supposed to be eating fifty tic tac, they're breath mints, go to a dentist. Yes, it's marketing, but it's not unfounded. If a can of coke zero has ten calories in it then it's reasonable to call it "zero calorie" because ten calories is not a significant volume unless you drink a sickening amount of it, and it's replacing a drink that's around what, 27x as caloric?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2023 03:05
|
|
|
Clarste posted:Is putting sugar into your sweetener really filler? Or is it an active ingredient? A philosophical question. what if it homeopatic too?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2023 03:08
|
|
|
Between the articles about the IRA having greater immediate impact than expected, the emission regulation on cars, and this aggressive pursuit of nutritional claims it feels like there is some repositioning to achieve more goals through the executive branch since losing the house. Is this accurate, or is it reporting bias due to a lack of equivalent legislative actions?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2023 03:42
|
|
|
BougieBitch posted:Between the articles about the IRA having greater immediate impact than expected, the emission regulation on cars, and this aggressive pursuit of nutritional claims it feels like there is some repositioning to achieve more goals through the executive branch since losing the house. Is this accurate, or is it reporting bias due to a lack of equivalent legislative actions? A lot of this has been going on since Biden came into office. For example, this mass notice thing from FTC is actually the fourth time they've done it, after losing a court case that limited their ability to more aggressively pursue companies under another statutory provision a couple years ago. People just don't read enough of the news, or the federal register, to notice.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2023 03:54
|
|
|
CuddleCryptid posted:That isn't really correct because Sweet and Low is supposed to contain enough saccharin to be the equivalent of two teaspoons, or *8.4* grams, of sugar. So yes, a packet has 0.9g of sugar in it, but it's still way below the mark. The first goddamned paragraph, dude posted:Now, don't get me wrong... Sweet & Low is substantially sweeter than one gram of sugar. It serves its purpose as an artificial sweetener that is equivalent (in sweetness) to far more calories of sugar than are in Sweet & Low. However, that doesn't stop them from lying on the label anyway. At least read before you "well actually" someone.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2023 03:55
|
|
|
Sundae posted:At least read before you "well actually" someone. I assumed when you meant "substantially" you meant "somewhat" because your entire rant was based off the idea that it was basically just sugar, so I assumed you weren't just undercutting your entire thesis in the first paragraph. If your gigantic statement was that yes, in a very technical sense if you made your food several times sweeter than normal then yes, the advertising on the package would be false advertising. I applaud your dedication to honesty in advertising and hope that we someday can end the scourge of people saying that it's zero calorie instead of 0.5 calorie. CuddleCryptid fucked around with this message at 04:09 on Apr 14, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2023 04:01
|
|
|
This discussion is interesting to me because I work in the field and frequently advise marketing what we can and cannot put on a label. In Australia there are labelling regulations as part of the Food Standards Code, including a lot of information on what standards you have to make in order to make specific claims. There is also a requirement enforced by the ACCC that a label not be 'deceptive'. Importantly, this second requirement is entirely seperate and distinct from our legal obligations under the Code. Even if what you're doing is explicitly permitted by a strict reading of the Code, the Australian Consumer & Competition Commission can still decide that it is deceptive to the average consumer and order you to stop (and sue you if you refuse). 'Technically correct' is not a defence to the ACCC. They consider the 'overall impression' that a consumer would get from the label and associated advertising, not a pedantic reading of the exact phrase used.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2023 04:10
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:This discussion is interesting to me because I work in the field and frequently advise marketing what we can and cannot put on a label. FTC has the same authority, but for straightforward reasons they try to avoid setting up potential conflict with other agencies most of the time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2023 04:11
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:FTC has the same authority, but for straightforward reasons they try to avoid setting up potential conflict with other agencies most of the time. The ACCC is much more proactive, although they prefer to avoid actually taking stuff to court where possible and instead get companies to sign undertakings to withdraw the offending packaging/signage and train their staff so it doesn't happen again.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2023 04:16
|
|
|
CuddleCryptid posted:I assumed when you meant "substantially" you meant "somewhat" because your entire rant was based off the idea that it was basically just sugar, so I assumed you weren't just undercutting your entire thesis in the first paragraph. People do that, though. They put in a bunch of packets into their tea and make it sickeningly sweet and think it's all good because it's zero calories.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2023 06:59
|
|
|
I bet you'll be surprised that nonalcoholic beverages actually contain alcohol (no more than 0.5% abv).
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2023 07:43
|
|
|
XboxPants posted:People do that, though. They put in a bunch of packets into their tea and make it sickeningly sweet and think it's all good because it's zero calories. Mostly those people already would've put a sickeningly sweet amount of actual sugar in too though
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2023 08:03
|
|
|
TheSpartacus posted:I bet you'll be surprised that nonalcoholic beverages actually contain alcohol (no more than 0.5% abv). When I was a kid there were several "shandy" soda drinks that little kids could buy, with 0.1-0.5% ABV. But then again, this was 1980s Ireland. I imagine you would puke from the carbonation long before any sort of non-placebo buzz kicked in
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2023 10:09
|
|
|
I can't be assed about my health, I just like the artificially sweetened acidic industrial runoff better
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2023 11:01
|
|
|
XboxPants posted:People do that, though. They put in a bunch of packets into their tea and make it sickeningly sweet and think it's all good because it's zero calories. If someone is putting the equivalent of 1/4 cup of sugar in a cup of tea then they should be thanking their "No calories sweetener" for saving them from severe diabetes. Although to be fair that's not that far off from most soft drinks. CuddleCryptid fucked around with this message at 13:29 on Apr 14, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2023 13:26
|
|
|
If sweet and low or Coke Zero is making an appreciable dent in your daily calories, you weren’t going to lose weight anyway. Hell when I’m cutting I don’t even track veggies. Ten heads + of broccoli or 50+ packs of sweetener is what it would take to put my daily calories back at maintenance. Better of teaching Americans that a salad with 500 kcal of ranch is worse than a burger.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2023 14:02
|
|
|
Like a lot of other food politics issues, this seems like making much ado about nothing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2023 14:03
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:If sweet and low or Coke Zero is making an appreciable dent in your daily calories, you weren’t going to lose weight anyway. When you're drinking multiple liters of non-water drinks a day, switching over to sugar alternative drinks is most certainly going to make an appreciable dent in your daily calories. Your diet may otherwise be atrocious and your physical activity may be near zero, but if you make no other change you're still going to lose weight. Edit: 2 liters of Coke by itself is 800+ calories, and a very high portion of Americans are daily drinking soft drinks by the liter. Gyges fucked around with this message at 14:09 on Apr 14, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2023 14:07
|
|
|
(deleted)
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2023 14:14
|
|
|
I mean, all of this seems kind of academic/forest-for-the-trees. Even if you think it isn't a big deal in this instance, the overall action is a meaningful step towards tighter regulation on industry and, importantly, includes major players that have been getting away with crap for a while. Sweet-and-low wasn't even confirmed to be one of the targets so far as I can tell, this was just a diversion to explain why all possible "arbitrary" cut-offs allow for some degree of disinfo on packaging - where, again, you could just as easily have a 1g packet of sugar and claim it at 0 calories if your cutoff is 5 calories, and tic-tacs essentially do just that. Obviously these things aren't dietarily important, but would it make more sense and be more honest to advertise as <5 calories instead of 0 if you are just playing silly games with portion size? I think this also sort of hooks into "serving size" anyway, which is another place where people are easily misled. A 20 oz soda being 2.5 servings so they could show the nutrition info for a smaller amount and count on people not multiplying is definitely a scam they pulled for a while, and the fact that they include both partial and complete calorie counts now is definitely the result of an action like this Edit: also, thanks DV for clarifying that this isn't some unique 2023 action but rather a steady effort that just hasn't been noticed as much before. Kind of disappointing in some ways, but also good to know that even if Biden is whatever, at least some of the people he appointed really have been chipping away for a while - I know there have been some aggressive pursuits of antitrust stuff from the start, and wasn't sure if the FDA/EPA had been making similar moves BougieBitch fucked around with this message at 14:33 on Apr 14, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2023 14:28
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:FTC has sent a notice to around 680 companies in the OTC drug and supplement sectors putting them on notice for unsupported health claims. This is not the same as a formal accusation, but it's laying the groundwork so that if FTC follows up with a formal proceeding against any one of the companies, there's no question of that the company is deliberately violating the law. This is great news. I’m real tired of this as a parent. It’s insane how much of this bullshit fake supplement / alternative crap has over taken pediatric sections in pharmacies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2023 14:50
|
|
|
Ron needs to respond with a Don impersonator cramming his face with McDonalds. https://twitter.com/MikeSington/status/1646853085124530178
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2023 15:14
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:This is great news. I’m real tired of this as a parent. It’s insane how much of this bullshit fake supplement / alternative crap has over taken pediatric sections in pharmacies. It's tricky too because infants can't have real medicine, so even the stuff that doctors recommend you are "English ivy extract" and "grapefruit seed extract". It's easy to get confused. And that's not even including the food advertising for kids. Yeah, I see you, Motts. "Apple juice, half as much sugar!" Yeah, because it's half as much juice. You're just watering down your regular apple juice, I can do that too and not get charged for the privilege.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2023 15:21
|
|
|
CuddleCryptid posted:It's tricky too because infants can't have real medicine, so even the stuff that doctors recommend you are "English ivy extract" and "grapefruit seed extract". It's easy to get confused. I do appreciate though there has been a move to tell parents, give your young kids calories, try your best on balancing the meal.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2023 15:48
|
|
|
CuddleCryptid posted:It's tricky too because infants can't have real medicine, so even the stuff that doctors recommend you are "English ivy extract" and "grapefruit seed extract". It's easy to get confused. Docs shouldn't be recommending that. Why would they do so? There are drugs approved for infants. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 15:59 on Apr 14, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2023 15:57
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:Ron needs to respond with a Don impersonator cramming his face with McDonalds. This is amazing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2023 15:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 23:59 |
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:I do appreciate though there has been a move to tell parents, give your young kids calories, try your best on balancing the meal. The advice to couples I know with young kids has been "Don't worry about a balanced meal, try for a balanced week." Some days your kid will be fine eating fruits and veggies, sometimes all they'll eat might be plain rice or mac and cheese.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2023 16:02
|
|
