The Sedan test [1], part of Project Plowshare, was an underground test in Nevada that sent fallout across a large swath of the U.S. Midwaste, sorry, Midwest.
The wife's family lived in Omaha, Nebraska at the time. A lot of cancer in her family. But then a lot of smokers as well. So who knows.
Regardless, that one was a major fuck-up that seems to have kind of put the kibosh on "underground" testing of that sort.
It's bad enough when you've got constantly changing "best practices" from MS so the thing you wrote last year doesn't look anything structurally like what you're doing now.
And all the 6-month-old on-line docs and tutorials aren't only useless, but time wasting.
So you don't like .NET, that's fine. I'm not saying everyone needs to use .NET. I'm saying pick one thing and stick with it.
That said I think you're exaggerating those complaints, the docs for C# are quite good imo and I've been working with ASP.NET web apps for half a decade so far and I'm not seeing any problems like you're describing.
Maybe you're miffed about the Framework to Core/.NET switch? That was a bit of a doozy but the ecosystem is so much better for it I'd say it was worth it.
> the thing you wrote last year doesn't look anything structurally like what you're doing now... all the 6-month-old on-line docs and tutorials aren't only useless, but time wasting.
I'm only now deprecating a netcore 2.2 API that used a 4.8 framework domain/repository layer. At the time it seems like a good idea and it received automatic security patches.
During the Seattle BLM protests, SPD vacated the neighborhood precinct building to show how violent the protestors were, and then they claimed that an "incendiary device" had been thrown through the window to burn down the building. The "incendiary device" in question was a candle which I don't believe was even lit.
The leaked memos went to DCNF via a law firm with prior suit with Kenvue, so take it with however much salt you want, but there does appear to be internal concern over the data.
It won't be dismissed out of hand because there is a colorable legal argument assuming the necessary facts and some (very weak) evidence that can be proferred for each of the necessary facts, which is pretty much all that is necessary to get to trial if you are committed and not worried about winning.
If the strategy is to get a settlement without agreement to fault extracting a bit of money to avoid the cost of litigation and use that also as a political hammer to reinforce the popular perception that the claim of a link is true, I can certainly see it being (despite being wildly unethical, an abuse of public office, etc.) an understandable course of action (I don't think it ultimately works even there, unless there is also separate corrupt pressure to settle by people abusing government, perhaps federal, offices in different ways—but that is also a possibility—because even a no admission of guilt settlement becomes hard for J&J publicly if even meaningful moves public perception.) I don't think there is much chance that they win a verdict at trial and survive appeals on it, but... that doesn't have to be the goal.
There are some actual studies behind it, which complicate things into a "scientific consensus" discussion rather than "no credible claims" discussion. Good statistics make the claims go away, but arguing about the correct use of statistics in court is gonna drag on.
Well... by filing the suit, if it isn't dismissed immediately, then Texas gets to do discovery on J&J. J&J may be unwilling to let that happen.
So options are dismissed immediately, J&J settles, Texas drops it after discovery (if they fail to find a smoking gun), or it goes to trial and Texas has to actually prove it.
If there's a settlement, that's as good as a win for those that believe this. They will look guilty as hell to everyone that wants to believe. I don't see any way a settlement is a valid choice for the defense. This is one of those you want to end decisively. Any time it is brought up after, you just point back to the court case. If you settle, any time it is brought up after there will always be linger speculation on why did they settle. It will forever be an albatross around their neck.
> If there's a settlement, that's as good as a win for those that believe this. They will look guilty as hell to everyone that wants to believe. I don't see any way a settlement is a valid choice for the defense.
Plus, Tylenol is... a pretty large product, and I don't think they're willing to just flush that entire product line down the toilet.
https://deflock.me/map
reply