Completely misleading headline. Is the Daily Mail a reliable source?
"The team at Environmental Working Group (EWG), a nonprofit health and environmental advocacy organization, noted that the remaining 80 percent of products were not deemed inherently dangerous.
Instead, they failed to meet EWG's standards because they contained ingredients of concern, offered insufficient UVA protection, used spray formulations or made protection claims the group believes are misleading."
This is what I see for my state: "The average salary for a Registered Nurse in Colorado with 25 years of experience ranges from $115,000 to over $140,000 annually".
A dev with the same experience I think is at least 50% more than this.
> Somehow hardware giants like Dell, HP, SuperMicro, etc didn't make a product like this, even at their peak in 2000s or during cloud boom in 2010s. I wonder why?
They all did. HP had Super Dome and blades and Synergy. Dell had similar.
From a legal and financial perspective it seems like it would be difficult to pay people to do interview homework. There's tax implications and other issues like state labor laws.
I would argue that these are products and companies want people to use them. Like it or not, a model that disagrees with some fundamental core of your beliefs will make you much less likely to use it. To me it's the same problem with LLMs just being overly agreeable. The general public doesn't want tools that argue with them.
My son is susceptible to these type of infections and has asthma. He missed 17 days of school last year. Even if not fatal these types of infections are miserable and have an impact on those who get them and their caretakers.
I didn't see any mention of K2 (or missed it) - but a lot of D supplements combine with K2 as a "traffic cop" to keep calcium in bones and not arteries. I've not found a ton of evidence on this either, but seems to be a popular combination.
A practice which apparently is illegal in Seattle:
"The complaint accuses Amazon of violating a Seattle ordinance that prohibits companies from discriminating against employees for their political ideology, race, religion and age, among other things."
"The team at Environmental Working Group (EWG), a nonprofit health and environmental advocacy organization, noted that the remaining 80 percent of products were not deemed inherently dangerous.
Instead, they failed to meet EWG's standards because they contained ingredients of concern, offered insufficient UVA protection, used spray formulations or made protection claims the group believes are misleading."