Agreed. Apple's $3T+ is built on a colossal mountain of e-waste fueled by consumerism. Like bottled water companies saying their plastic caps are 30% smaller.
For the record, we're already dumping hundreds of millions of kilos of poison on our food in the form of glyphosate and other pesticides, albeit not PFAS. Whereas the shock here is that we're already so full of poisons that our own sewage is untenable for use as fertilizer.
Also, if this data is for sale then it's a reasonable bet that other governments have bought it too (i.e., Russia, China, etc). Is that "legal", then? What's the difference?
Related ~100 pg report from Dec 2022. We'll researched and well articulated, in my opinion at least.
In history books it's appropriately shocking to see those photos of kids playing in clouds of DEET sprayed by trucks, 1950s and 60s, yet today we're many orders of magnitude beyond that with glyphosate.
Perhaps at least some of that "non-functional" DNA is so only after the completion of our nanotechnological self-assembly process, which is surely somewhat complex.
>> is simple and selects the single best candidate about 37% of the time
Not a mathematician but 1 / e = 0.367, so is this just a way to ensure a 37% percentile of accuracy across normal distribution? Like Anchorman Sex Panther, "37% of the time it works every time"?