DOGE will be seen by historians as the cause of so many crisis…
cyanydeez 16 minutes ago [-]
optimistic, this requires the arc of history to bend towards non-fascism.
dgellow 5 minutes ago [-]
Fair. Though based on previous experiments fascist regimes aren’t that stable and competent, they have a tendency to self-destruct once they are in power. It’s a sad state of affairs that is considered optimistic
limagnolia 10 minutes ago [-]
Too bad that article doesn't have any evidence that the alleged cuts have had any impact on the cyclospora response.
a3mrouter1 11 minutes ago [-]
Impressive results! How does it compare to existing solutions on cost?
sharps_xp 2 hours ago [-]
I went to restaurant last night and asked where the chicken was sourced from and their response was "it's not the usual place we get chicken, but it's US Farm Raised Hatched", but I misinterpreted the her answer as a distributor name but then I realized even if I had a name, I probably couldn't figure out past that whether or not these chickens were pasture raised. If food labels are law, why doesn't this apply to where restaurants source their ingredients?
Restaurants don't even have to track and disclose what allergens their food contains.
rhinoceraptor 44 minutes ago [-]
It's crazy how nothing has been done in the US about this. I got an egg allergy in my late 20s, I had never thought about it before and now eating at restaurants is such a hassle. Even the delivery apps seem to have zero affordances for food allergies, at least with a restaurant you can get some assurance by asking the staff.
wil421 32 minutes ago [-]
The places I worked over 15 years ago had extensive lists of allergens. They were mostly chain or corporate, I think the mom and pop places did a little guessing. I wouldn’t trust them.
tokioyoyo 32 minutes ago [-]
I’m very sorry to hear that, but I don’t think restaurants have to be forced to deal with that. The only thing I could support is “if revenue >X then allergen disclosure is mandatory”. I know personally multiple little shops that had to refuse customers, because that’s extra hassle and responsibility that they can’t afford to deal with.
thomascountz 9 minutes ago [-]
In my experience in NYC kitchens, I wouldn't trust most restaurants to actually be able to accommodate certain allergies. If it isn't stated clearly on the menu, I would rather be turned away, than have an inexperienced kitchen try to manage something they haven't done before. My experience is different now that I live in the EU.
jsjisiiss 25 minutes ago [-]
They manage fine in Europe. It’s a cultural issue. If you can’t be arsed working through the minor administrative hassle once (how often do you change the menu..) to not kill your customers then you shouldn’t be in this business.
slopinthebag 3 minutes ago [-]
Do you also think businesses shouldn’t need to be “forced” to deal with accessibility? Web devs shouldn’t be forced to deal with accessibility either right?
Depends on the country, as enforcing that falls to the agencies of the member states. At least here in Slovakia it is followed very strictly, but then our restaurant inspectors are notoriously business unfriendly.
ecshafer 40 minutes ago [-]
Good. Restaurants are hectic to work in. Menus can change quickly, and many dishes are being cooked and prepped at once. Cross contamination chances are high, so if a restaurant MUST say an allergen is not in X,Y,Z they basically can't have it in their restaurant at all.
pricechild 32 minutes ago [-]
They manage here in the UK.
When entering, "any allergens or intolerances" is normally asked before you're sat down. They distinguish the two to decide whether a station clean is required or if they can just point you to the menu.
If it's not already clear on the menu, most medium/large chains then hand you a tablet letting you filter by almost anything.
saghm 34 minutes ago [-]
Alternately, they could truthfully state what allergens are in literally all of their foods, and then people who are allergic to them can safely avoid them, which is what you're expecting them to do now except without actually saying which allergens they are.
jsjisiiss 22 minutes ago [-]
In forty years I have very rarely seen menus change substantially.
If you are working with food you should know about allergies. It just comes with the territory. I’m baffled by how this is somehow too hard for US folks yet we manage fine.
failbuffer 5 minutes ago [-]
Your menus don't change because of the administrative overhead. In the mid-sized American city where I live, menus change seasonally at nice restaurants and daily at really nice restaurants. Even fast food chains experiment with adding new items all the time.
dgellow 18 minutes ago [-]
The rest of the world has been able to solve that issue
estearum 2 hours ago [-]
Are food labels required to identify where they're sourced from? I don't think so?
stronglikedan 41 minutes ago [-]
The new QR codes (to replace the 2D UPCs) that manufacturers and merchants are moving to will contain source information and even which lot it came from.
estearum 24 minutes ago [-]
That's bad ass
bushbaba 1 hours ago [-]
It’s not but they should list country of origin for the ingredients
sgc 47 minutes ago [-]
In the US I also want to know State of Origin. Not all state food and agricultural department regulations and inspections are the same.
pc86 1 hours ago [-]
"Should" or "are required to?"
ssl-3 34 minutes ago [-]
For some things like meat, eggs, and milk: The USDA-inspected processing facility is required to be listed on the package. It is usually not very far-removed from the farm. It's coded, and these days it's usually printed near the sell-by date.
They (the USDA) publish cross-references betwixt the codes and the processing plants.
It's been kind of a pain in the ass when I've looked this stuff up in the past and I wish someone would take it upon themselves to make it easier, but it's do-able.
sgc 41 minutes ago [-]
Regulations are minimal compared to what most consumers would want and expect.
Depends on the thing. Olive oil, for example, is required to list its country/countries of origin
ajmurmann 2 hours ago [-]
I wonder how high the ongoing implementation cost of that would be and how that would affect choice between small, specialized and large, integrated suppliers. Sysco can probably hand me a single sheet I can use without any extra work.
jmole 1 hours ago [-]
I think if you watch video of a massive meatpacking plant, you'll pretty quickly realize how hard it would be to track. At the commodity scale, basically no one in the supply chain other than the rancher seems to care where the meat comes from. And the brands (Tyson, Smithfield, etc.) only want consumers to care about the logo on the box.
Literally the canonical example of capitalism-as-meat-grinder.
saghm 31 minutes ago [-]
So you're saying that this type of regulation would force the food industry to start caring about whether their food comes from? That sounds like an argument in favor of it, not against it
Danox 1 hours ago [-]
Tyson and Smithfield are the worst two brands in the USA that you can get any meat from.
sharps_xp 51 minutes ago [-]
trying to convert a massive meatpacking plan isn't step 1. it's too big a problem. that's top down. probably easier bottom up -- have a processing plant that only sources from ranchers that grass feed/finish, pasture raise, and slowly subsidize other ranchers to stop sending their product to massive meatpacking plants.
forlorn_mammoth 30 minutes ago [-]
also the canonical example of a commodity. Basically the claim that all units are fully fungible.
dyauspitr 1 hours ago [-]
Seems like more bureaucracy that would make it even harder for new restaurants to get set up and the paperwork they would have to maintain in order to provide that information.
jsjisiiss 19 minutes ago [-]
We have enough “restaurants” that fry an egg. We can do that ourselves. Running a proper business requires such formalities to not kill your customers. If knowing about your craft is too hard - allergies is a major part of it - then you shouldn’t be in this business.
SoftTalker 1 minutes ago [-]
Restaurants are one of the classic immigrant paths to upward mobility. We don't want to make that too hard.
By all means, get a license, food handler permit, etc. and know and practice good food safety, and buy ingredients from legitimate wholesalers. But at some point you don't have visibility into the supply chain and it's not reasonable to expect Joe's Taco Truck to know which specific farms produced their lettuce.
pbhjpbhj 37 minutes ago [-]
I've thought about this a lot as it's effectively my idea of Origin Marks (not the same as the curvy OM/GI system), that are like trade marks but they serve the consumer rather than the companies.
Anyway, all companies have lists of what they buy and who from in their accounts - and their banks and suppliers can corroborate those details.
I think I'd provide limits for micro-businesses (1-2 employees, below the VAT threshold in UK), and maybe have limited reporting for SMEs too. Only listing all suppliers, say.
But for larger businesses, they should list the goods/services they use and the origin of all inputs to a product (including energy). Down to the factory, not a trade mark, the actual inputs.
Companies already keep all this information.
Capitalism supposedly optimises markets, but it can't do anything like that without full information. I mean the psychological manipulation of 'brand marketing' also opposes the supposed optimisations of capitalism too, but that's another story.
All this information is already maintained, it's just not exposed for the public.
What farm was my chicken produced on? Then I can look at that farm to see if they bought a tonne of penicillin, or a GM feed. I can look at the farm to see if they have outside access for the birds, say.
We can also readily graph essential businesses for food security, and new companies can easily find suppliers, B2B companies can find gaps and opportunities - the whole web of production can be mapped this way.
You can also spot corruption and loss. Consumers can avoid companies that use upstream suppliers they disprove of - like if a footwear company has a factory in an area known for human rights abuses, that's now public info, I can check it out if I want.
Anyway, restaurants already have to know the origin of their goods for pubic health purposes, codifying can just mean the suppliers send them an enhanced receipt that the restaurant catenates with others and uploads to the government, that can be done as part of the same process as finance reporting.
If you're buying chicken out the back of a van in an alley then you're going to have extra work; if you're just using standard supply chains it should all work pretty seamlessly.
inigyou 53 minutes ago [-]
How hard would it be for them to know their immediate supplier?
saghm 32 minutes ago [-]
If we can't figure out a way as a society to honestly tell people what food is being sold in restaurants, maybe we shouldn't be starting new restaurants until we figure that out.
ssl-3 9 minutes ago [-]
Knowing the sources of the food we eat is a very popular thing right now.
Isn't the capitalist way to solve this to build new restaurants that do openly provide the lineage for the food that they sell?
All of the consumers who are motivated by this information will then be free to reward these eateries with their business.
After that: Other restaurateurs will surely notice how unspeakably profitable these loyal consumers are and will begin to do mimic the effort to try to capture a slice of the pie.
Ultimately, this snowballs into information being the norm instead of the rare exception. Everyone wins!
(Or, more likely: We'll broadly forget that we cared about any of this a few months from now, just as we have always done in the past, and the idea will die at the invisible hand of the free market.)
1 hours ago [-]
vkou 1 hours ago [-]
Such are the wages of destroying trust in the supply chain.
When you elect visibly corrupt people who promised to destroy that trust upstream, you double the burden for everyone downstream from them.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
senthil_rajasek 2 hours ago [-]
I have not been following this very closely but it seems like the source of this cyclospora contamination has been very challenging to identify.
Especially because it takes weeks before the infected start showing symptoms.
Isn't it reasonable to update the official statement as new information emerges?
"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”
-John Maynard Keynes.
Wistar 1 hours ago [-]
I have gone down that quote’s rabbit hole before and it looks a lot more apocryphal than Maynard.
Explosive diarrhea doesn’t take long to show up, and it may be hard to identify which company or who’s responsible when you fired all of the people from the department that it’s supposed to police those type of things.
godwinson__4-8 56 minutes ago [-]
Isn't the "explosive" superfluous?
Isn't all diarrhea explosive? Has anyone had "unexplosive" diarrhea? Or what aspect of the ordinance renders it "explosive"? And the cause is essentially exposure of the foodstuffs (in this case, likely leafy greens) to feces?
So poop causes poop.
Who pooped in my salad :(
dgellow 12 minutes ago [-]
No, it’s actually one of the symptom, it is described as explosive, not a standard diarrhea
hightrix 42 minutes ago [-]
As an IBS enjoyer, no, not all diarrhea is explosive.
Tostino 38 minutes ago [-]
No, from what I have heard "explosive" isn't being treated with enough weight.
Not all diarrhea is "explosive". This is worse than your average food poisoning from everything i've read (luckily, no personal experience so far).
godwinson__4-8 24 minutes ago [-]
>No, from what I have heard "explosive" isn't being treated with enough weight.
Hmm I had not heard this, that is concerning. Thank you for sharing. No more salad for me, thanks.
falcor84 1 hours ago [-]
> Especially because it takes weeks before the infected start showing symptoms.
I just wanted to say that your phrasing here is a fabulously ominous one for the first episode of an HBO show.
senthil_rajasek 1 hours ago [-]
Ha! Seems like I am living in one these days.
peder 1 hours ago [-]
And TBF, I don't think they've established why the issue is so prevalent in Michigan specifically, since Taylor Farms apparently doesn't have any unique connection to Michigan.
TylerE 2 hours ago [-]
What changed is that right after the CEO visited the White House, a retraction was issued. This White House does not have a history of being factual, but does have a history of doing "favors" for big donors, which Taylor Farms is.
dabraham1248 1 hours ago [-]
Mostly to be a pedantic devil's advocate here, I'm going to argue with something you're not saying. I've heard a _lot_ of people argue that the visit is _proof_ of corruption. You're just pointing out the possibility and I'm hoping to head off a bad path.
Anyway, if a company is being declared the source of a multi-state outbreak, that company _should_ be talking to the WH. And it's possible that some of those discussions would present evidence that _should_ result in a retraction.
For example, during heartbleed my grand-boss was in on calls with the WH (I don't work on openssl, at the time I worked on a product that _used_ openssl a couple of layers down). AIUI, official guidance changed because of those calls.
If we want to find proof of corruption, this is a place to start looking, not a place to stop.
foxyv 1 hours ago [-]
Unfortunately, the mark of corruption spreads to everything it touches. Once you are seen taking bribes for pardons, engaging in crypto scams, and manipulating the stock market to make billions you no longer are given the benefit of the doubt. There is zero evidence for corruption in this case, other than all of the blatant corruption elsewhere. Worse, the person involved is responsible for investigating the corruption.
Yup, don't care. The trust has been broken a thousand times with this admin. Why should I believe this is the one time they are being straight with us?
datsci_est_2015 1 minutes ago [-]
You don’t mean that the people behind $MELANIA coin may have ill intentions, do you? /s
The credulousness that this administration is granted by devil’s advocates and “rationalists” is exhausting.
senthil_rajasek 2 hours ago [-]
Thanks.
gazebo2 1 hours ago [-]
Took me a sec to realize you weren't quoting the guy from Tool lol
iwontberude 1 hours ago [-]
Deficit spending the biggest ponzi ever invented. Thanks Keynes
inigyou 51 minutes ago [-]
Fiat currency (including bitcoin) is a bigger ponzi, and the stock market (including crypto project tokens) is a bigger ponzi than that.
cube00 2 hours ago [-]
It's next level for a family owned company act like they have stock holders to please by cutting corners rather then doing the right thing.
Aurornis 1 hours ago [-]
> family owned company act like they have stock holders
A family owned company does have shareholders. The shareholders are the people who own the company.
There’s nothing all that special about a family owned business in this regard, even though they want you to believe it’s completely different. Family owned is a loose term anyway. Large companies are large companies.
the_bear 34 minutes ago [-]
Companies can prioritize things other that money if the shareholders all agree. The more shareholders a company has, the harder it is for them all to agree on anything aside from "we want more money". Family-owned business often (but not always) have a small number of shareholders, so it's easier for them to have shared values.
For example, my brother and I co-own a smallish (~$5 million/year revenue) software business. We do care about money to some extent, but we regularly agree to do things that work against shareholder value because we also care about things other than money. With two people, it's easy for our values to be aligned on those other things.
With dozens or more shareholders, that's basically impossible. A publicly traded company couldn't realistically be like "hey shareholders, can we agree that we care a lot about this niche local political issue in the town the company was founded?" The more shareholders you have, the more the only commonality between them is "we want more money".
There are many family-owned businesses that are only in it for the money, but "family-owned" can be a proxy for "not very many shareholders" which at least opens the door for the company to have non-financial priorities.
SoftTalker 19 minutes ago [-]
The existence of "socially conscious" investment funds says that there are investors out there who do value things other than total return. It is a myth that "shareholder value" must only be defined in terms of money. Brand reputation, goodwill, etc. can all be considered. It just happens that money is the overriding concern most of the time.
the_bear 12 minutes ago [-]
Sure, if you gather the investors from the start to have a unifying theme other than money, that's fine. But it's very difficult to take a random company with a bunch of unrelated shareholders and convince them all to care about the same thing.
Even the things you named (brand reputation, goodwill, etc.) are prioritized by companies because they're upstream of shareholder value. Many companies have a float in the Pride parade, an employee volunteer day and post on social media about how they're reducing their carbon footprint. Most of those companies are doing those things because they believe they ultimately increase shareholder value, not because shareholders have decided to sacrifice money because they care more about other things.
ericmcer 58 minutes ago [-]
if anything they are even more tight fisted because every penny is theirs.
publicly traded/vc funded companies have always paid me the most because the money isn’t really theirs.
UltraSane 1 hours ago [-]
Every family-owned company I've worked for was has been owned by a greedy family.
>Brian Thure served as president of Taylor Farms Tennessee from about 2012 until March 2026 and allegedly used his authority over finances, payroll, vendors and accounting to divert company money for personal benefit.
>Taylor Farms claims the alleged fraud came to light during an IRS audit
darth_avocado 58 minutes ago [-]
It’s a multi billion dollar corporation. It’s not a mom and pop 10 acre farm. Family owned means nothing at that point.
siruncledrew 36 minutes ago [-]
Right. By those stretches, the Sinaloa Cartel and Saudi Aramco could advertise as "family owned"
There's a tendency to want to be nice to farmers who own "family owned farms" because it evokes imagery steeped in quaint classical Americana. It is mostly from misinformation that this impression arises. Don't feel bad for a family owned farm that isn't going well. They get special bankruptcy rules, they can sell off their very valuable land as a backstop, and most of all they are probably not as small and quaint and cute as you think they are.
gowld 1 hours ago [-]
The WalMart Waltons are a "family"
At the core, "Family-owned" just means nepotism is preferred over merit.
(The mob is also "Family-owned")
darth_avocado 57 minutes ago [-]
SpaceX is more “family owned” than Walmart.
saghm 27 minutes ago [-]
That doesn't seem at odds with what they said. The Waltons are a family, which illustrates the point of what a fully "family-owned" business might look like compared to one with external shareholders pretty directly. I don't think it's that hard to understand that giving the Walton's 100% of the stock seems unlikely to address any concerns people have with Walmart, which is evidence of their point that maybe "family-owned" is a red herring.
morkalork 60 minutes ago [-]
Mary Antoinette should've tried that line "It's not a monarchy, just a family-owned state"
ratelimitsteve 44 minutes ago [-]
stockholders? no. stakeholders? absolutely.
pc86 2 hours ago [-]
Marketing blogspam by an ambulance chasing attorney who stands to make a lot of money from this if public perception moves a certain way.
curuinor 1 hours ago [-]
How much of a sin is it for the ambulance-chaser to chase ambulances if the ambulances are there and legitimate? This is what the tort law is for. He's not the one who sprayed feces-water on the lettuce...
pixlmint 60 minutes ago [-]
Started out with "It's not X, it's also Y", followed by an em-dash. I didn't read any further than that.
Joel_Mckay 24 minutes ago [-]
Commercial insurance means whatever action they do or don't do is ultimately irrelevant. The supplier will re-brand under another name when things quiet down, proceed to continue selling product, and deduct any capital loss over a year or two.
Global weather changes means more tropical pests and pathogens are migrating north. People are literally on fire, and shitting their pants in excitement. =3
47 minutes ago [-]
ratelimitsteve 45 minutes ago [-]
engaging with the identity of the arguer rather than the argument. 5 yard penalty, loss of down.
meroes 28 minutes ago [-]
All I know is the Taylor Farms Creamy Ranch from Costco gave me the worst stomach aches for 4 days and horrible gas
nate 37 minutes ago [-]
"is not marketing. It is evidence". ugh.
I'm so confused how to feel about these articles. this one is clearly AI written. But blessed by a lawyer so we think the stuff in here is accurate with facts?
I've accidentally posted an AI article before that seemed just as this was, and the community flagged that to oblivion. Rightfully so I think?
Does Hacker News need a "report AI" and we can then hide the AI articles as a filter?
StilesCrisis 4 minutes ago [-]
This is the Claudiest article I've seen in a long time. "Defensible view." "No correction, no note, no acknowledgment." "The honest statement about X."
So the next question is, how much of this is true at all, versus just being hallucinations.
herf 1 hours ago [-]
GPTZero "AI" score for this post: 100%
nerdsniper 58 minutes ago [-]
Why should I put any stock in what some snake oil "AI detector" says?
done_lurking 22 minutes ago [-]
It seems plausible that someone could make a decent discriminator for distinguishing human text from AI text. I wouldn't immediately discount the idea.
inigyou 50 minutes ago [-]
You shouldn't. You should instead take note of "it's not X, it's Y" and em-dashes.
bigfishrunning 13 minutes ago [-]
You're absolutely right! Those are load-bearing assumptions.
nnevatie 8 minutes ago [-]
This is the right shape!
t1234s 1 hours ago [-]
I was always under the impression that disease and pesticide don't usually just "wash off" at home.
maxlybbert 50 minutes ago [-]
I remember seeing advice, years ago, to let lettuce sit in a weak bleach solution before use. But I doubt that’s ever been followed by many people. Current advice (at least at home) seems to be to rinse lettuce to remove dirt ( https://hgic.clemson.edu/factsheet/safe-handling-of-lettuce-... ). Apparently most health problems from lettuce are on the surface and not particularly hard to get off.
ceejayoz 1 hours ago [-]
This depends on the food and the disease/pesticide in question.
> A company’s public statement in the middle of an outbreak is not marketing. It is evidence — what the company said it knew, and when, published to the world at a moment when nobody had the benefit of hindsight.
Stopped reading immediately. If we’re just going to delegate writing to Claude, I won’t bother reading this. And maybe I’ll just delegate my decisions to Claude directly.
Barbing 1 hours ago [-]
Kept reading and yep there’s more, so it wasn’t just the intro.
Not quoting it though since someone said they’re ambulance chasers, they’ll have to hire out a smellchecker.
peder 1 hours ago [-]
This is an obvious next step tho? When I want news, I'll just ask Claude. Everything funnels to these providers?
metabagel 2 hours ago [-]
[dead]
stronglikedan 32 minutes ago [-]
I see they followed Fauci's Covid playbook. Thank goodness Cyclospora is rarely fatal.
[1] https://www.wired.com/story/cdc-cyclospora-lab-doge-downsize...
https://youtu.be/G__PVLB8Nm4
https://food.ec.europa.eu/food-safety/campaign-2026/allergie...
When entering, "any allergens or intolerances" is normally asked before you're sat down. They distinguish the two to decide whether a station clean is required or if they can just point you to the menu.
If it's not already clear on the menu, most medium/large chains then hand you a tablet letting you filter by almost anything.
If you are working with food you should know about allergies. It just comes with the territory. I’m baffled by how this is somehow too hard for US folks yet we manage fine.
They (the USDA) publish cross-references betwixt the codes and the processing plants.
It's been kind of a pain in the ass when I've looked this stuff up in the past and I wish someone would take it upon themselves to make it easier, but it's do-able.
https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/cool
Literally the canonical example of capitalism-as-meat-grinder.
By all means, get a license, food handler permit, etc. and know and practice good food safety, and buy ingredients from legitimate wholesalers. But at some point you don't have visibility into the supply chain and it's not reasonable to expect Joe's Taco Truck to know which specific farms produced their lettuce.
Anyway, all companies have lists of what they buy and who from in their accounts - and their banks and suppliers can corroborate those details.
I think I'd provide limits for micro-businesses (1-2 employees, below the VAT threshold in UK), and maybe have limited reporting for SMEs too. Only listing all suppliers, say.
But for larger businesses, they should list the goods/services they use and the origin of all inputs to a product (including energy). Down to the factory, not a trade mark, the actual inputs.
Companies already keep all this information.
Capitalism supposedly optimises markets, but it can't do anything like that without full information. I mean the psychological manipulation of 'brand marketing' also opposes the supposed optimisations of capitalism too, but that's another story.
All this information is already maintained, it's just not exposed for the public.
What farm was my chicken produced on? Then I can look at that farm to see if they bought a tonne of penicillin, or a GM feed. I can look at the farm to see if they have outside access for the birds, say.
We can also readily graph essential businesses for food security, and new companies can easily find suppliers, B2B companies can find gaps and opportunities - the whole web of production can be mapped this way.
You can also spot corruption and loss. Consumers can avoid companies that use upstream suppliers they disprove of - like if a footwear company has a factory in an area known for human rights abuses, that's now public info, I can check it out if I want.
Anyway, restaurants already have to know the origin of their goods for pubic health purposes, codifying can just mean the suppliers send them an enhanced receipt that the restaurant catenates with others and uploads to the government, that can be done as part of the same process as finance reporting.
If you're buying chicken out the back of a van in an alley then you're going to have extra work; if you're just using standard supply chains it should all work pretty seamlessly.
Isn't the capitalist way to solve this to build new restaurants that do openly provide the lineage for the food that they sell?
All of the consumers who are motivated by this information will then be free to reward these eateries with their business.
After that: Other restaurateurs will surely notice how unspeakably profitable these loyal consumers are and will begin to do mimic the effort to try to capture a slice of the pie.
Ultimately, this snowballs into information being the norm instead of the rare exception. Everyone wins!
(Or, more likely: We'll broadly forget that we cared about any of this a few months from now, just as we have always done in the past, and the idea will die at the invisible hand of the free market.)
When you elect visibly corrupt people who promised to destroy that trust upstream, you double the burden for everyone downstream from them.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Especially because it takes weeks before the infected start showing symptoms.
Isn't it reasonable to update the official statement as new information emerges?
"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” -John Maynard Keynes.
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/07/22/keynes-change-mind/
Isn't all diarrhea explosive? Has anyone had "unexplosive" diarrhea? Or what aspect of the ordinance renders it "explosive"? And the cause is essentially exposure of the foodstuffs (in this case, likely leafy greens) to feces?
So poop causes poop.
Who pooped in my salad :(
Not all diarrhea is "explosive". This is worse than your average food poisoning from everything i've read (luckily, no personal experience so far).
Hmm I had not heard this, that is concerning. Thank you for sharing. No more salad for me, thanks.
I just wanted to say that your phrasing here is a fabulously ominous one for the first episode of an HBO show.
Anyway, if a company is being declared the source of a multi-state outbreak, that company _should_ be talking to the WH. And it's possible that some of those discussions would present evidence that _should_ result in a retraction.
For example, during heartbleed my grand-boss was in on calls with the WH (I don't work on openssl, at the time I worked on a product that _used_ openssl a couple of layers down). AIUI, official guidance changed because of those calls.
If we want to find proof of corruption, this is a place to start looking, not a place to stop.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2026/05/07/democra...
https://www.binance.com/en/square/post/21073697321938
https://fortune.com/2026/05/23/trump-stock-portfolio-trading...
The credulousness that this administration is granted by devil’s advocates and “rationalists” is exhausting.
A family owned company does have shareholders. The shareholders are the people who own the company.
There’s nothing all that special about a family owned business in this regard, even though they want you to believe it’s completely different. Family owned is a loose term anyway. Large companies are large companies.
For example, my brother and I co-own a smallish (~$5 million/year revenue) software business. We do care about money to some extent, but we regularly agree to do things that work against shareholder value because we also care about things other than money. With two people, it's easy for our values to be aligned on those other things.
With dozens or more shareholders, that's basically impossible. A publicly traded company couldn't realistically be like "hey shareholders, can we agree that we care a lot about this niche local political issue in the town the company was founded?" The more shareholders you have, the more the only commonality between them is "we want more money".
There are many family-owned businesses that are only in it for the money, but "family-owned" can be a proxy for "not very many shareholders" which at least opens the door for the company to have non-financial priorities.
Even the things you named (brand reputation, goodwill, etc.) are prioritized by companies because they're upstream of shareholder value. Many companies have a float in the Pride parade, an employee volunteer day and post on social media about how they're reducing their carbon footprint. Most of those companies are doing those things because they believe they ultimately increase shareholder value, not because shareholders have decided to sacrifice money because they care more about other things.
publicly traded/vc funded companies have always paid me the most because the money isn’t really theirs.
>Brian Thure served as president of Taylor Farms Tennessee from about 2012 until March 2026 and allegedly used his authority over finances, payroll, vendors and accounting to divert company money for personal benefit. >Taylor Farms claims the alleged fraud came to light during an IRS audit
There's a tendency to want to be nice to farmers who own "family owned farms" because it evokes imagery steeped in quaint classical Americana. It is mostly from misinformation that this impression arises. Don't feel bad for a family owned farm that isn't going well. They get special bankruptcy rules, they can sell off their very valuable land as a backstop, and most of all they are probably not as small and quaint and cute as you think they are.
At the core, "Family-owned" just means nepotism is preferred over merit.
(The mob is also "Family-owned")
Global weather changes means more tropical pests and pathogens are migrating north. People are literally on fire, and shitting their pants in excitement. =3
I'm so confused how to feel about these articles. this one is clearly AI written. But blessed by a lawyer so we think the stuff in here is accurate with facts?
I've accidentally posted an AI article before that seemed just as this was, and the community flagged that to oblivion. Rightfully so I think?
Does Hacker News need a "report AI" and we can then hide the AI articles as a filter?
So the next question is, how much of this is true at all, versus just being hallucinations.
Stopped reading immediately. If we’re just going to delegate writing to Claude, I won’t bother reading this. And maybe I’ll just delegate my decisions to Claude directly.
Not quoting it though since someone said they’re ambulance chasers, they’ll have to hire out a smellchecker.