Regarding safety, if somebody could check my understanding:

Wear full body PPE and a respirator mask when spraying pesticide or you’ll get cancer.

The retraction notice is a lot better lol - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273230099913715

Best quote below:

I, the handling (co)Editor-in-Chief of Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, reached out to the sole surviving author Gary M. Williams and sought explanation for the various concerns which have been listed in detail below. We did not receive any response from Prof. Williams.

This article has been retracted: please see Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal (https://www.elsevier.com/locate/withdrawalpolicy)

This article has been retracted at the request of handling (co)Editor-in-Chief, Prof. Martin van den Berg, Ph.D.

Concerns were raised regarding the authorship of this paper, validity of the research findings in the context of misrepresentation of the contributions by the authors and the study sponsor and potential conflicts of interest of the authors. I, the handling (co)Editor-in-Chief of Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, reached out to the sole surviving author Gary M. Williams and sought explanation for the various concerns which have been listed in detail below. We did not receive any response from Prof. Williams.

Hence, this article is formally retracted from the journal. This decision has been made after careful consideration of the COPE guidelines and thorough investigation into the circumstances surrounding the authorship and content of this article and in light of no response having been provided to address the findings. The retraction is based on several critical issues that are considered to undermine the academic integrity of this article and its conclusions:

• 1.Carcinogenicity and Genotoxicity Assessments The article’s conclusions regarding the carcinogenicity of glyphosate are solely based on unpublished studies from Monsanto, which have failed to demonstrate tumorigenic potential. The handling (co) Editor-in-Chief also became aware that by the time of writing of this article in the journal, the authors did not include multiple other long-term chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity studies, that were already done at the time of writing their review in 1999. In their article the authors state that they are aware of other studies, that were unpublished and not available. However, the authors do not specify to what extent they tried to incorporate the findings of these (unpublished) studies. The reasons for this remain undisclosed but bring into question the broader objectivity of the conclusions presented. The handling (co)Editor-in-Chief identified the following additional publications:_Atkinson C, Martin T, Hudson P, Robb D. Glyphosate: 104 week dietary carcinogenicity study in mice. In: Inveresk Research International. Tranent: IRIProject No. 438618; 1993.__Sugimoto K. 18-Month Oral Oncogenicity Study in Mice, Vol. 1 and 2. Kodaira-shi: The Institute of Environmental Toxicology; 1997. Study No.:IET 94-0151.__Takahashi M. Oral feeding carcinogenicity study in mice with AK-01. Agatsuma: Nippon Experimental Medical Research Institute Co. Ltd.; 1999.__Enemoto K. 24-Month Oral Chronic Toxicity and Oncogenicity Study in Rats, Vol. 1. Kodaira-shi: The Institute of Environmental Toxicology; 1997.__Suresh TP. Combined chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity study with glyphosate technical in Wistar rats. Syngenta: Toxicology Department Rallis Research Centre, Rallis India Limited; 1996._While it is recognized that these publications were not featured in peer-reviewed journals, the review by Williams, Kroes, and Munro did extensively utilize unpublished studies, which did not seem to impede its publication. Therefore, the conclusions about the non-carcinogenicity of glyphosate or Roundup in this article are limited to the Monsanto studies alone and hamper a general conclusion as suggested by the authors.

• 2.Lack of Authorial Independence Litigation in the United States revealed correspondence from Monsanto suggesting that the authors of the article were not solely responsible for writing its content. It appears from that correspondence that employees of Monsanto may have contributed to the writing of the article without proper acknowledgment as co-authors. This lack of transparency raises serious ethical concerns regarding the independence and accountability of the authors of this article and the academic integrity of the carcinogenicity studies presented.

• 3.Misrepresentation of Contributions The apparent contributions of Monsanto employees as co-writers to this article were not explicitly mentioned as such in the acknowledgments section. This omission suggests that the authors may have misrepresented their unique roles and the collaborative nature of the work presented. The failure to disclose the involvement of Monsanto personnel in the writing process compromises the academic independence of the presented findings and conclusions drawn in the article regarding carcinogenicity.

• 4.Questions of Financial Compensation Further correspondence with Monsanto disclosed during litigation indicates that the authors may have received financial compensation from Monsanto for their work on this article, which was not disclosed as such in this publication. The potential financial compensation raises significant ethical concerns and calls into question the apparent academic objectivity of the authors in this publication, which concerns and questions have not been answered.

• 5.Ambiguity in Research Findings This article has been widely regarded as a hallmark paper in the discourse surrounding the carcinogenicity of glyphosate and Roundup. However, the lack of clarity regarding which parts of the article were authored by Monsanto employees creates uncertainty about the integrity of the conclusions drawn. Specifically, the article asserts the absence of carcinogenicity associated with glyphosate or its technical formulation, Roundup. It is unclear how much of the conclusions of the authors were influenced by external contributions of Monsanto without proper acknowledgments.

• 6.Weight-of-Evidence Approach The authors employed a weight-of-evidence approach in their assessment of glyphosate’s carcinogenicity and genotoxicity. While this methodology is sound in principle, the potential biases introduced by undisclosed contributions from Monsanto employees and the exclusion of other existing long-term carcinogenicity studies may have skewed the interpretation of the data. The authors’ critical analysis of both unpublished and published studies must therefore be viewed with caution.

• 7.Historical Context and Influence The paper had a significant impact on regulatory decision-making regarding glyphosate and Roundup for decades. Given its status as a cornerstone in the assessment of glyphosate’s safety, it is imperative that the integrity of this review article and its conclusions are not compromised. The concerns specified here necessitate this retraction to preserve the scientific integrity of the journal.

• 8.Conclusion In light of the aforementioned issues, the handling (co) Editor-in-Chief lost confidence in the results and conclusions of this article, and believes that the retraction of this article is necessary to maintain the integrity of the journal. The scientific concerns regarding the lack of carcinogenicity only derived from Monsanto studies, concerns regarding (ghost-) authorship(s) and potential conflicts of interest, none of which have been responded to, are sufficient to warrant this action. We appreciate the understanding of the scientific community regarding this matter and remain committed to upholding the highest standards of integrity in published research in Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology.

Disclaimer: As handling (co)Editor-in-Chief, I emphasize that this retraction does not imply a stance on the ongoing debate regarding the carcinogenicity of glyphosate or Roundup, but originates from directly following the COPE guidelines.

Correspondence: martinvandenberg@editor-regtoxpharm.com

If the EFF de anonymization tool can de anonymize your browser, then the ad network can too.

Try searching for something with tor browser - no javascript

Per reddit u/pathtracing - Thu Jun 19 08:27:23 2025 UTC - https://old.reddit.com/r/ipv6/comments/1lf5dmi/question_about_vpn_with_ipv6/

I think the problem is you (and others) using the term “vpn” to cover various different needs.

There’s:

• actual privacy from network observers, which is about only Mullvad
• exploiting non-technical podcast listeners, which is just about every other product labelled “vpn”
• providing better connectivity, which is Tunnelbroker or a GRE/vxlan provider
• joining the DFZ via a crap isp, which is bgptunnel and various more expensive ones

You want 3 or 4, which is fine. Making item 1 provide a subnet doesn’t help 1 do its job any better and definitely will harm unskilled users.

Torrentio seeds. It’s using torrent technology. It will be sharing copies of the movie with others. Illegal.

Just need to start a rumor that this will allow the government to identify GUN OWNERS, for some future gun CONFISCATION effort. Cart_catalog

I look forward to a large contingent of MAGA voters suddenly insisting that they are now, among other things, experts on statistical methodology and census operations. You know, topics that they knew nothing about last week. Or this week. Rirere

Too late. OP is now noted as a google plant. I’ll stick to more reliable source like the other people on this sub

Yubico keys. Never had an issue after years of dangling on my keychain. They get replaced with upgrades to the key before they can break.

Using a VPN makes the original question redundant. The VPN would have everything super encrypted for either home wifi or home 4g/5g. Your question transforms into “can i trust this vpn company”

Decrypting the 4g/5g network will require a key from the telecommunications company. I argue it’s insignificantly less secure because a malicious actor can intercept it and decrypt it if they manage to steal the key from the company.

Practically, only your government would be able to get a copy of the key. But they’d also be able to watch your actual cable internet as well. And when your government gets interested in you then you fucked all the way up.

Honestly, pedos & terrorists get the whole world cooperation on doxing them. So if they’re not using a tool or method then it’s not proof against nation states.

Why the need for complete anonymity though? Literally only pedos operate at that level so that nobody can squeal on the others if they are busted (they inevitably need to mess up a real kid because their CSAM isn’t good enough).

SimpleX is currently the best one possible.

All the security of signal without needing a phone number.

Everything can be through tor. Contact link can be formed with a one time use code that you DM someone privately.

Anything more advanced and you’re basically in internet dead drop territory. An encoded message on a pastebin through tor. Congratulations, you’ve entered pedophile/terrorist level security realm.

sorry to ruin your day but some privacy nuts did pro-bono work for reddit in setting up a reddit onion address. https://old.reddittorjg6rue252oqsxryoxengawnmo46qy4kyii5wtqnwfj4ooad.onion/

Definitely no tracking through 6 hops.

Theoretically - It doesn’t matter. They flag all your data with a “user asked for it to be deleted” flag. It’s still data that their statisticians can play with. If it was public then internet archive grabbed a screenshot.

Practically - Deleting it is almost always sufficient. They probably take a month to get rid of it. Nobody want’s to explain to a future compliance officer why data is just sitting around waiting to be subpoenaed in a privacy lawsuit. If it’s fake deleted then it’s probably pseudo anonymized for internal research. Almost all search engines will forget the data existed over time.

Is it best to meal prep/store meat in a deep freeze, or should we keep all of that in the upright fridge/freezer and put frozen pizza, French fries, chicken chunks, etc in there?

It’s all preference but I’d do things based on door openings. If you don’t need to access something that week then it should move to deep freezer where door never opens.

It’s gonna be real annoying for future me with arthritis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchineel#Toxicity

Ignoring the stupidity and inhumanity of border walls, seems like we could be planting them alongside them and add some green. Let border patrol agents have to prune and manage them.

Fuck, throw out all the man made parts of the border wall and just have a thicket of these trees. if you’re willing to pass through the forest suited up then you’ve put more effort into being a citizen than most citizens.

Not so fast sailor! Do this first

✔️ Recommended: Use Firefox + uBlock Origin.
    Firefox is the top non-Chromium browser, offering nice security and privacy features. It also boasts the best compatibility with uBlock Origin for effectively blocking ads and other harmful web content.
✔️ Recommended: Change your DNS settings.
    DNS can enhance the browsing experience by increasing speed and bypassing restrictions, as your Internet Service Provider (ISP) usually offers a slower default DNS that may censor websites according to their preferences.
🧲 For torrenting: Install a reputable torrent client such as qBittorrent.
    Torrent client is a separate program that is essential for downloading files via torrent files, which is a method distinct from direct downloads.
🧲 For torrenting: Set up a VPN network such as AirVPN or ProtonVPN.
    VPN enhances online privacy and security by encrypting the connection and masking the IP address, making it ideal for torrenting as it protects your identity, and allows access to restricted content.
🧲 For torrenting: Bind the torrent client to the VPN interface.
    Ensures torrenting only happen when the VPN is active, lowering the chances of a leak of the IP address to essentially zero.

Blocking i2P means blocking all encrypted communication, or spyware on all computers. So shits already hit the fan by that point.