I’m just wondering what people expect from them. They literally advertise it on their front page - and disclosure of anonymized results is an opt-in consent-based process. I sincerely want to know in what way they have been “opaque” about it and what more they reasonably could have done to communicate this to people.

I’m just curious as to what exactly it is people want. Serious question - do you not think they were sufficiently clear about using their aggregate data in research?

Yes, but you can’t simply walk into a hospital, wave a 23andMe printout at them, and schedule a surgery. Before you can get a double mastectomy you need to consult doctors and have all sorts of exams and testing done - meaning the FDA’s concerns were entirely unfounded.

If you want beyond absurd, read the FDA’s formal reasoning for it. They seriously claimed that people might mis-use this information and be harmed. They literally used the example of someone learning they were at risk for breast cancer and having a double mastectomy.

Those dedicated tests can cost thousands of dollars each, though.

In what possible way was this “a pretty opaque aspect” of their business model? They tell you this on their front page for God’s sake. I was looking at buying them before the FDA’s action in 2013 and knew about it then as well - I in fact considered it a bonus that my DNA might help research and one day cure…

Are you saying it wasn’t something that was well-known? Because I don’t know how much clearer they could have made it. It’s explained right here in plain English.

And also they sell the acquired data in aggregate to third parties with the user’s express consent, after clearly and publicly explaining this and only if you agree to it on their website, where it was explained in plain English.

Now, see, if I had to choose between Wes Siler’s modern man or Brian Lombardi’s modern man, one of them would be left crying and crying often while outwardly pretending everything’s okay. The other would be shooting clay, paper, and animals with me on top of a mountain after hiking there with our dogs.

I’d just like to take a moment to appreciate that our military is so powerful, we’re discussing how few countries could actually pose enough of a challenge to our naval superiority to actually inflict losses in a naval engagement before being defeated. That is to say, we are so powerful, we can afford to hold our navy…

The Russian Navy is infamously in need of major overhauls, and scrapped or shuttered quite a many of their best vessels. Nowadays they can’t even hit the right country when launching cruise missiles!

The U.S. no longer has any countries with any capability of fighting back.

I object to the view of drone warfare as “press a button.”

Oh no, no, no offense taken.

You mock, but with the retirement of the last Perry, that ship is apparently the only ship in active service in the entire United States Navy to sink an enemy vessel in combat.

Past model: If the battery wears out or breaks, swap it out with a new one.

Shifting the “moral responsibility” from the US government to regular people is a reprobate PR gambit that diverts attention from the way the crisis is being mishandled through official channels.

And statistically, defending myself with a gun is safer than surrender, fleeing, or fighting back unarmed. Knifing an armed victim to death is much harder.

Assault weapons bans? Absolutely not. So-called “assault weapons” are very rarely used in crime, considering the numbers. “Assault weapons” are defined by cosmetic standards that do nothing to change a weapon’s effectiveness. What they do is ban features of a gun that shooters find convenient or safer - the last FAWB…

Looking at the graph, crime dropped from the year before the ban and stopped dropping the year after the ban was issued, then stayed relatively consistent until an increase a few years later. Are you looking at the same graph I am?