AnyDesk is a remote desktop application distributed by AnyDesk Software GmbH. The proprietary software program provides platform-independent remote access to personal computers and other devices running the host application. It offers remote control, file transfer, and VPN functionality.

In the 1960s the sugar industry paid three Harvard scientists to publish a review blaming fat for heart disease and clearing sugar. The payments were discovered in 2016 by researchers at the University of California, San Francisco, who found the internal industry documents and published them in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The documents showed that the Sugar Research Foundation, now called the Sugar Association, paid the equivalent of about 50,000 dollars in today's money to three Harvard researchers to write a review of the evidence on sugar, fat, and heart disease. The review, published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1967, concluded that fat was the dietary villain and that sugar was innocent. The funding was not disclosed.

The consequences lasted fifty years. Dietary guidelines in the United States shifted toward low-fat diets, and the food industry replaced fat with sugar in thousands of products. Americans ate less fat and more sugar for three decades, and rates of obesity and type 2 diabetes rose in parallel. The science that drove the shift was paid for by the industry that benefited from it.

The 2016 paper, led by Cristin Kearns, found that the Sugar Research Foundation had set the review's objective in advance, selected the studies to include, and reviewed drafts before publication. The Harvard researchers accepted the money and the direction without question, and the journal published the result without requiring disclosure of the funding.

Each release is supported by the Security Officer for a limited time only.

The designation and expected lifetime of all currently supported branches and their respective releases are given below. The Expected EoL (end-of-life) column indicates the earliest date on which support for that branch or release will end. Please note that these dates may be pushed back if circumstances warrant it.

Early warning signals of the coronary heart disease (CHD) risk of sugar (sucrose) emerged in the 1950s. We examined Sugar Research Foundation (SRF) internal documents, historical reports, and statements relevant to early debates about the dietary causes of CHD and assembled findings chronologically into a narrative case study. The SRF sponsored its first CHD research project in 1965, a literature review published in the New England Journal of Medicine, which singled out fat and cholesterol as the dietary causes of CHD and downplayed evidence that sucrose consumption was also a risk factor. The SRF set the review's objective, contributed articles for inclusion, and received drafts. The SRF's funding and role was not disclosed. Together with other recent analyses of sugar industry documents, our findings suggest the industry sponsored a research program in the 1960s and 1970s that successfully cast doubt about the hazards of sucrose while promoting fat as the dietary culprit in CHD. Policymaking committees should consider giving less weight to food industry-funded studies and include mechanistic and animal studies as well as studies appraising the effect of added sugars on multiple CHD biomarkers and disease development.

It's obvious this is an attempt to ban open-source AI so the new "FAA of AI" can control AI. Even if it's as dangerous as they say, they have no way to control what China does. Which means this campaign for regulation won't actually meet any of their stated aims. //

What we are seeing is a massive, pretty obviously coordinated campaign by AI researchers, companies, NGOs, and politicians to strangle competition in an industry and, as I will show, save the financial bacon of the top AI companies that are vastly overextended financially because they have made contractual commitments that they simply have no prospect of paying for. //

Today's "bull market" is almost exclusively driven by the rapid rise of AI-adjacent companies, and if the AI companies can't deliver massive growth, all these other companies are cooked as well. Data centers will have no customers, cloud compute will have nothing to do, and Nvidia chips won't be worth 10x gold. //

None of these companies is suggesting that AI be shut down; they are asking for a massive regulatory infrastructure that works with them, reduces their costs, possibly subsidizes their investments, and destroys competitors as insufficiently careful and secure. //

The solution is to ensure companies face liability for any damage they cause. Government regulators are utterly incapable of regulating anything as massively complicated and rapidly developing as AI, but you can be darn sure that if these companies face multi-billion-dollar liability claims, they will be quite careful about what they release.

Which do you trust more: a GS-12 based in Washington assigned to evaluate a model he could never understand, or a bank of lawyers warning CEOs that screwing up could cost them $20 billion? //

Will AI kill everybody off at some point in the future? I doubt it, but I can't say for sure. What I can say with certainty is that AI companies, because of their own financial mismanagement, face an existential threat and want (NEED) the government to bail them out, and need an excuse to get it to do so.

What you saw in this week's frenzy is the excuse they chose.