HugeAcumen

* "Sufficient" ≠ Optimal

* That's for light skinned folks.

* I suspect the difference between 51°N and 56°N (ie, Scotland) in such a study would be much larger than most would think.

* From the authors: "It is important to note that this should be undertaken in the middle of the day, with exposure of lower arms and lower legs to maximise benefit."

>It has no bearing on anything as far as I can tell.

...It says a lot that all of your examples are from your own life. There are counter examples abounding that just aren't affecting you (to your knowledge), such as those stated in TFA, or CA, or Brexit etc.

Do you think these data brokers are selling our info for billions to rubes? Are insurance companies known for their gullibility? Are sale of lists of rape victims to 'whoever has money' A-OK, because you are not being personally affected?

... These trends are worsening. People aren't spending more and more on data that has "no bearing on anything". That it's invisible to you makes it worse.

Looks like someone fell for the media narrative.

Young people voted in record numbers for Bernie.

And his demographic was everyone - the elderly had the most to gain in many ways.

... What?

You didn't offer a link for your claim; why would you ask for a link to a fact easily findable in the search engine of your choice?

Thanks, I was wondering how this was the fault of the left.

*/s

I want to vote for those things.

I'm told by my blue friends that I'm naive. Reds call me a socialist.

This is by design. It is intentional. Billions of dollars are spent giving people these 'views'.

Sanders gave people an opportunity to vote for "those things", and he was the clear favorite to take out Trump - until Democrats pulled every dirty trick to scupper his campaign. Again.

So people really do want to vote for these things, but massive effort is put into not giving them the option. Sanders is the most popular politician in America, every year - and instead of helping him, instead of boosting him, the Blue team stabbed him in the front, in the back, in the eye balls, etc.

I'm not seeing where your link makes any such claim.

It quotes Assange as saying ‘forget the Jewish thing’, after he allegedly pointed out that a number of people :shown to have lied about him: were Jewish.

BTW, 'The JC' were very big on the claim that Corbyn is an anti-semite, while effusive in their praise for Boris Johnson... Sorry but that's proper batty.

I had a look at their US news page, and while they had a front-page story about a BUDDHIST swastika necklace, the :forced sterilisation: scandal seems to have passed them by.

And if there's anything in their news about this trial and it's irregularities, and the significance to journalism, I haven't found it.

You might not want to take them too seriously.

... And that picture is based completely on Assange being "autistic", "on the spectrum", "paranoid" and "narcissistic" - because he thinks his voice is important, that left wing media have been derelict in their duty and stabbed him in the back, and that powerful people are spying on him and want him assassinated.

That all of those things :are true: just doesn't factor in to O'Hagan's assessment, at all. He doesn't even begin to explore the possibility.

This speaks much more to O'Hagan's deep flaws than Assange's.

Wooow - that essay aged like milk. Not that it was much good to begin with - the majority of his criticism is based on calling Assange "paranoid" and "narcissistic" - because he thought there were people trying to spy on him and assassinate him.

Which there very much were.

I was curious if O'Hagan is at all apologetic, now that Assange's "paranoia" has been conclusively justified, but at least on his Twitter he shows no interest in the topic whatsoever.

Thanks for saving me any money I might ever have spent on his writing.

Before people engage with this gent I would point them to his recent conversations here. Many people, at length, have tried to engage and explain to him the import of these proceedings in good faith.

He was provided reputable links many times, which he deemed "conspiracy theories", refusing to engage in the facts within.

A significant portion of his recent history, in fact, is people begging him to read the facts; his replies come in the form "you Assange conspiracists ..."

I don't want to break HN rules on calling people out, but the above are straight facts that people really ought to be aware of before trying with this guy again.

It astounds me that people are putting Chomsky, Hersh, Pilger, Ellsberg, etc, who have all made dire warnings about this extraordinary case, in the box of "Assange conspiracists" - and getting away with it.

That's great, thanks :)