hristov

It is not that much of a surprise. Remember he was leading all pre-election polls. He was narrowly behind in the first round. It seems that he has more supporters in brazil but they are not as enthusiastic. So some did not show up in the first round but then when it appeared that bolsanaro might actually win his supporters decided to get off their butts and vote.

I would not be so quick to call people brainless. Generally speaking, I would prefer that congressmen be specific with their legislation and, like a good doctor, try to first do no harm or as little harm as possible and address the problem before them specifically without causing unintended consequences.

As I wrote in a previous comment on this thread I am sure the congressman that passed the law discussed the issue with farmers and ranchers producing all traded commodities and the ones that were not growing onions did not think there was a significant risk of a corner and they preferred to have their goods traded.

Although I do agree with you that privacy protections should be broader. As far as Megan’s law I am sure you realize that it is intended to protect everyone from sex criminals not just people named Megan.

No because none of these things have futures traded on a major exchange. Agricultural commodities whose futures are traded on major exchanges are very few. Now of course your question will be couldn’t the same be done with a commodity whose futures are traded, such as corn or wheat.

The answer is it is difficult to say. One thing anyone cornering the market has to consider is government intervention. In this respect onions are perfect. They are merely a condiment. Nobody is going to starve for lack of onions if the rest of the food supply is intact. Thus any government official rushing in to intervene in a cornering of the onion market will look a little foolish and thus think twice about it.

If someone tried to corner the wheat market the government is likely to step in, confiscate his goods and pay him a fair price for his wheat which will be much lower than the cornered price. The cornerer will then lose money.

I suspect the congressman that passed the legislation did his research and talked to all potentially affected parties. I suspect the farmers and ranchers producing the other traded commodities said that this was not really a concern for them and that they would prefer that their commodities continue to be traded.

They are not that silly. I am sure they are being secretly funded by the cbot. The idea may seem silly but apparently onion futures trading was big money when it was banned. It was the most lucrative futures contract for the cbot (Chicago board of trade).

Well, this finally proves that Kasparov is a mole and not really an opposition leader in any real sense of the word.

If we sell them to another country, then that other country will gather the data and publish it. The point of the Trump administration is that the data not be gathered.

Of course there will be dissatisfaction from users of the data. Anyone that wants to use census data will prefer less privacy in the data. And anytime privacy is enforced the data becomes less useful. It would be certainly very convenient for both advertisers and gerrymandering political consultants to have detailed data on every citizen.

As the article says anytime you want to enforce privacy, the data becomes somewhat less useful, there is just no way around that.

The point of rights is that we have them and that they should not be trampled upon when they become slightly inconvenient to someone in power.

As the article clearly states, privacy features have been in the census since 1990. It is just that the previously used privacy feature was not very strong and could be defeated. So it was replaced by a stronger feature in 1920. Before 1990 the census. 1990 was when personal computers were being popularized and the computing power available to individuals exploded and so then it was possible to use computers to separate out individual information from the data the census publishes. So the issue came up then.

No it is not an overblown problem.

Ok at this point you are just spouting gibberish. I will stop responding.

I read the article and I am right about everything other than one not very significant detail. I am probably right about that too.

It is not a red herring that Trump allowed cattle imports from mexico when it was widely known that the screw worm was in mexico. It was a very serious lapse in safety and disease prevention.

Furthermore, DOGE did cut federal funding for programs for monitoring and curtailment of the screw worm in Central America in February 2025, and your own links show that. For example your link [2] says the above sentence almost verbatim. The FAO issue is not unrelated to the to the COPEG issue. The FAO also funded programs for detection and curtailment of the screw worm in central america just like COPEG. They were probably complimentary programs.

I could not find any link that COPEG funding was cut, but then again you showed no evidence that it was not cut. DOGE insisted on secrecy and was very vindictive, so a lot of DOGE cuts are not known and there is no definite public list of DOGE cuts. Furthermore, federal employees are scared. Any cuts to FAO programs would be made public because the FAO is an international organization and their employees are not at risk of being fired by Trump. But COPEG is an US organization and everyone in there will be scared to mention funding cuts to the media.

By the way, your statement that the Tump administration funded COPEG with 165 million in 2025 and a supplemental grant of 21 million is an outright falsehood and it is a falsehood proven by your own link [5]. Your own link [5] says that the 165 million funding came in 2024, not 2025 which would make it something done by the Biden administration. The supplemental 21 million funding came in 2025 but that was for fruit flies, not screw worm producing flies, so it did not go to COPEG.

I wonder, did you not read your own links, or did you know you were saying lies and hope that nobody else will read your links.

So in summary, DOGE did cut funding for screw worm detection and prevention in early 2025. Trump did allow Mexican cattle in the US in early 2025, even though it was known that the screw worm is in Mexico. It is not entirely clear whether DOGE cut funding for COPEG exactly or whether it only cut funding for other non-COPEG screw worm detection and prevention programs, but funding for screw worm detection and prevention was cut.

Hehe, it is actually trying very hard not to hit the milestones.

This article is misleading because it does not mention Trump or Musk or Doge, and they were mostly responsible for the new outbreak in the US. Mexican cattle imports were banned in the US in 2024 because of the screw worm. Then trump allowed mexican cattle imports in February 2025 even though the screw worm situation was not resolved. Then, in March 2025, Musk's DOGE cut funding for COPEG, the organization that suppresses the screw worm in Panama.

Then the screw worm really spread over Mexico and the United states. The administration then stopped mexican cattle imports in the summer of 2025 again, panicked because of the spread of the screw worm, then started them again in the fall of 2025, panicked because of high beef prices.

Panama was the ideal place to control the screw worm because it was a small chokepoint. The flies that birth the screw worm cannot fly far by themselves, the screw worm moves with cattle, and cattle almost always moves by land. So COPEG acting at the chokepoint was a cheap and effective way to keep the screw worm from entering north america. The article talks about how great COPEG is, it does not mention that Musk's DOGE cut their funding.

But now the screw worm is all over Mexico and the US, the choke point is lost. Now they are spending much more money all over Latin America and the US with much smaller effect.

[German] !!!!

Slightly off topic, Vladimir Nabakov wrote a beautiful, sad story about a guy like this -- a lonely counterfeiter that made a small number of individually crafted bills. It is called The Leonardo.