Except that you'd get taken to EHCR, and likely lose. This ruling was extremely narrow in scope and court went to great pains to emphasize this. Attempting to jury-rig it to fit broad scope censorship would fail for a number of reasons, many of which are listed in my post.
Indeed, this is straight up shock scaremongering. Original article itself in fact goes to state:
T J McIntyre, who is a lecturer in law and Chairman of Digital Rights Ireland, the lead organisation that won an important victory against EU data retention in the Court of Justice of the European Union last year, explained where things now stand. "Today's decision doesn't have any direct legal effect. It simply finds that Estonia's laws on site liability aren't incompatible with the ECHR. It doesn't directly require any change in national or EU law. Indirectly, however, it may be influential in further development of the law in a way which undermines freedom of expression. As a decision of the Grand Chamber of the ECHR it will be given weight by other courts and by legislative bodies."
Basis for decision: The Grand Chamber emphasised a number of factors that led it to rule that Delfi was liable: the "extreme" nature of the comments which the court considered to amount to hate speech, the fact that they were published on a professionally-run and commercial news website, the insufficient measures taken by Delfi to weed out the comments in question and the low likelihood of a prosecution of the users who posted the comments, and the moderate sanction imposed on Delfi.
Basically the problem was the fact that the company was informed that comments were easily distinguished as illegal and refused to remove them. This does not mean a change to national legislation, or pre moderation or anything of the sorts. It simply means that if comments are easily distinguished as illegal, you can't just ignore the law and let them stay up. Court also notes that punishment is moderate and serves as a warning to follow the law hopefully without stifling free speech.
Overall, it looks like they did all they could on court's side to not make a decision against national hate speech laws without giving ammunition for broader call for censorship.
Considering the recent treatment Polish gastarbeiters got, or the fact that we have long standing conflict with them that had to be sorted out on governmental level about their waste issues in Gulf of Finland, I'm extremely confused where you got that idea.
Finland has a long standing history of neutrality, similar to Switzerland. We have no fight with Russians, and Russians are desperate enough to get us on their good side that they are willing to sell us cheap technology just to keep us neutral. Last news is that Rosatom is making an extremely good offer on third Loviisa reactor if we don't get any closer to joining NATO. We also recently opened new electric interconnects which allow us to sell surplus electricity to Russia. We have zero gas-related problems with Russia as we don't have any third party causing problems in between us, and we had no security issues on our border either. It's literally the calmest and most secure border they have, and they very much appreciate it.
As a point to make, when they recently opened a base to secure Murmansk and Arctic Ocean near our borders, region on the other side of the border invited personnel of the new base and their families to visit. That is how afraid of Russian military folks that have to live right next to Russian bases are here in Finland. Good business, calm border.
Suggesting that we are somehow pro-NATO in this conflict beyond the mandatory participation in EU sanctions is absurd. If anything, the current Polish line is considered damaging to regional security here in Finland - something our foreign minister of outgoing government made no qualms about voicing every once in a while. Not beneficial and certainly nothing to be supportive of.
As for the rest, I don't think you quite understand the problem. On one hand, you don't want to put your mission critical bases into politically unstable states. Poland still has serious stability issues, as we have seen with their conservative religious right wingers suddenly getting electable again on the platform of fear of Europe. On the other hand there are issues of infrastructure. Poland is far less developed than Germany is. And moving bases is expensive, but getting new infrastructure that can support them installed is far more expensive. That is why current plans are to move to Northern Italy, rather than Poland according to leaks.
I'm not talking about current security situation in Eastern Europe, and as a Finn, I find your attempt to pretend we're allied with hysterical extremely right wing Poland distasteful at best. Pretty much the only ones we can see ourselves allied with and are in actual talks with on the topic is Sweden. We're not in NATO, not feeling threatened by Russia and mostly worried about the fact that worsening security situation is going to squeeze our finances even further.
Germany on the other hand houses the single most important part of US assets in Europe. They are home to intelligence nerve centres of most military and spying activities. Those are directly related to current spying situation. Then there's the recent scandal with satellite controls of US killer drones in Middle East, and in fact there has been an active discussion in Germany that it should act to investigate, as many activities revealed are either illegal or clearly attempting to circumvent German legislation. Attempt was strong enough for US to start making plans for alternative facilities in Italy. But building secure high end connections, radomes and so on in sufficient numbers takes a lot of time. So right now, they apparently managed to put a lid on the discussion through arguing that US breaking laws in Germany is not as important as Germany's relationship with US.
Which may be partially correct in the current security situation, but most certainly does remind Germans that ones acting most aggressively against their state come from the other side of Atlantic, nor from the East.
And that stuff is cumulating right now. Even Ukrainian poison pill given to Europe is starting to not be poisonous enough to make public overlook all the problems coming from other side of Atlantic. And that is not good for cohesion among the states that go under the umbrella of "Western states".
Which at the time of real issue, that of the fact that US is diminishing as world hegemon is very dangerous for all parties involved.
And then you use that as leverage to force NSA to give relevant people up. It really isn't hard on state level. US does this kind of "soft blackmail" all the time, as do other large states. Freeze key assets in "investigation" and require extensive cooperation from target state to expedite unfreezing.
It's not that I don't agree with your assessment for most part. I am just pointing out that if there was a political will to get to the bottom of this, Germany does have legal means to do so. I.e. the part of your argument of it "being too hard to do under current legal framework" being not true. Means are there, and they are genuinely not that hard if there is a will.
In this case, it just appears that there was no will. They didn't even really want to open the investigation in the first place after revelations came to light and it required the media uprising to get the ball going. So it indeed is not terribly surprising that when any kind of significant action was required to obtain a stronger case, this was used as an excuse to drop the case instead.
The problem being that Germany is one of the key nerve hubs of most of electronic spying activity in Europe and Middle East as many of the recent leaks have shown.
While relevant people may or may not be there, they could search the relevant hardware which is in fact on their soil.
That was in fact the specific reason why they ended the investigation. They found strong circumstantial evidence, but because of lack of cooperation from NSA, they could not get any direct evidence. So the case was closed, as NSA was unlikely to change its stance.
Considering the BND scandal, it's pretty likely that no political pressure was put on NSA to compromise. They were simply going to sweep this under the rug.
The bias is actually very visible in the article with the Freudian slip of "send Russians money" instead of "paying Russians for services rendered" which is the actual case.
It's pretty rare for fanboy crowd to slip that badly though. Usually it's at least masked as a more reasonable argument.
This card has 400GB/sec throughput on memory. Not that far away, and that's just the first model limited to 4 stacks.
No idea where that imaginary goal of yours came from though. They always marked this as around 100TB/stack. And of course like all such memory, it's going to run in parallel, so the more stacks on die, the more bandwidth.
The problem is that BfV is hopelessly penetrated by US intelligence, as news in Germany has been in last few months. It's a huge scandal, where reporters blew in the open the fact that BfV was basically helping US intelligence spy on everything and everyone in Germany, ranging from Chancellor herself to straight up industrial espionage of German companies.
There has been a massive government effort to sweep these news under the rug, which suggests that BfV managed to get some very heavy dirt on almost everyone major in the political system, all the way to Merkel herself and then passed it on to US intelligence.
You do not know how nuclear EMP works. It's a result of three main components, two of which require direct interaction with ionosphere . Without this interaction, you're limited to approximately 10-15 km range in your EMP blast effect and these components do not cause inward resonance with Earth's magnetic field, which is where the strength and range comes from.
This is pretty much the same range that kinetic nuclear shockwave detonation would wipe out anyway.
EMP comes from high atmospheric detonation, not low. It's a result of nuclear bomb's energy interacting with upper layers of atmosphere. It doesn't occur in low altitude detonations.
On your last point, I don't think you quite understand just how much your suggestion would cost. There are far more significant and realistic threats to grid than EMP from nuclear blast, such as environmental disasters (remember tsunami that caused Fukushima's grid to fail, resulting in meltdown?) and in many cases and protection against those is still often considered too expensive.
Hormones work across species in varying ways. We share hormones like we share most biological components of our bodies across mammals simply due to the fact that due to our evolution, we share most of our genetic code. We also share most internal organs and proteins.
Where we differ is how these organs specifically work, as a part of the relevant processes. Digestive system is a great example here - while we mostly have similar digestive systems, they differ both due to gut flora types and species, and not just across herbivore-omnivore-carnivore axis, such as items being beneficial to one species like homo sapiens being lethally poisonous to others like canis lupus. Reproductive system is another, and it's about as complex. It's regulated by massive amounts of SHARED HORMONES, but in some species, they trigger or shut down estrous cycle at certain periods, and in others they manage constant menstrual cycle for example.
Same hormones. Completely different effect controlled by them.
That is why microbiology is terrible at explaining process effects, and why we burn billions based on blind assumptions that oversimplify complex processes based on biology version of reductio ad absurdum. And then we get renal and liver failures from end products because whoops, our metabolic process is different and main organs that work in maintaining balance cannot cope.
Suggesting that just because we can effectively produce most of the hormones in other animals and artificial organs does not imply that these animals use these hormones in their processes in the same way. We merely know that we use the same hormones. That's it. And assuming more is what typically leads to very expensive medical research failures and rare successes when it actually does work as intended.
I once again ask you to answer the questionnaire I provided earlier so I can understand where it is exactly that we differ.
Almost everything said here applies to TTP, because TTP includes a country with significant protections for their agriculture and specific societal rights (Japan).
Basically these two deals offer both a great opportunity to those in favour of actually advancing capitalism, socialism (note, I'm talking in factual terms here, not hysterical US pseudo-definition of the word, which means that those two are fully compatible with one another as seen in Nordic states) and free trade in a more sustainable direction as well as for those who desire to use the deals to further de-claw sovereignty (and by extension democratic process).
For example a separate, professional tribunal for resolving state-corporate dispute without the problems of current arbitration processes, which is also completely transparent would be a great thing in encouraging investment without diminishing sovereignty to a degree where new laws for things like environmental protection couldn't be passed because of arbitration fears (already occurring process in Europe). Common standards for things not culturally significantly separate (i.e. not GMOs, livestock rights but for example common, streamlined certification process...) would also facilitate ease of trade between partners because a product made for one state, would also be suitable for direct sales in another.
Things like shady copyright tightening through mutual criminalization, or insistence of demolishing social sectors like state healthcare systems in the name of private profit over societal rights on the other hand are a great example of shady back door items being pushed in these agreements.
Please stop the stream of BS. Most of the tariffs and similar obstructions to free trade have BEEN LONG ELIMINATED BETWEEN US AND EU.
This agreement is about demolishing democracy as the last obstacle of "free trade" where "free trade" means "governments having any sovereign power left to actually be able to legislate for their constituents against the power of capital".
Let's get to the basics then, and see where it is that we differ:
1. Do you understand that "eating placenta" means it entering a digestive tract and being digested by it?
y/n?
2. Do you understand that said tracts are wildly different?
y/n?
3. Do you understand that as such, they are not directly comparable to one another in absorption rates of various nutrients?
y/n?
4. Do you understand that while hormones are largely shared among most mammals, their effects vary wildly depending on how specific systems in each mammals function?
y/n?
5. Do you understand that rats and humans have vastly different reproduction systems and reproduction cycles, making direct comparisons largely pointless?
y/n?
6. If you answered all the above correctly, "yes", than why are you still making an argument that requires several of said answers to be "no" to be in any way applicable to this situation?
If you answered no to some of the questions, please provide concrete evidence as to why you answered "no" to a question where "yes" appears to be an obvious choice.
So you are once again ignoring the facts that we have different:
1. Gastrointestinal act. 2. Reproduction cycle.
Blind assumption of same effect regardless of the fact that placenta would enter a different gastrointestinal tract in different species that have a different reproduction cycle and then have the exact same impact is idiotic, especially in the face of different study on that very species suggesting no such effect exists.
You debunk your own argument when you clearly agree with me by stating that it's merely a "good starting point".
As human study has shown, such effect is not present in humans. A good starting point that results in a study that shows that connection does not exist in another species with different reproduction cycle.
Except that rats have a different fertility cycle from humans. Which makes direct hormonal comparisons pointless.
They are also known to eat their own feces for nutrition. Which makes their gastrointestinal tract quite different.
Concluding presence of direct "medical effects" from these two key differences between species based on a rat study and ignoring the human study is frankly idiotic.
Nope. A lot of them are still expended on actions that don't go into the baby itself. You'll certainly get some of them back, which is why some species do in fact engage in eating some of their offspring, typically ones they identify as too weak to survive.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that you'd get taken to EHCR, and likely lose. This ruling was extremely narrow in scope and court went to great pains to emphasize this. Attempting to jury-rig it to fit broad scope censorship would fail for a number of reasons, many of which are listed in my post.
Indeed, this is straight up shock scaremongering. Original article itself in fact goes to state:
T J McIntyre, who is a lecturer in law and Chairman of Digital Rights Ireland, the lead organisation that won an important victory against EU data retention in the Court of Justice of the European Union last year, explained where things now stand. "Today's decision doesn't have any direct legal effect. It simply finds that Estonia's laws on site liability aren't incompatible with the ECHR. It doesn't directly require any change in national or EU law. Indirectly, however, it may be influential in further development of the law in a way which undermines freedom of expression. As a decision of the Grand Chamber of the ECHR it will be given weight by other courts and by legislative bodies."
Basis for decision:
The Grand Chamber emphasised a number of factors that led it to rule that Delfi was liable: the "extreme" nature of the comments which the court considered to amount to hate speech, the fact that they were published on a professionally-run and commercial news website, the insufficient measures taken by Delfi to weed out the comments in question and the low likelihood of a prosecution of the users who posted the comments, and the moderate sanction imposed on Delfi.
Basically the problem was the fact that the company was informed that comments were easily distinguished as illegal and refused to remove them. This does not mean a change to national legislation, or pre moderation or anything of the sorts. It simply means that if comments are easily distinguished as illegal, you can't just ignore the law and let them stay up. Court also notes that punishment is moderate and serves as a warning to follow the law hopefully without stifling free speech.
Overall, it looks like they did all they could on court's side to not make a decision against national hate speech laws without giving ammunition for broader call for censorship.
Considering the recent treatment Polish gastarbeiters got, or the fact that we have long standing conflict with them that had to be sorted out on governmental level about their waste issues in Gulf of Finland, I'm extremely confused where you got that idea.
Finland has a long standing history of neutrality, similar to Switzerland. We have no fight with Russians, and Russians are desperate enough to get us on their good side that they are willing to sell us cheap technology just to keep us neutral. Last news is that Rosatom is making an extremely good offer on third Loviisa reactor if we don't get any closer to joining NATO. We also recently opened new electric interconnects which allow us to sell surplus electricity to Russia. We have zero gas-related problems with Russia as we don't have any third party causing problems in between us, and we had no security issues on our border either. It's literally the calmest and most secure border they have, and they very much appreciate it.
As a point to make, when they recently opened a base to secure Murmansk and Arctic Ocean near our borders, region on the other side of the border invited personnel of the new base and their families to visit. That is how afraid of Russian military folks that have to live right next to Russian bases are here in Finland. Good business, calm border.
Suggesting that we are somehow pro-NATO in this conflict beyond the mandatory participation in EU sanctions is absurd. If anything, the current Polish line is considered damaging to regional security here in Finland - something our foreign minister of outgoing government made no qualms about voicing every once in a while. Not beneficial and certainly nothing to be supportive of.
As for the rest, I don't think you quite understand the problem. On one hand, you don't want to put your mission critical bases into politically unstable states. Poland still has serious stability issues, as we have seen with their conservative religious right wingers suddenly getting electable again on the platform of fear of Europe.
On the other hand there are issues of infrastructure. Poland is far less developed than Germany is. And moving bases is expensive, but getting new infrastructure that can support them installed is far more expensive. That is why current plans are to move to Northern Italy, rather than Poland according to leaks.
I'm not talking about current security situation in Eastern Europe, and as a Finn, I find your attempt to pretend we're allied with hysterical extremely right wing Poland distasteful at best. Pretty much the only ones we can see ourselves allied with and are in actual talks with on the topic is Sweden. We're not in NATO, not feeling threatened by Russia and mostly worried about the fact that worsening security situation is going to squeeze our finances even further.
Germany on the other hand houses the single most important part of US assets in Europe. They are home to intelligence nerve centres of most military and spying activities. Those are directly related to current spying situation. Then there's the recent scandal with satellite controls of US killer drones in Middle East, and in fact there has been an active discussion in Germany that it should act to investigate, as many activities revealed are either illegal or clearly attempting to circumvent German legislation. Attempt was strong enough for US to start making plans for alternative facilities in Italy. But building secure high end connections, radomes and so on in sufficient numbers takes a lot of time. So right now, they apparently managed to put a lid on the discussion through arguing that US breaking laws in Germany is not as important as Germany's relationship with US.
Which may be partially correct in the current security situation, but most certainly does remind Germans that ones acting most aggressively against their state come from the other side of Atlantic, nor from the East.
And that stuff is cumulating right now. Even Ukrainian poison pill given to Europe is starting to not be poisonous enough to make public overlook all the problems coming from other side of Atlantic. And that is not good for cohesion among the states that go under the umbrella of "Western states".
Which at the time of real issue, that of the fact that US is diminishing as world hegemon is very dangerous for all parties involved.
And then you use that as leverage to force NSA to give relevant people up. It really isn't hard on state level. US does this kind of "soft blackmail" all the time, as do other large states. Freeze key assets in "investigation" and require extensive cooperation from target state to expedite unfreezing.
It's not that I don't agree with your assessment for most part. I am just pointing out that if there was a political will to get to the bottom of this, Germany does have legal means to do so. I.e. the part of your argument of it "being too hard to do under current legal framework" being not true. Means are there, and they are genuinely not that hard if there is a will.
In this case, it just appears that there was no will. They didn't even really want to open the investigation in the first place after revelations came to light and it required the media uprising to get the ball going. So it indeed is not terribly surprising that when any kind of significant action was required to obtain a stronger case, this was used as an excuse to drop the case instead.
The problem being that Germany is one of the key nerve hubs of most of electronic spying activity in Europe and Middle East as many of the recent leaks have shown.
While relevant people may or may not be there, they could search the relevant hardware which is in fact on their soil.
That was in fact the specific reason why they ended the investigation. They found strong circumstantial evidence, but because of lack of cooperation from NSA, they could not get any direct evidence. So the case was closed, as NSA was unlikely to change its stance.
Considering the BND scandal, it's pretty likely that no political pressure was put on NSA to compromise. They were simply going to sweep this under the rug.
The bias is actually very visible in the article with the Freudian slip of "send Russians money" instead of "paying Russians for services rendered" which is the actual case.
It's pretty rare for fanboy crowd to slip that badly though. Usually it's at least masked as a more reasonable argument.
Wait, are you here suggesting that you can use one foot to brace your body against a car to prevent injury?
Do you at all comprehend the forces involved? Your entire musculature in this kind of situation is utterly miniscule and irrelevant.
I stand corrected.
This card has 400GB/sec throughput on memory. Not that far away, and that's just the first model limited to 4 stacks.
No idea where that imaginary goal of yours came from though. They always marked this as around 100TB/stack. And of course like all such memory, it's going to run in parallel, so the more stacks on die, the more bandwidth.
The problem is that BfV is hopelessly penetrated by US intelligence, as news in Germany has been in last few months. It's a huge scandal, where reporters blew in the open the fact that BfV was basically helping US intelligence spy on everything and everyone in Germany, ranging from Chancellor herself to straight up industrial espionage of German companies.
There has been a massive government effort to sweep these news under the rug, which suggests that BfV managed to get some very heavy dirt on almost everyone major in the political system, all the way to Merkel herself and then passed it on to US intelligence.
You do not know how nuclear EMP works. It's a result of three main components, two of which require direct interaction with ionosphere . Without this interaction, you're limited to approximately 10-15 km range in your EMP blast effect and these components do not cause inward resonance with Earth's magnetic field, which is where the strength and range comes from.
This is pretty much the same range that kinetic nuclear shockwave detonation would wipe out anyway.
Relevant reading:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
and its sources.
Solar flares are far weaker than high altitude nuclear detonation EMP, and only contain one of it's three main components.
As a result, grid doesn't need anywhere near the same kind of hardening against them.
EMP comes from high atmospheric detonation, not low. It's a result of nuclear bomb's energy interacting with upper layers of atmosphere. It doesn't occur in low altitude detonations.
On your last point, I don't think you quite understand just how much your suggestion would cost. There are far more significant and realistic threats to grid than EMP from nuclear blast, such as environmental disasters (remember tsunami that caused Fukushima's grid to fail, resulting in meltdown?) and in many cases and protection against those is still often considered too expensive.
Hormones work across species in varying ways. We share hormones like we share most biological components of our bodies across mammals simply due to the fact that due to our evolution, we share most of our genetic code. We also share most internal organs and proteins.
Where we differ is how these organs specifically work, as a part of the relevant processes. Digestive system is a great example here - while we mostly have similar digestive systems, they differ both due to gut flora types and species, and not just across herbivore-omnivore-carnivore axis, such as items being beneficial to one species like homo sapiens being lethally poisonous to others like canis lupus.
Reproductive system is another, and it's about as complex. It's regulated by massive amounts of SHARED HORMONES, but in some species, they trigger or shut down estrous cycle at certain periods, and in others they manage constant menstrual cycle for example.
Same hormones. Completely different effect controlled by them.
That is why microbiology is terrible at explaining process effects, and why we burn billions based on blind assumptions that oversimplify complex processes based on biology version of reductio ad absurdum. And then we get renal and liver failures from end products because whoops, our metabolic process is different and main organs that work in maintaining balance cannot cope.
Suggesting that just because we can effectively produce most of the hormones in other animals and artificial organs does not imply that these animals use these hormones in their processes in the same way. We merely know that we use the same hormones. That's it. And assuming more is what typically leads to very expensive medical research failures and rare successes when it actually does work as intended.
I once again ask you to answer the questionnaire I provided earlier so I can understand where it is exactly that we differ.
Actually, it's questionable, as recent very good Der Spiegel article sums it up:
http://www.spiegel.de/internat...
Almost everything said here applies to TTP, because TTP includes a country with significant protections for their agriculture and specific societal rights (Japan).
Basically these two deals offer both a great opportunity to those in favour of actually advancing capitalism, socialism (note, I'm talking in factual terms here, not hysterical US pseudo-definition of the word, which means that those two are fully compatible with one another as seen in Nordic states) and free trade in a more sustainable direction as well as for those who desire to use the deals to further de-claw sovereignty (and by extension democratic process).
For example a separate, professional tribunal for resolving state-corporate dispute without the problems of current arbitration processes, which is also completely transparent would be a great thing in encouraging investment without diminishing sovereignty to a degree where new laws for things like environmental protection couldn't be passed because of arbitration fears (already occurring process in Europe). Common standards for things not culturally significantly separate (i.e. not GMOs, livestock rights but for example common, streamlined certification process...) would also facilitate ease of trade between partners because a product made for one state, would also be suitable for direct sales in another.
Things like shady copyright tightening through mutual criminalization, or insistence of demolishing social sectors like state healthcare systems in the name of private profit over societal rights on the other hand are a great example of shady back door items being pushed in these agreements.
Please stop the stream of BS. Most of the tariffs and similar obstructions to free trade have BEEN LONG ELIMINATED BETWEEN US AND EU.
This agreement is about demolishing democracy as the last obstacle of "free trade" where "free trade" means "governments having any sovereign power left to actually be able to legislate for their constituents against the power of capital".
Let's get to the basics then, and see where it is that we differ:
1. Do you understand that "eating placenta" means it entering a digestive tract and being digested by it?
y/n?
2. Do you understand that said tracts are wildly different?
y/n?
3. Do you understand that as such, they are not directly comparable to one another in absorption rates of various nutrients?
y/n?
4. Do you understand that while hormones are largely shared among most mammals, their effects vary wildly depending on how specific systems in each mammals function?
y/n?
5. Do you understand that rats and humans have vastly different reproduction systems and reproduction cycles, making direct comparisons largely pointless?
y/n?
6. If you answered all the above correctly, "yes", than why are you still making an argument that requires several of said answers to be "no" to be in any way applicable to this situation?
If you answered no to some of the questions, please provide concrete evidence as to why you answered "no" to a question where "yes" appears to be an obvious choice.
Hormones have similar effects provided you test them on similar systems.
Systems involved in this case (reproductive system, digestive system) are wildly different.
So you are once again ignoring the facts that we have different:
1. Gastrointestinal act.
2. Reproduction cycle.
Blind assumption of same effect regardless of the fact that placenta would enter a different gastrointestinal tract in different species that have a different reproduction cycle and then have the exact same impact is idiotic, especially in the face of different study on that very species suggesting no such effect exists.
You debunk your own argument when you clearly agree with me by stating that it's merely a "good starting point".
As human study has shown, such effect is not present in humans. A good starting point that results in a study that shows that connection does not exist in another species with different reproduction cycle.
By that definition, any offspring is weak to survive in most species, as they have no means to avoid such a fate at birth.
Except that rats have a different fertility cycle from humans. Which makes direct hormonal comparisons pointless.
They are also known to eat their own feces for nutrition. Which makes their gastrointestinal tract quite different.
Concluding presence of direct "medical effects" from these two key differences between species based on a rat study and ignoring the human study is frankly idiotic.
Nope. A lot of them are still expended on actions that don't go into the baby itself. You'll certainly get some of them back, which is why some species do in fact engage in eating some of their offspring, typically ones they identify as too weak to survive.