Glycerin and Propylene Glycol (my mistake), and yes. Glycerin is basically carbohydrate and won't damage your lungs any more than water (there's water vapor in the air; if you fill your lungs with water, you'll damage them). PG is toxic if you chug large amounts of it, I think? It's pretty tame.
Remember people can pop 2mg of Amphetamine and be awake; they can take 2g of Amphetamine and be dead. They can take 2mcg Amphetamine and have no biological response. Similarly, Tylenol metabolizes via three different enzymes, one of which produces an extremely toxic compound--which doesn't do anything harmful until you exceed your liver's capacity to clear it out, at which point you suddenly experience liver failure.
Just checked: There are NO valid medical uses for nicotine. Now, you were saying?
Nicotine is a POISON. There is NO REASON why anyone should be voluntarily taking it into their bodies.
Are you a smoker, defending your nicotine addiction? I think it likely, and if so then I can't take your arguments seriously anyway. So how about you stop poisoning yourself, then we'll talk mkay?
Sorry, I have only smoked a total of 4 cigarettes in my life. I kinda liked the last one, and so said to myself "This is your decision point". And never smoked again.
But my comments were not really in defense of any one substance; just pointing out that there are lots of "poisons" that have "legitimate" uses as well.
In fact, you must not have "checked" very well. This was the third Google entry on the first results page:
So, backing up to the top of your comment, you are saying that the scary-sounding "glycerin vapor", and even more scary-sounding polyethylglycol, which sounds like Anti-Freeze, are actually entirely innocuous when converted to vapor and inhaled. Repeatedly?
Compared to tobacco smoke, I'd say yes.
I'd also venture it's healthier than breathing the air on a sidewalk in Manhattan.
Would you prefer people died of smoking-related diseases and inflict second hand smoke on others, rather than risking as-yet-not totally-understood risks from vaping?
Nothing is perfect, everything comes with trade-offs and compromises. Choose your poison.
Strat
I was actually directing my question to bluefoxlucid, who seemed to have the chemistry-knowledge to answer it.
I was not intending it as a challenge as to whether vaping is safer than cigarette smoking; of COURSE it iS!
But, I have wondered about the other stuff in the vape solution, other than the nicotine; how safe it was, period, rather than how safe it is relative to tobacco smoke.
Who asked for the original Macintosh or iPhone either?
Neither of those require giving up private information for a product. Do we need facial rec. to unlock a stupid phone? Heck, no. You could easily come up with a dozen, quick means to unlock a phone, that did not involve privacy violation. So we can assume this method was deliberately chosen to invade the privacy of users.
1. Apple's FaceID Facial Recognition, including Enrollment, is done entirely on the iPhone. And any Recognition Data on the phone is stored in the Secure Enclave, inaccessible to everyone, including Apple. So there simply isn't any treasure-trove of Facial Recognition data for anyone to scoop up.
2. The Facial Recognition data stored in the Secure Enclave cannot be used to reconstruct the Face that is Enrolled. Again, nothing to be gained, even if someone could manage to extract the FaceID data from the phone in the first place.
3. Apple did not invest the large cost to develop FaceID (which is not just a Kinect), and more importantly, did not add the cost of the FaceID hardware to the cost of the iPhone X, thus increasing the price of the phone, on a whim. Market pressures to increase screen area without increasing overall phone size, versus the apparently so-far insurmountable technical difficulties in integrating a TouchID sensor-like function into the Display assembly (which is what Apple wanted to do), added-up to making Facial Recognition the only PRACTICAL solution.
4. Placing a TouchID sensor on the back of the phone is a singularly horrible idea from a usability standpoint, and thus would have been instantly, and rightly, rejected by Apple's Product Design team for the iPhone. While most Users CAN reach a touch sensor located on the back of the phone, some cannot; but much more importantly, it forms a blind, poorly-locate-able Target, for something you would likely use several times per day. Whereas, Apple's FaceID system provides a simple to "hit" target, as it apparently works at almost any angle, so long as the camera and illuminator can see all the parts of the face it uses for its Recognition. And it also still uses the side of the phone that users normally deal with, rather than creating a blind "UI" Target on the side opposite of the one Users normally deal with.
5. You can use a Passcode/Passphrase if you don't like FaceID for whatever reason. Apple isn't forcing this on anybody.
We're ingesting chemicals in ways that aren't exactly natural.
Actually, you're either ingesting a non-toxic natural glycerin vapor or an even-less-toxic synthetic polyethylglycol, plus a natural toxic alkaloid. It wouldn't be much more toxic if you ate it; for that matter, if the plant is wet, don't touch it.
Nicotine will fuck you up. Also, try ingesting a ton of ephedra--you'll get chest pains and die, thanks to a toxic alkaloid called Ephedrine, which is methamphetamine with an extra oxygen atom at the beta bind site (it's got a hydroxide there instead of a hydrogen). I guess that would be n-methyl-alpha-methyl-beta-hydroxy-phenyl-ethyl-amine.
So, backing up to the top of your comment, you are saying that the scary-sounding "glycerin vapor", and even more scary-sounding polyethylglycol, which sounds like Anti-Freeze, are actually entirely innocuous when converted to vapor and inhaled. Repeatedly?
Seriously, that's the real thing I worry about with vaping tobacco "juice". And obviously you have some knowledge of the chemistry involved; so I'd like you to weigh-in on my question, thanks!
However it seems to me it's a bit of a logical leap to do something which transiently increases inflammatory markers and then assume that means the subject's chances of getting a specific inflammatory disease are increased. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the paper.
You know what else causes transitory inflammatory response?
You know what else causes transitory inflammatory response?
Nitric Oxide. A/K/A "Molecule of the Year" in 1992, and responsible for a Nobel Prize in 1998, for its discovery as an essential ingredient in dozens of life-processes in the body.
should be compared with cigarettes not with nicotine-less ecigs
You might have a point if e-cigs were prescription only medical device used to treat smoking addiction. It has been hyped as being as benign as coffee.
You wouldn't WANT a computer to reboot when you pressed one key
Remember those Macs with the power button on the keyboard? I seem to recall that many 8 bit computers had software and games written in BASIC, and one key press would interrupt and dump you to a BASIC prompt, losing all your work/progress.
Yes, one key reboot/power/interrupt is generally a terrible idea.
The Power Key on Macs was entirely different.
You could press it when the Power was Off, and the Computer would Start Up.
However, if you pressed it when the Power was ON, the only thing that happened was that it raised the "Do you want to Shut Down?" Dialog. So, there was virtually no possibility that Users could suddenly power-down their Mac by accident.
Yes, you could HOLD the Power Key for several (around 5) seconds, and the computer would "Suicide"; but that was considered a pretty deliberate action (unless your cat was really clever...)
The original Apple ][ had a single-key "Reset" key, right about where the "Esc" key would be.
Users hated it.
Some Users hated it SO much, they took to putting an O-Ring under the Reset Key, so it was hard to push.
Apple got the hint, and rev'ed the Keyboard to require the Ctrl Key to be pressed in unison with the Reset (Crtrl-Reset). This was even made more specific when the "Open Apple/Solid Apple" Keys were introduced. Ctrl-Reset did a "Soft" Reset, and Ctrl-Open Apple-Reset did essentially a Power-On Reset.
Moral of the Story: If Gates hadn't invented Ctrl-Alt-Delete, Angry DOS/Windows users WOULD have!
Actually, Windows has had a backup utility called "NTBackup" for quite awhile, and then there's the Volume Snapshot Backup. But neither is as simple to setup nor administer as Time Machine. Not by a LONG shot.
Did those back up applications as well? I had the first occasion to restore an entire volume from scratch from Time machine a few weeks ago, and it was flawless. Just haven't been able to figure why nothing like that made it to Windows.
Yeah, isn't that cool?!?
I have had two occasions to do it; both flawless. One was after replacing an HD in an early Intel iMac, and the other time was when replacing that iMac with a 2017 iMac running Sierra (from aTM backup from a Snow Leopard based machine). As I said, both were: Start Resore. Wait. Reboot. Done.
Windows just has never understood "usability". Never have, never will.
If Windows users don't know what Time Machine does, they shouldn't be commenting here.
The big question for me is why on earth isn't there a backup utility like Time Machine for Windows baked right into the OS?
Because Windows sucks?
Actually, Windows has had a backup utility called "NTBackup" for quite awhile, and then there's the Volume Snapshot Backup. But neither is as simple to setup nor administer as Time Machine. Not by a LONG shot.
He said "wont back up to drives that have been upgraded to APFS" not "won't back up from drives that have been upgraded to APFS". Nothing implies that you can use Time Machine to back up to an APFS volume.
It's okay to upgrade. Just pray you were not one of the beta testers who 'upgraded' a drive that was not well backed up.
And if you are doing that without taking the drop-dead-simple step of making a Time Machine backup first, you deserve just EXACTLY what you get, sorry!
Sorry, my response got eaten...
If Windows users don't know what Time Machine does, they shouldn't be commenting here.
Be nice. Windows users don't even know what Time Machine does.
It's okay to upgrade. Just pray you were not one of the beta testers who 'upgraded' a drive that was not well backed up.
And if you are doing that without taking the drop-dead-simple step of making a Time Machine backup first, you deserve just EXACTLY what you get, sorry!
Then they shouldn't be commenting.
Be nice. Windows users don't even know what Time Machine does.
It IS definitely news for the users who have been running High Sierra beta. Their fusion drives have been running the new file system and will have to be reverted.
Fusion Drives are a PERFORMANCE-centric improvement, NOT a "Cost-Savings Measure".
You know what performs even better? SSDs. But they are expensive.
So suck it, moron.
If you ever finish sucking the Apple cock, maybe someone else could have a go.
1. SSD's were REALLY expensive (and "wearout" was a real concern) five or so years ago, when Apple came up with the idea of Fusion Drives (and the OS support that makes it work well). Fusion Drives were a way to get the Boot-Performance improvements (primarily) of an SSD, while still allowing for a large overall storage, and without concerns for wearout for often-updated data.
2. Are you volunteering for cocksucking duties? 'Cause I've got one right here for ya...
Did you even read the summary? It is coming OUT of beta and is a PUBLIC release. Presumably, if you update and have a fusion drive it won't work. So, if you were unaware, that would be a rude surprise, correct? This is important news that needs to be released, otherwise - DESPITE the PUBLIC RELEASE - your hardware might not work. Turn your fanboy down a couple notches.
Did YOU even read TFS?
They are removing support for APFS for Fusion Drives in the GM of High Sierra.
Those who didn't participate in the Public Beta won't feel a thing. Their Fusion Drives will REMAIN HFS+, like they always were.
Those who DID participate in the Public Beta were warned. Repeatedly. If they converted their only copy of their Boot Drive without taking the simple step of a Time Machine Backup, AND they did so on their ONLY computer, lthen, guess what? TFB.
Agreed. Also worrisome is that Time Machine won't back up to drives that have been upgraded to APFS.
Wrong.
Early versions of High Sierra Beta had issues with Time Machine and APFS Volumes; but those appear to be fixed.
Otherwise, why would Apple's Instructions for REVERTING a Fusion Drive from APFS to HFS+ Start like this:
"Apple provided a set of instructions to help those users convert their Fusion Drives back from APFS to the standard HFS+ format before installing the High Sierra update. The instructions include backing up data using Time Machine,"
You don't provide device support with a filesystem in a beta and then remove it in the GA release unless something significant was found wrong with it. Like fundamentally wrong with it rather than just a collection of bugs. If I was a beta tester with a fusion drive I would be rather worried now about the state of my data.
Funny how there has been ZERO horror-stories from ANYWHERE about APFS, regardless of the storage medium. Perhaps you need to dial-down your Hater quotient.
Slashdot Mirror
Glycerin and Propylene Glycol (my mistake), and yes. Glycerin is basically carbohydrate and won't damage your lungs any more than water (there's water vapor in the air; if you fill your lungs with water, you'll damage them). PG is toxic if you chug large amounts of it, I think? It's pretty tame.
Remember people can pop 2mg of Amphetamine and be awake; they can take 2g of Amphetamine and be dead. They can take 2mcg Amphetamine and have no biological response. Similarly, Tylenol metabolizes via three different enzymes, one of which produces an extremely toxic compound--which doesn't do anything harmful until you exceed your liver's capacity to clear it out, at which point you suddenly experience liver failure.
You don't take much PG in from vaporizers.
Thanks muchly for the clarification!
Just checked: There are NO valid medical uses for nicotine. Now, you were saying?
Nicotine is a POISON. There is NO REASON why anyone should be voluntarily taking it into their bodies.
Are you a smoker, defending your nicotine addiction? I think it likely, and if so then I can't take your arguments seriously anyway. So how about you stop poisoning yourself, then we'll talk mkay?
Sorry, I have only smoked a total of 4 cigarettes in my life. I kinda liked the last one, and so said to myself "This is your decision point". And never smoked again.
But my comments were not really in defense of any one substance; just pointing out that there are lots of "poisons" that have "legitimate" uses as well.
In fact, you must not have "checked" very well. This was the third Google entry on the first results page:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
So, backing up to the top of your comment, you are saying that the scary-sounding "glycerin vapor", and even more scary-sounding polyethylglycol, which sounds like Anti-Freeze, are actually entirely innocuous when converted to vapor and inhaled. Repeatedly?
Compared to tobacco smoke, I'd say yes.
I'd also venture it's healthier than breathing the air on a sidewalk in Manhattan.
Would you prefer people died of smoking-related diseases and inflict second hand smoke on others, rather than risking as-yet-not totally-understood risks from vaping?
Nothing is perfect, everything comes with trade-offs and compromises. Choose your poison.
Strat
I was actually directing my question to bluefoxlucid, who seemed to have the chemistry-knowledge to answer it.
I was not intending it as a challenge as to whether vaping is safer than cigarette smoking; of COURSE it iS!
But, I have wondered about the other stuff in the vape solution, other than the nicotine; how safe it was, period, rather than how safe it is relative to tobacco smoke.
Who asked for the original Macintosh or iPhone either?
Neither of those require giving up private information for a product. Do we need facial rec. to unlock a stupid phone? Heck, no. You could easily come up with a dozen, quick means to unlock a phone, that did not involve privacy violation. So we can assume this method was deliberately chosen to invade the privacy of users.
1. Apple's FaceID Facial Recognition, including Enrollment, is done entirely on the iPhone. And any Recognition Data on the phone is stored in the Secure Enclave, inaccessible to everyone, including Apple. So there simply isn't any treasure-trove of Facial Recognition data for anyone to scoop up.
2. The Facial Recognition data stored in the Secure Enclave cannot be used to reconstruct the Face that is Enrolled. Again, nothing to be gained, even if someone could manage to extract the FaceID data from the phone in the first place.
3. Apple did not invest the large cost to develop FaceID (which is not just a Kinect), and more importantly, did not add the cost of the FaceID hardware to the cost of the iPhone X, thus increasing the price of the phone, on a whim. Market pressures to increase screen area without increasing overall phone size, versus the apparently so-far insurmountable technical difficulties in integrating a TouchID sensor-like function into the Display assembly (which is what Apple wanted to do), added-up to making Facial Recognition the only PRACTICAL solution.
4. Placing a TouchID sensor on the back of the phone is a singularly horrible idea from a usability standpoint, and thus would have been instantly, and rightly, rejected by Apple's Product Design team for the iPhone. While most Users CAN reach a touch sensor located on the back of the phone, some cannot; but much more importantly, it forms a blind, poorly-locate-able Target, for something you would likely use several times per day. Whereas, Apple's FaceID system provides a simple to "hit" target, as it apparently works at almost any angle, so long as the camera and illuminator can see all the parts of the face it uses for its Recognition. And it also still uses the side of the phone that users normally deal with, rather than creating a blind "UI" Target on the side opposite of the one Users normally deal with.
5. You can use a Passcode/Passphrase if you don't like FaceID for whatever reason. Apple isn't forcing this on anybody.
6. You can simply buy another phone.
We're ingesting chemicals in ways that aren't exactly natural.
Actually, you're either ingesting a non-toxic natural glycerin vapor or an even-less-toxic synthetic polyethylglycol, plus a natural toxic alkaloid. It wouldn't be much more toxic if you ate it; for that matter, if the plant is wet, don't touch it.
Nicotine will fuck you up. Also, try ingesting a ton of ephedra--you'll get chest pains and die, thanks to a toxic alkaloid called Ephedrine, which is methamphetamine with an extra oxygen atom at the beta bind site (it's got a hydroxide there instead of a hydrogen). I guess that would be n-methyl-alpha-methyl-beta-hydroxy-phenyl-ethyl-amine.
So, backing up to the top of your comment, you are saying that the scary-sounding "glycerin vapor", and even more scary-sounding polyethylglycol, which sounds like Anti-Freeze, are actually entirely innocuous when converted to vapor and inhaled. Repeatedly?
Seriously, that's the real thing I worry about with vaping tobacco "juice". And obviously you have some knowledge of the chemistry involved; so I'd like you to weigh-in on my question, thanks!
However it seems to me it's a bit of a logical leap to do something which transiently increases inflammatory markers and then assume that means the subject's chances of getting a specific inflammatory disease are increased. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the paper.
You know what else causes transitory inflammatory response?
Niacin (Nicotinic Acid). A/K/A VITAMIN B3.
https://articles.mercola.com/s...
You know what else causes transitory inflammatory response?
Nitric Oxide. A/K/A "Molecule of the Year" in 1992, and responsible for a Nobel Prize in 1998, for its discovery as an essential ingredient in dozens of life-processes in the body.
http://circ.ahajournals.org/co...
You know what else causes transitory inflammatory response?
Orgams.
'Nuff said!
THIS JUST IN: Inhaling a known POISON (nicotine) is BAD FOR YOU! Film at Eleven!
..yeah, nothing to see here, is there?
Warfarin (Rat Poison) is also, obviously, a poison.
It is also a medicine given to help reduce the tendency to form blood clots, which also, obviously, kill.
So, what's your point, again?
should be compared with cigarettes not with nicotine-less ecigs
You might have a point if e-cigs were prescription only medical device used to treat smoking addiction. It has been hyped as being as benign as coffee.
Where?
The important bit is that when compared they should be compared with cigarettes not with nicotine-less ecigs or dummy e-cigs.
EXACTLY!
How much ya wanna bet that this research was stealth (or not stealth) funded by someone with Tobacco interests at stake...
All posts downstream of the whoosh comment are invalid fruit of a poisoned tree 4th Amendment violation.
LOL!
You wouldn't WANT a computer to reboot when you pressed one key
Remember those Macs with the power button on the keyboard? I seem to recall that many 8 bit computers had software and games written in BASIC, and one key press would interrupt and dump you to a BASIC prompt, losing all your work/progress.
Yes, one key reboot/power/interrupt is generally a terrible idea.
The Power Key on Macs was entirely different.
You could press it when the Power was Off, and the Computer would Start Up.
However, if you pressed it when the Power was ON, the only thing that happened was that it raised the "Do you want to Shut Down?" Dialog. So, there was virtually no possibility that Users could suddenly power-down their Mac by accident.
Yes, you could HOLD the Power Key for several (around 5) seconds, and the computer would "Suicide"; but that was considered a pretty deliberate action (unless your cat was really clever...)
The original Apple ][ had a single-key "Reset" key, right about where the "Esc" key would be.
Users hated it.
Some Users hated it SO much, they took to putting an O-Ring under the Reset Key, so it was hard to push.
Apple got the hint, and rev'ed the Keyboard to require the Ctrl Key to be pressed in unison with the Reset (Crtrl-Reset). This was even made more specific when the "Open Apple/Solid Apple" Keys were introduced. Ctrl-Reset did a "Soft" Reset, and Ctrl-Open Apple-Reset did essentially a Power-On Reset.
Moral of the Story: If Gates hadn't invented Ctrl-Alt-Delete, Angry DOS/Windows users WOULD have!
Nice try.
As of the current macOS beta, you will get the following message is Time Machine tries to backup to an AFPS drive:
"Time Machine couldn’t complete the backup. The backup disk is not in Mac OS Extended (Journaled) format, which is required."
You can use Time Machine restore TO an AFPS drive, but you can not back up to an AFPS drive until Apple provides a fix.
Oh, did I imply differently? If so, I apologize!
Time Machine will NOT run ON an APFS drive (yet); but you CAN use an APFS drive as a SOURCE to BE Backed-Up.
Because Windows sucks?
Actually, Windows has had a backup utility called "NTBackup" for quite awhile, and then there's the Volume Snapshot Backup. But neither is as simple to setup nor administer as Time Machine. Not by a LONG shot.
Did those back up applications as well? I had the first occasion to restore an entire volume from scratch from Time machine a few weeks ago, and it was flawless. Just haven't been able to figure why nothing like that made it to Windows.
Yeah, isn't that cool?!?
I have had two occasions to do it; both flawless. One was after replacing an HD in an early Intel iMac, and the other time was when replacing that iMac with a 2017 iMac running Sierra (from aTM backup from a Snow Leopard based machine). As I said, both were: Start Resore. Wait. Reboot. Done.
Windows just has never understood "usability". Never have, never will.
Sorry, my response got eaten...
If Windows users don't know what Time Machine does, they shouldn't be commenting here.
The big question for me is why on earth isn't there a backup utility like Time Machine for Windows baked right into the OS?
Because Windows sucks?
Actually, Windows has had a backup utility called "NTBackup" for quite awhile, and then there's the Volume Snapshot Backup. But neither is as simple to setup nor administer as Time Machine. Not by a LONG shot.
He said "wont back up to drives that have been upgraded to APFS" not "won't back up from drives that have been upgraded to APFS". Nothing implies that you can use Time Machine to back up to an APFS volume.
Learn to read.
It's okay to upgrade. Just pray you were not one of the beta testers who 'upgraded' a drive that was not well backed up.
And if you are doing that without taking the drop-dead-simple step of making a Time Machine backup first, you deserve just EXACTLY what you get, sorry!
Sorry, my response got eaten...
If Windows users don't know what Time Machine does, they shouldn't be commenting here.
Be nice. Windows users don't even know what Time Machine does.
It's okay to upgrade. Just pray you were not one of the beta testers who 'upgraded' a drive that was not well backed up.
And if you are doing that without taking the drop-dead-simple step of making a Time Machine backup first, you deserve just EXACTLY what you get, sorry!
Then they shouldn't be commenting.
Be nice. Windows users don't even know what Time Machine does.
It IS definitely news for the users who have been running High Sierra beta. Their fusion drives have been running the new file system and will have to be reverted.
And they weren't warned?
When I'm posting this, you account for 24.2% of the replies to this story. Are you sure you're the fake one?
Sorry. Just on a roll, and bored at work...
Fusion Drives are a PERFORMANCE-centric improvement, NOT a "Cost-Savings Measure".
You know what performs even better? SSDs. But they are expensive.
So suck it, moron.
If you ever finish sucking the Apple cock, maybe someone else could have a go.
1. SSD's were REALLY expensive (and "wearout" was a real concern) five or so years ago, when Apple came up with the idea of Fusion Drives (and the OS support that makes it work well). Fusion Drives were a way to get the Boot-Performance improvements (primarily) of an SSD, while still allowing for a large overall storage, and without concerns for wearout for often-updated data.
2. Are you volunteering for cocksucking duties? 'Cause I've got one right here for ya...
I'm not a fanboy. Why would I waste my time watching an hour long ad for Apple's shit?
And clearly, the results are shit don't work.
Then why do you feel compelled to comment?
Shit DOES work; there are ZERO horror stories coming from the Public Beta. Apple is just hedging their bets.
Did you even read the summary? It is coming OUT of beta and is a PUBLIC release. Presumably, if you update and have a fusion drive it won't work. So, if you were unaware, that would be a rude surprise, correct? This is important news that needs to be released, otherwise - DESPITE the PUBLIC RELEASE - your hardware might not work. Turn your fanboy down a couple notches.
Did YOU even read TFS?
They are removing support for APFS for Fusion Drives in the GM of High Sierra.
Those who didn't participate in the Public Beta won't feel a thing. Their Fusion Drives will REMAIN HFS+, like they always were.
Those who DID participate in the Public Beta were warned. Repeatedly. If they converted their only copy of their Boot Drive without taking the simple step of a Time Machine Backup, AND they did so on their ONLY computer, lthen, guess what? TFB.
That is all.
Agreed. Also worrisome is that Time Machine won't back up to drives that have been upgraded to APFS.
Wrong.
Early versions of High Sierra Beta had issues with Time Machine and APFS Volumes; but those appear to be fixed.
Otherwise, why would Apple's Instructions for REVERTING a Fusion Drive from APFS to HFS+ Start like this:
"Apple provided a set of instructions to help those users convert their Fusion Drives back from APFS to the standard HFS+ format before installing the High Sierra update. The instructions include backing up data using Time Machine,"
You don't provide device support with a filesystem in a beta and then remove it in the GA release unless something significant was found wrong with it. Like fundamentally wrong with it rather than just a collection of bugs. If I was a beta tester with a fusion drive I would be rather worried now about the state of my data.
Funny how there has been ZERO horror-stories from ANYWHERE about APFS, regardless of the storage medium. Perhaps you need to dial-down your Hater quotient.