It's just one more slap-dash fix in a creaky operating system riddled with legacy APIs that are now being easily strangled with NSA-ware. Adding strict user space is what made XP SP2 somewhat tenable, but this is just one more embarrassing and glaring hole, and IMHO, a great reason to take a serious look at devops and agile as software development models. Windows 10 isn't new; it's the lipstick on a pig made from thousands and thousands of attempts to get it right.
I'm just entirely shocked that Microsoft's stock price hasn't cratered into the pit it deserves. Don't think that the current wave isn't the last or best; ransomware will be iteratively released until bitcoin shoots past $10,000/coin.
The same goes for paper tape, cloads, etc. None and nothing is totally immune from tampering...... somehow.
This is why chains of authorities are so important, and why security certificate infrastructure and blockchain so useful..... until spoofed certificates and muddied blockchains are discovered.
Nothing is foolproof because fools are so ingenious.
Even when the source is Reuters, unnamed parties quoted in an article of any kind is sufficient motive to cast enormous doubt up on the veracity of the information imparted.
Fakes news, propaganda, gov't-sponsored memes, these are all tools of the "unnamed". It can therefore be considered as clickbait fodder and nothing more.....
No one's analyzed the emulator code to my knowledge, to understand if it's indeed an x64/AMD instruction set.... but we know that there is a 32-bit variant, and so, whose x86 is it, anyway?
How one arrives at an instruction execution matters very much in terms of predictability, state machine, even mundane stuff like bus timings and core cohesiveness/thread control/state.
I don't think Microsoft will be the litigant... and I believe Intel will try to cow its OEMs. And I believe they'll fail, having held so many of them hostage for so long. They used to be part of the gravy train, but now they're part of the fief.
And so, going down the same rabbit hole, for every claim on an unexpired patent, there'll be a work-around. Instead of fighting all of this, Intel could just take ARM licensing and make their own silicon and oh yeah, have to deal with competition.
If Microsoft can turn 180 in a decade on Linux, Intel can turn in five years to ARM. The Atom family has been cute, but does Intel have even a tiny fraction of the smartphone and tablet market? So how did that work for ya, Intel? Hmmmm?
I personally think that processor emulation is a recipe for disaster, but these days, but a few people even understand RISC vs CISC arguments.... they understand instead, battery life and perceived application performance and don't give a whit if Intel is inside, or AMD, or Snapdragon, etc. Let them beat the lawyer drums, the last sound made from a dying innovator.
I snicker. I restore cars. There are tools I have and can't afford/don't need. Dealers don't understand ABS well, and their techs don't know how to repair it well. I have lots of admittedly anecdotal evidence to point to. Some of the 1990s ABS designs are worse than none at all. Today, it's a bit better. And some vendors train their techs better or put better instructions into Mitchell.
Let me branch to driverless cars, another problem looking for a spot marked X. In 48yrs of driving, I've seen too many accidents, and many of them would have been compounded by driverless vehicles smashing into the results of them, or perhaps not stopping to aid injured people. Here again, I have no comfort with the possibilities of driverless AI.
Yes, I like passenger safety, too. We have zero data on pilotless accidents because we don't keep track of drones, even in the military, in a way that produces feedback to the vendor/pilot as regards safety components, strategies, etc. A failure in ILS can be devastating if no active pilot can take over.
The ILS glide path is a thing of beauty. Well-understood, and highly protected-- because if it fails, we're back to manual landing. Will AI know when to abort a landing? Do we make AI do 1000 touch-and-goes before we certify it? Make it land at coastal airports where wind shift and shear are common? What's the regimen? How can we know the success of AI? We've been using human pilots for 115yrs... and AI? How long of a base and foundation does it really have?
And they have to do all of this in near or actual real-time, summoning the actions of possibilities of thousands and thousands of actions, and do it right, just like a pilot with several years experience, and make the sensation essentially a normal day for passengers.
I never said pilots were infallible. I'd rather die in a crash caused by a pilot, than AI.
You can pitch ABS as an example of modern design wisdom; and as a subsystem, it's true-- usually. It adds lots of complexity and most drivers don't know how to use it.... and technicians can't repair them well.
Multiple control surfaces in play are a candidate for systems control because of multiple concurrent variables. It's merely a capex vs opex shift in where you put the investment-- sophisticated control plane systems (which are also proprietary vendor-to-vendor, and not heterogeneous in a meaningful way) or in pilot training and opex salaries. I'd rather employ pilots. I like humans; I am one.
Or a busy airport pushes planes out with a low ceiling on climb. Some nameless fool is using a RaspberryPi3 and doing pirate radio that nulls out the vision system. Engines fail, maybe both. The plane is overloaded with fuel to begin with, for a long flight. Suddenly the options are thin.
Siri? What do we do now? Several tugs and ferries are on the water landing zone, and that unpleasant silence of no thrust is pounding in whose ears? No ears.
It will take a very, very long time before AI can replace human pilots, fallible as they are. What happens when the ILS goes down in the middle of a windy thunderstorm? I've had wind push the tail so hard that we were landing sideways, but lived to tell about it. Feel free to search on windy landings, especially one made of a day at DUS to decide just how much you trust a Boeing program on the rudder pedals.
So many industries are pushing to get rid of transportation drivers because of their supposed costs that it's almost a mantra among the MBAs in transportation companies, who have nickled and dimed us to death. Those pesky pilot unions, always wanting more..... yet many pilots get paid less than bus drivers. It's all about playing to the greed of airlines, who loathe the next political disaster that craters their stock.... and their pension funding (looking at you, United).
Oh wait, they have Kubernetes! And computers and stuff. Big coder-thinkers, and cars with no drivers! They can do it! C'mon, Googlies, you can do it!
All that big data stuff is full of great information for everyone! Especially the US Government. Wow, I'm sure they're going to do this, it would be so helpful to everyone, right? Do no harm! That's their motto! I love them! They'll do the right thing, I just know it!!!!
Yeah, Alien Morse Code, sent at two words per Earth year rotation.
This is clickbait, albeit interesting clickbait. What else could it be. Hmmm.
- a local black hole bends light elsewhere - fast dark matter - their sun is fully quantum entangled with a Heisenberg experiment conducted in Los Alamos in 1948, but who knew? - big fat asteroid rock with lots of holes in it, kind of a cosmic peep show - first evidence of cosmic blinking
Were this a trend, it would be horrific, of course. But the problem is manyfold, and my objections lay around the lurid headline, coupled to what amounts to anecdotal data, spiced with teases and clickbait pullquotes.
So, not a trend, a dozen sites, no the sites aren't being adequately assayed, yes might be ugly, and no, does not represent nor mirror a worldwide trend.
There is an enormous number of people that actually don't believe that climate change is happening, and/or that it's man-made. Some aren't quite so much stupid, as allowed to be presented with conflicting information that lets them dismiss the notions because of crap articles like this one.
The title should be: Alarming data found in an insect count-- a trend? Under that aegis, and not tied together with limp noodle notions, one presents the data. That wasn't done. And so it's not so much useless, but does damage by allowing those that look at the data and say, wtf-- just a few sites? Might be a Round-Up binge.... to shake their heads in disgust.
The scope increases to perhaps twelve sites. Note how many other sites are mentioned. It would make nice research. A global clickbait phenomenon, it's not, although the global probable decline is onerous.
My math skills say: needs a lots more research until you can tie these factoids together. Even boolean algebra says correlation!=causation. Causation still must be causation.
You can make broad-brush statements all you want, but:
This was ONE SITE, not the entire country, the EU, or the world.
ONE SITE. You need to know about the ONE SITE because that's where the data lays.
The rest of the sites have had linear and mercurial declines. But the article isn't a broad, or even area-wide statistical analysis. ONE SITE. This is why science journalism gets a bad name.
No. You have your fingers in your ears. Or eyes. Your body survives more on fat and protein; synthesizing glucose is as you say, bio101. But you don't need to eat sugar, or consumer carbohydrates by mouth. You'll get mightily constipated if you don't eat some fiber, but that's another thread.
Sugar is horrifically addictive. I'm sorry I misidentified your quip. Sometimes, deep in the depths of defocusing to watch a slashdot rant, my humor escapes me. I'm caught instead in the morass of diffusing industry propaganda, and sometimes my finger is itchy on the trigger. Bad excuse, but it's the only one I have.
Please, please, before you embarrass yourself further, get the update. Yeah, it takes work and takes reading what the fat/protein/insulin/glucose(other sugars, too) cycle is and how your pancreas deals with the aforementioned. Your cellular biology is but a discrete datum within a larger but understandable algorithm. Really. I'm not joshing, and I've been a deep researcher for 20yrs. Read the aforementioned material to understand it algorithmically, instead of as a binary, discrete component. You get glucose for your precious cells, but eating carbs and sugars is also contained in aforementioned information. Then you'll know: You can drop carbs, and be healthier for it. You get all the nutrition you need from veggies and protein consumption and fat. Read it. Please.
Not true, at all. The US was a hodgepodge of phone companies, state tariffs, interstate tariffs, intrastate tariffs, LATAs, and was owned by a lot of co-ops. Some still remain... use Cincinnati Bell as an example.
But the *Interstate* and International walls that AT&T built made it devilishly hard to compete with. There was ITT, and a handful of others doing this. The "Bell System" became a storied, non-innovating monolithic retirement plan.
AT&T Long Lines used to use refrigerator-sized behemoths to cart data at an astounding 56Kbaud. They had good engineering designed for a 20yr depreciation schedule tailored to the profits of AT&T.
Can Google be broken up? EASILY. Alphabet made it simple for a Taft-Hartley Act action, but it won't happen. Why? The US DOJ can barely find a keyboard, let alone understand the tech industry. There is no motivation to kill what are considered cash cows. Let's not discuss those pesky offshore trillions in profits, but no, the Google Ad Words oil pumps the oil from the basement, and is untouchable.
Dude, you and your source are very far behind the actual physiology of nutrition. You get more than enough carbs eating veggies. Excess protein converts to carbs. To diet, read about ketosis, as it's the basis of Adkin's, Paleo, and so many other successful diets. Why? Because they cut carbs to a very reasonable amount. Notice now: I didn't say eliminate them. But the amount of one Cliff Bar is more than you need for TWO DAYs worth of carbohydrates. Really. Look.It.Up.
Very seriously, you need to get the update. Start with Dr Bernstein's The Diabetes Solution, or any book by Gary Taubes. You'll be glad you did.
Then, start to understand why your body stores fat (it burns it) and how insulin works. You'll be miles ahead, and highly enlightened.
Sure they go up and down. Groceries and seasons and promotions and vendor coupons and gimickery of loss-leaders, endcap-profits, there are lots of pricing rubrics in a grocery, but they are pretty small.
Earlier when I wrote this, gasoline was around $1.99. This afternoon, everyone jumped up to $2.35. It will then avalanche for a while, following exactly the program i described, as it always does.
I was around for the "gas shortages" (total BS), and all of the OPEC crises, etc etc etc. It's all BS. More revenue is made in the C-store attached to the station than the fuel costs, and now most C-stores are completely divorced from the fuel prices charged so as not to catch hell when the prices spike, see aforementioned program.
There were decades of comparatively stable prices until 9/11. Then various states attorney generals were pushed to make fuel vendors justify the alarming spikes, some as much as 40%/day compounded. That's the point where every station added another significant digit to the LEFT of the decimal.
This is all Koch Bros Magical Pricing. Make no mistake. Now I get 52mpg, and I roll past them. One day I'll plug into my solar panels and to hell with them.
You absolutely can. Your dietary intake of veggies (not starchy ones like potatoes), give you sufficient quantities of carbohydrates to live all day long. You fuel on the fat. Your body knows how to burn fat instead of the raw carbo-power of sugars, even "complex" carbohydrates.
Read the book, mentioned up-thread. It will open your eyes, then look in the bibliography to understand its sources. It's called science, not industry hype.
There are several genotypes that are more susceptible to sugar and carbohydrates. Until you know which one you're a member of, you're in a grey area. By the time you find out, you're pre-diabetic, have high A1Cs, or may have already stressed your pancreatic beta cells.
Most individuals living today consume 10x-3000x+ the level of carbohydrates that their GGgrandparents did. '
Without a doubt, you can live very very well on a diet of protein and fat-- remember that excess protein is converted to carbs, and dietary fiber renders a reasonable amount of energy as well. So, yeah, zero sugar is fine. It's incredibly addictive. Look at the next ten people you see for any questions-- especially if you live in the USA.
Read The Case Against Sugar by Taubes if you have question. Sugar is addictive as opoids, perhaps more so, and dietary overconsumption leads to horrific results. Read the book.
Nothing in your grocery store is like that; there is lots of supply/demand, seasonal, and loss leader pricing.
Very little in a hardware store is like this, either. The list goes on and on.
You forget that prices were relatively stable until 9/11, when profiteers took off and used "Hail Mary" pricing tactics to shoot prices up and see where they'd settle. Profiteering is a dirty word, even today.
Fuel prices set the tone for the nervous era in which we live in. Speculators, now in real estate, and so many soft and hard goods make the world unpredictable, with all the stress that this implies. We once lived in a somewhat calmer era. Maybe you've forgotten it. I haven't.
Slashdot Mirror
It's just one more slap-dash fix in a creaky operating system riddled with legacy APIs that are now being easily strangled with NSA-ware. Adding strict user space is what made XP SP2 somewhat tenable, but this is just one more embarrassing and glaring hole, and IMHO, a great reason to take a serious look at devops and agile as software development models. Windows 10 isn't new; it's the lipstick on a pig made from thousands and thousands of attempts to get it right.
I'm just entirely shocked that Microsoft's stock price hasn't cratered into the pit it deserves. Don't think that the current wave isn't the last or best; ransomware will be iteratively released until bitcoin shoots past $10,000/coin.
The same goes for paper tape, cloads, etc. None and nothing is totally immune from tampering...... somehow.
This is why chains of authorities are so important, and why security certificate infrastructure and blockchain so useful..... until spoofed certificates and muddied blockchains are discovered.
Nothing is foolproof because fools are so ingenious.
Even when the source is Reuters, unnamed parties quoted in an article of any kind is sufficient motive to cast enormous doubt up on the veracity of the information imparted.
Fakes news, propaganda, gov't-sponsored memes, these are all tools of the "unnamed". It can therefore be considered as clickbait fodder and nothing more.....
No one's analyzed the emulator code to my knowledge, to understand if it's indeed an x64/AMD instruction set.... but we know that there is a 32-bit variant, and so, whose x86 is it, anyway?
How one arrives at an instruction execution matters very much in terms of predictability, state machine, even mundane stuff like bus timings and core cohesiveness/thread control/state.
I don't think Microsoft will be the litigant... and I believe Intel will try to cow its OEMs. And I believe they'll fail, having held so many of them hostage for so long. They used to be part of the gravy train, but now they're part of the fief.
And so, going down the same rabbit hole, for every claim on an unexpired patent, there'll be a work-around. Instead of fighting all of this, Intel could just take ARM licensing and make their own silicon and oh yeah, have to deal with competition.
If Microsoft can turn 180 in a decade on Linux, Intel can turn in five years to ARM. The Atom family has been cute, but does Intel have even a tiny fraction of the smartphone and tablet market? So how did that work for ya, Intel? Hmmmm?
I personally think that processor emulation is a recipe for disaster, but these days, but a few people even understand RISC vs CISC arguments.... they understand instead, battery life and perceived application performance and don't give a whit if Intel is inside, or AMD, or Snapdragon, etc. Let them beat the lawyer drums, the last sound made from a dying innovator.
I snicker. I restore cars. There are tools I have and can't afford/don't need. Dealers don't understand ABS well, and their techs don't know how to repair it well. I have lots of admittedly anecdotal evidence to point to. Some of the 1990s ABS designs are worse than none at all. Today, it's a bit better. And some vendors train their techs better or put better instructions into Mitchell.
Let me branch to driverless cars, another problem looking for a spot marked X. In 48yrs of driving, I've seen too many accidents, and many of them would have been compounded by driverless vehicles smashing into the results of them, or perhaps not stopping to aid injured people. Here again, I have no comfort with the possibilities of driverless AI.
Yes, I like passenger safety, too. We have zero data on pilotless accidents because we don't keep track of drones, even in the military, in a way that produces feedback to the vendor/pilot as regards safety components, strategies, etc. A failure in ILS can be devastating if no active pilot can take over.
The ILS glide path is a thing of beauty. Well-understood, and highly protected-- because if it fails, we're back to manual landing. Will AI know when to abort a landing? Do we make AI do 1000 touch-and-goes before we certify it? Make it land at coastal airports where wind shift and shear are common? What's the regimen? How can we know the success of AI? We've been using human pilots for 115yrs... and AI? How long of a base and foundation does it really have?
And they have to do all of this in near or actual real-time, summoning the actions of possibilities of thousands and thousands of actions, and do it right, just like a pilot with several years experience, and make the sensation essentially a normal day for passengers.
I never said pilots were infallible. I'd rather die in a crash caused by a pilot, than AI.
You can pitch ABS as an example of modern design wisdom; and as a subsystem, it's true-- usually. It adds lots of complexity and most drivers don't know how to use it.... and technicians can't repair them well.
Multiple control surfaces in play are a candidate for systems control because of multiple concurrent variables. It's merely a capex vs opex shift in where you put the investment-- sophisticated control plane systems (which are also proprietary vendor-to-vendor, and not heterogeneous in a meaningful way) or in pilot training and opex salaries. I'd rather employ pilots. I like humans; I am one.
Or a busy airport pushes planes out with a low ceiling on climb. Some nameless fool is using a RaspberryPi3 and doing pirate radio that nulls out the vision system. Engines fail, maybe both. The plane is overloaded with fuel to begin with, for a long flight. Suddenly the options are thin.
Siri? What do we do now? Several tugs and ferries are on the water landing zone, and that unpleasant silence of no thrust is pounding in whose ears? No ears.
It will take a very, very long time before AI can replace human pilots, fallible as they are. What happens when the ILS goes down in the middle of a windy thunderstorm? I've had wind push the tail so hard that we were landing sideways, but lived to tell about it. Feel free to search on windy landings, especially one made of a day at DUS to decide just how much you trust a Boeing program on the rudder pedals.
So many industries are pushing to get rid of transportation drivers because of their supposed costs that it's almost a mantra among the MBAs in transportation companies, who have nickled and dimed us to death. Those pesky pilot unions, always wanting more..... yet many pilots get paid less than bus drivers. It's all about playing to the greed of airlines, who loathe the next political disaster that craters their stock.... and their pension funding (looking at you, United).
Because they're exempt. I get it.
Oh wait, they have Kubernetes! And computers and stuff. Big coder-thinkers, and cars with no drivers! They can do it! C'mon, Googlies, you can do it!
All that big data stuff is full of great information for everyone! Especially the US Government. Wow, I'm sure they're going to do this, it would be so helpful to everyone, right? Do no harm! That's their motto! I love them! They'll do the right thing, I just know it!!!!
Yeah, Alien Morse Code, sent at two words per Earth year rotation.
This is clickbait, albeit interesting clickbait. What else could it be. Hmmm.
- a local black hole bends light elsewhere
- fast dark matter
- their sun is fully quantum entangled with a Heisenberg experiment conducted in Los Alamos in 1948, but who knew?
- big fat asteroid rock with lots of holes in it, kind of a cosmic peep show
- first evidence of cosmic blinking
But hey-- aliens.
Were this a trend, it would be horrific, of course. But the problem is manyfold, and my objections lay around the lurid headline, coupled to what amounts to anecdotal data, spiced with teases and clickbait pullquotes.
So, not a trend, a dozen sites, no the sites aren't being adequately assayed, yes might be ugly, and no, does not represent nor mirror a worldwide trend.
There is an enormous number of people that actually don't believe that climate change is happening, and/or that it's man-made. Some aren't quite so much stupid, as allowed to be presented with conflicting information that lets them dismiss the notions because of crap articles like this one.
The title should be: Alarming data found in an insect count-- a trend? Under that aegis, and not tied together with limp noodle notions, one presents the data. That wasn't done. And so it's not so much useless, but does damage by allowing those that look at the data and say, wtf-- just a few sites? Might be a Round-Up binge.... to shake their heads in disgust.
The scope increases to perhaps twelve sites. Note how many other sites are mentioned. It would make nice research. A global clickbait phenomenon, it's not, although the global probable decline is onerous.
My math skills say: needs a lots more research until you can tie these factoids together. Even boolean algebra says correlation!=causation. Causation still must be causation.
You can make broad-brush statements all you want, but:
This was ONE SITE, not the entire country, the EU, or the world.
ONE SITE. You need to know about the ONE SITE because that's where the data lays.
The rest of the sites have had linear and mercurial declines. But the article isn't a broad, or even area-wide statistical analysis. ONE SITE. This is why science journalism gets a bad name.
Jason needs anger management control.
Opens a bunch of tabs, admittedly, then wants to throw his computer against a wall.
Hope he never gets married.
No. You have your fingers in your ears. Or eyes. Your body survives more on fat and protein; synthesizing glucose is as you say, bio101. But you don't need to eat sugar, or consumer carbohydrates by mouth. You'll get mightily constipated if you don't eat some fiber, but that's another thread.
Sugar is horrifically addictive. I'm sorry I misidentified your quip. Sometimes, deep in the depths of defocusing to watch a slashdot rant, my humor escapes me. I'm caught instead in the morass of diffusing industry propaganda, and sometimes my finger is itchy on the trigger. Bad excuse, but it's the only one I have.
Please, please, before you embarrass yourself further, get the update. Yeah, it takes work and takes reading what the fat/protein/insulin/glucose(other sugars, too) cycle is and how your pancreas deals with the aforementioned. Your cellular biology is but a discrete datum within a larger but understandable algorithm. Really. I'm not joshing, and I've been a deep researcher for 20yrs. Read the aforementioned material to understand it algorithmically, instead of as a binary, discrete component. You get glucose for your precious cells, but eating carbs and sugars is also contained in aforementioned information. Then you'll know: You can drop carbs, and be healthier for it. You get all the nutrition you need from veggies and protein consumption and fat. Read it. Please.
Not true, at all. The US was a hodgepodge of phone companies, state tariffs, interstate tariffs, intrastate tariffs, LATAs, and was owned by a lot of co-ops. Some still remain... use Cincinnati Bell as an example.
But the *Interstate* and International walls that AT&T built made it devilishly hard to compete with. There was ITT, and a handful of others doing this. The "Bell System" became a storied, non-innovating monolithic retirement plan.
AT&T Long Lines used to use refrigerator-sized behemoths to cart data at an astounding 56Kbaud. They had good engineering designed for a 20yr depreciation schedule tailored to the profits of AT&T.
Can Google be broken up? EASILY. Alphabet made it simple for a Taft-Hartley Act action, but it won't happen. Why? The US DOJ can barely find a keyboard, let alone understand the tech industry. There is no motivation to kill what are considered cash cows. Let's not discuss those pesky offshore trillions in profits, but no, the Google Ad Words oil pumps the oil from the basement, and is untouchable.
Dude, you and your source are very far behind the actual physiology of nutrition. You get more than enough carbs eating veggies. Excess protein converts to carbs. To diet, read about ketosis, as it's the basis of Adkin's, Paleo, and so many other successful diets. Why? Because they cut carbs to a very reasonable amount. Notice now: I didn't say eliminate them. But the amount of one Cliff Bar is more than you need for TWO DAYs worth of carbohydrates. Really. Look.It.Up.
Very seriously, you need to get the update. Start with Dr Bernstein's The Diabetes Solution, or any book by Gary Taubes. You'll be glad you did.
Then, start to understand why your body stores fat (it burns it) and how insulin works. You'll be miles ahead, and highly enlightened.
Sure they go up and down. Groceries and seasons and promotions and vendor coupons and gimickery of loss-leaders, endcap-profits, there are lots of pricing rubrics in a grocery, but they are pretty small.
Earlier when I wrote this, gasoline was around $1.99. This afternoon, everyone jumped up to $2.35. It will then avalanche for a while, following exactly the program i described, as it always does.
I was around for the "gas shortages" (total BS), and all of the OPEC crises, etc etc etc. It's all BS. More revenue is made in the C-store attached to the station than the fuel costs, and now most C-stores are completely divorced from the fuel prices charged so as not to catch hell when the prices spike, see aforementioned program.
There were decades of comparatively stable prices until 9/11. Then various states attorney generals were pushed to make fuel vendors justify the alarming spikes, some as much as 40%/day compounded. That's the point where every station added another significant digit to the LEFT of the decimal.
This is all Koch Bros Magical Pricing. Make no mistake. Now I get 52mpg, and I roll past them. One day I'll plug into my solar panels and to hell with them.
Not really listening or reading, were you?
You absolutely can. Your dietary intake of veggies (not starchy ones like potatoes), give you sufficient quantities of carbohydrates to live all day long. You fuel on the fat. Your body knows how to burn fat instead of the raw carbo-power of sugars, even "complex" carbohydrates.
Read the book, mentioned up-thread. It will open your eyes, then look in the bibliography to understand its sources. It's called science, not industry hype.
There are several genotypes that are more susceptible to sugar and carbohydrates. Until you know which one you're a member of, you're in a grey area. By the time you find out, you're pre-diabetic, have high A1Cs, or may have already stressed your pancreatic beta cells.
Most individuals living today consume 10x-3000x+ the level of carbohydrates that their GGgrandparents did. '
Without a doubt, you can live very very well on a diet of protein and fat-- remember that excess protein is converted to carbs, and dietary fiber renders a reasonable amount of energy as well. So, yeah, zero sugar is fine. It's incredibly addictive. Look at the next ten people you see for any questions-- especially if you live in the USA.
Read The Case Against Sugar by Taubes if you have question. Sugar is addictive as opoids, perhaps more so, and dietary overconsumption leads to horrific results. Read the book.
Google routes to null here, along with lots of other Alphabet domains and any I find.
You think you need googleapis, but you don't.
Nor do you need any of the rest of them. It's all in your mind.
But then, you can get away without using sugar, tobacco, booze, petroleum-based fuels, and quite a bit more. Just depends on how industrious you are.
Nothing in your grocery store is like that; there is lots of supply/demand, seasonal, and loss leader pricing.
Very little in a hardware store is like this, either. The list goes on and on.
You forget that prices were relatively stable until 9/11, when profiteers took off and used "Hail Mary" pricing tactics to shoot prices up and see where they'd settle. Profiteering is a dirty word, even today.
Fuel prices set the tone for the nervous era in which we live in. Speculators, now in real estate, and so many soft and hard goods make the world unpredictable, with all the stress that this implies. We once lived in a somewhat calmer era. Maybe you've forgotten it. I haven't.