“Mercedes claims they have a total addressable market of $30 trillion by demonstrating that everyone has sold their vehicles and switched to driving a Mercedes on the new $20/month leasing program. Mercedes has not provided a response when asked how much their cars actually cost to own.”

Looks like there’s one for sale on that website!

So you’re just going to causally mention a quintessential collection of sea shanties without giving any details?

Someone sets it into a prompt loop.

I think this is a good example of risk through the lens of policy versus risk through the lens of personal choices.

There is no safe amount of alcohol when it comes to a government recommending the use of a substance. The decision to say “one glass a day” by the government has been shown to lead to adverse health outcomes in the population.

You are speaking to the chance that a single individual will experience adverse health outcomes from choosing for themselves to have a glass a day. You are probably right that on an individual basis it is a reasonable risk to take (though I don’t know what the exact numbers suggest).

People often confuse policy level risk assessments with individual risk assessments, without considering the law of large numbers, and how a policy maker must make decisions for the population, not an individual.

The article you linked specifically discusses how the findings of the study don’t translate to living organisms and that there is no evidence that levels found in food are harmful.