Before looking I'm going to guess "Rust" is the top word.

The fertility rate reduction is a global phenomenon and is occurring cross-species.

Is there any place on the web with authentic reviews? The only thing that comes to mind is something like steam, where you have to at least purchase a copy of a game before leaving a review.

Consumer Reports. Since they are paid for subscriptions, they're able to afford to vet products with less influence to leave a good review.

You have to pay for quality journalism.

Do you really trust CR? In the UK we have which.co.uk, which is similar and you have to subscribe to it. But I'm fairly sure they are shilling for some of their product categories after having subscribed a few times. Like, the mattress category is filled with mattress in a box companies, which are notorious for paying off websites/blogs to promote their products. I really don't trust any of these sites anymore.

Personally I trust CR as they aren’t paid by ads but subscribers so it’s their benefit to be honest.

Exactly how I see it. They can try to double dip but as soon as someone finds out, they'll lose all their credibility.

Amazon reviews with a picture inside a dirty living room with, like, a toddler only in their diaper in the background or something have been pretty reliable.

Every Amazon review stream: 5-star, 2-star, 5-star, 5-star, 5-star, 5-star, 5-star.

>> Is there any place on the web with authentic reviews?

This is where a good social network is useful. I'd trust my friends more than any random web site. Unfortunately I don't have a huge network to call on, so it would be nice to trust my friends friends and so on, but the trust quickly drops. We need a way to improve a simple network with some user-controlled measure of authenticity and trust.

Hobby based Discords can often yield good results if you ask, and many have pinned posts in gear recommendation channels.

This is the other reason Google is failing to return good results; so much forum-type content has moved to Discord.

And Google really only has itself to blame for that, TBQH. They have had how many mediocre chat apps that they could have turned into Discord with a baked in user base over the past 15 years?

Blogs. They are very hard to find though.

Per the OP

>To meet the plaintiffs’ proposed FOIA deadline, the FDA would have to process a daunting 80,000 pages a month. But the plaintiffs note that the FDA has 18,000 employees and a budget of $6 billion and “has itself said that there is nothing more important than the licensure of this vaccine and being transparent about this vaccine.”

> But the plaintiffs note that the FDA has 18,000 employees and a budget of $6 billion

So what? Are they supposed to do stuff like assign the software development team to do document review for the next couple years? Because I'm pretty sure almost all of those 18,000 employees have very different jobs than FOIA document review (and may not appreciate reassignment), and that budget is already allocated to other stuff that's probably higher priority.

Also, the bottleneck may not only be staffing. What if they staff this with 1,000 people, and those guys are all waiting on one dude at Pfizer?

> and “has itself said that there is nothing more important than the licensure of this vaccine and being transparent about this vaccine.”

A FIOA request has nothing to do with licensure, and transparency doesn't necessarily mean doing whatever someone demands (to give an exaggerated example: if you say it's important to be transparent, and someone asks for nudes "for transparency," they haven't proven you wrong if you don't provide them), or doing that thing on their schedule.

Assuming that all 18,000 employees can actually do the work. Im sure some FDA employees are spread through out various states and have various different responsibilities like focusing on the 'F' in FDA. And those people might not be qualified to work on the processing of papers on vaccines and drugs. That also assumes that they don't overload pfizer and other drug makers with questions that they can't answer in a reasonable time to meet the proposed deadline.