| ▲ | jjk166 2 days ago | ||||||||||||||||||||||
TFA could really benefit from a concise thesis statement. It jumps around randomly and repeats facts that don't appear to be building a strong case for anything specific. Reading between the lines, it seems like the author believes the guidance document should include more on supply chain water testing, but I don't have enough context to know what reason they think it was not included or why they consider that reasoning to be flawed. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | cwillu 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||
The article appears to be trying to smuggle in a notion of “the organism cannot be killed in water” via a path of indirectly repeating the reference that the water cannot kill the organism in the food; because the chemical treatment of the water is therefore insufficient to avoid cross contamination, testing becomes an absolute requirement. I get real suspicious of ulterior motives whenever such equivocation makes a prominent appearance in an argument. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | sigilis 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||
The article is written by a robot. Ask another one to summarize or to change the style from the current meandering stew of LLMisms to something more concise. I’m not sure the author has any options worth paying attention to since they didn’t care enough to write them down. Plus, I don’t particularly trust this article, since I have no domain expertise in this area and my bs detector doesn’t work in this circumstance. | |||||||||||||||||||||||