Caching NPM was easier when you could pull the Couchbase replicate API. Afaik that's gone and now you just have to send a bazillion http requests instead.
Price increases due to disruption of Ukrainian grain shipments from the war substantially threatened African food stability.
Despite their being plenty of capacity elsewhere because the smaller redirects of trucking into the European markets crashed prices enough that it led to protests in Poland and discontent elsewhere (though probably with significant Russian psyops involvement).
I have no idea why this is downvoted because it's exactly right. Unlike antibiotic resistance where the consequences can be measured in human lives, it just doesn't matter for weed killers: and the iteration time on new compounds is much faster.
It's also inevitable: there are weeds which have substantially changed their appearance to more closely resemble crops as an adaptive strategy just to human driven control measures: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vavilovian_mimicry
Which is a problem which mechanical weed control measures will exacerbate probably in bizarre ways (e.g. the weed is no longer selecting against the human vision system but instead a machine vision model)
Edit: though probably worth noting that encouraging weeds to compete against a machine vision model opens up interesting possibilities - e.g. encoding a failure mode for something which the active model can't spot, then running it competitively against a model trained to sport the adaptation and then switching back over when your hit rate falls below a certain level - trap the weed in a controlled local minima. You can't replace human image recognition and new compounds are hard, but updating software is easy.
Even without understanding pharmaceutical research, your claim to understanding business strategy is braindead: there is not 1 pharmaceutical company. And many pharmaceutical companies work on treatments for the same conditions and diseases.
Why would any competitor sit on a cure for a condition there opponents can only treat when in the short term you'd post amazing next quarter profits, and in the long term you'd financially diminish that competitor in the market place even if we grant the position that you are somehow able to find treatments that aren't cures (others have explained ably why this isn't how it works).
Everything looks like a conspiracy when you don't understand anything.
Which is only relevant if you actually find an infectious agent doing something in the right place, which so far we have not.
The vaccine prevention connection for example AFAIK is just pure statistics: you get the shingles vaccine, your population level Alzheimer's risk drops but we have no direct evidence of why this should be.
Its entirely possible we later find it has no effect and it's a population level quirk of people who were likely to get a shingles vaccine until that research - conversely the cost of just getting one is incredibly low (hence why I did, in relation to that exact data).
Not uncritically, but if the research presents a logically consistent hypothesis, and evidence supporting it, then it would be worth following up on with independent groups and if it remains consistent to scrutiny then it should be accepted.
reply