Indeed. And the issue was detected by looking at the data, finding fault with it and that is perfectly fine. Now, if the MAGAs and other denier-idiot assholes were right, the correction would never have happened. But it did. And that means things work and deliver good results. The process is just a bit more complex and takes a bit longer than their tiny brains can handle.

You clearly have not the slightest idea what the problem actually is. Well done, you are an idiot.

Well, if that is your take-away here, you clearly are a dangerous moron and asshole.

And no, there are NOT the same people. You are just lumping idiots in the press and in politics together with actual scientists because you have no idea how things actually work.

Nice denier nonsense you have there. The problem, which you are clearly not smart enough to understand is that this basically a permanent reduction and it is one that will be getting worse. You seem to think that at the end of the century, there is one point, where there will be some reduction. That is not the case. The reality is that each year will see an increasing reduction and that will last for a very long time. The problem is that very soon this will overtake total growth and then we will have negative growth each year.

Not a surprise that somebody like you does not get what is essentially a simple school-level "interest over multiple years" calculation.

Science is not broken, peer review is. And no, Science is not religion. It is the very opposite of it. A Science-denier like you will never understand that though, you are simply not smart enough.

I see you have never been part of this system. Your claims are pure hallucinations. There is no "enforcing" of any "consensus". Peer review checks, if done right, whether arguments hold up, data is plausible, etc.

The problem with peer review is that it is entirely unpaid while actually getting the publication can be very expensive, and many do it badly, just so they can claim they are doing it. I still regularly get contacted by journals wit requests to review one paper or another based on my publishing history. If it is open access and I am qualified, I will consider it. If not, I universally reject there requests now.

Not really. Science works on facts and evidences and sometimes there are errors and mistakes that then get corrected at a later time.

The Deniers work on stupidity. There is no fixing that and they do not need ammunition. They will just make stuff up.

Yep. Or "We will make our product worse until profits go up!"
Fascinatingly, this works sometimes, at least for a while. Look at Microsoft for a current example.

It is. That is why things like this stupid "Code Red" work. It is all just about who pretends better that their product actually has merit (or will have merit soon, promise!) beyond the few it can actually do well.

Yep, kind of feels like it.

I agree. Well, you cannot get everything out and specific things like, say, SSN or more common health problems, can be blanked out with patterns. But misspell the name of the condition you have or describe it instead of using its name and you are already screwed in most cases. And names, quasi-identifiers of people, etc. are basically impossible to recognize reliably.

Hence what needs to be done here is also that anybody working on the data needs to be under oath to not leak any personal data and all processing must be done on isolated infrastructure. Obviously, that makes things slower and more expensive.

Training data, issue diagnosis, market research, targeting data for ads, probably to sell it to others at some time.

Such a shame. I think we should be "tough on crime" on these people!

That is somewhat surprising to me. They are 95% crap these days.

But in modern times it has stopped doing that. Now it is a hard-to-learn, hard-to-use historical artefact. Either move to something that makes sense today or stop complaining. You are doing it to yourselves.