Cost of living where I am is around $38-40 so I’m all out of whack with this, sorry. But on most contracts our first 2hrs of OT would be 1.5x, whereas you’re somehwere around 1.85x? So that’s neat.
The city where I live has a higher col then the surrounding rural areas. Our living wage is $15.34 and poverty wage is $6.35 I don’t have a report for the surrounding areas but my gut says somewhere around $10/$5.
In the US you have to get paid 1.5x for hours over 40. $30/2.5/1.5 = $8. And thats assuming no paycheck deductions such as tax, healthcare, alimony, etc
Also, hardly any cows just eat grass these days. That’s not how you get a lot of meat as fast and as cheap as possible. Also, since cows need a lot of grass, I a lot less area would remain for other crops even if they did (since grass needs way more area for the same amount of calories than stuff like soybeans). So it’s actually a good thing, they aren’t just eating grass.
If that is the case, then they are more the exception than the rule. (Do you by chance have any source on that? Because I’m pretty sure here in Germany that’s not the case) Also, at least Switzerland produces less beef than it consumes, so that’s not exactly sustainable. I don’t know about the other two.
Funnily enough, having cattle on that land only further fucks it up by causing erosion that can take decades to resopve even after the cattle is removed.
There are of couse exceptions and areas where cattle can graze all year, and the need to deforest areas isn’t as large as other places. However, for the majority of beef production, there are less enviornmentally friendly cattle food implemented. So maybe the solution should be that only the areas that can produce beef sustainably should be allowed to consume it? I would assume that that would be an unpopular policy, so I find it to be a much better solution to reduce the beef consumption even in the areas with sustainable producion and rather let those areas export the excess production.
as a Swiss, it is an issue. our glaciers are metling more and more every year and we rely on hydropower a lot, we need all the rain and water we can get, even if it seems like there is a lot.
They actually graze in national forest land in the US. I spent a lot of time tracking wolves to prevent the ranchers and the forest service from shooting wolves so they could safely graze deep into national forest land, destroying the local ecosystem, just as the rivers and bears and caribou started to recover after the reintriduction of wolves.
I think extrapolating from poor US environmental regulations to say that no where in the world is it sensible to produce dairy or beef is a bit of a false equivalence. We also don’t have lead pollution in our water, but saying no one should drink tap water because it has lead in it in a certain part of the US is also silly.
I’m all for alternative protein sources and sustainable agriculture, but eliminating meat consumption likely isn’t the best approach. The US, Brazil, and a bunch of other countries using stupid practices like slash and burn agriculture really need to develop and enforce more sustainable practices via regulations and enforcement.
We can’t have more cows if they don’t have food. We need to cut down trees to grow other stuff to feed the cattle. Global demand for beef is rising, mainly due to increases of standards of living in Asia.
So how do we raise more cattle without more farmland to grow food for them?
I can’t tell at this point if you just don’t understand causality, you’re fishing for downvotes (is that a thing on Lemmy now?), or you’re a meat industry shill
Continuing to support demand for beef at current rates as the population grows means that beef production must increase. That means we need more cows. Where do you propose we put all those cows? The current solution has been to cut down trees to create usable land. What’s your alternative?
If it is anything like here they supplement the feed with a ton of soy beans, which is causing huge problems in Brazil. iirc 87% of soy is used for cattle.
livestock production in the UK and Ireland is still linked to rainforests abroad since chickens, pigs and cows are often fed imported soybeans. Brazil is the world’s largest soybean exporter, and much of its crop is grown on deforested land.
Many people might also be surprised to learn that Ireland and western regions of Great Britain are home to rainforests: temperate forests sometimes called Celtic or Atlantic rainforests. And, like their tropical counterparts, UK and Irish rainforests are threatened by grazing livestock, particularly deer and sheep.
Unless you are a small hobby farm, you’re not putting your cows out on pasture alone to raise them for meat. Most grasses are deficient in one or more vital nutrients that the cows need to grow. Most cows today are fed TMR (Total Mixed Rations). These are diets carefully mixed with different grasses, grains, hays, and mineral supplements. There are different metabolic diseases that cows can get when eating diets deficient in different nutrients. Cows that are sick don’t want to eat, and cows that don’t eat don’t grow. To a farmer, that’s like burning money.
that’s true in a few parts of the world. it may not be valid at all, depending where op is from. in general livestock is the most sustainable land use food.
I’d also like to know, but I imagine that at a small enough scale, it’s mostly letting a few animals live on otherwise unused land, and mostly just protect them. This imagined ideal would disappear extremely quickly, scaling even to village level, and not relevant to modern farming
This is exactly what happens. The highest quality land in a country is used for tillage. The less productive parts are used for grazing. This is how farmers make the most money. They’d be fools to use productive land for grazing and grow crops on poor land.
This is so wrong. I don’t even know where to begin. We grow so much alfalfa (huge waste of water) and soybeans in the US to support our own and other countries’ meat farming, then we ship it across the world. You could find this out with a simple Google search. This is willful ignorance.
Greenhouse gas emissions - Meat accounts for nearly 60% of all greenhouse gases from food production
Water usage - it takes over 1800 gallons of water to produce e just one pound of beef.
In order to help, you don’t even have to go vegan. Reducing meat consumption is helpful too with something like “meatless Monday”
85% of soybeans are pressed for oil for human use.
and those water use stats include things like the water it takes to raise feed crops. it would make sense, except that we mostly feed livestock plants or parts of plants that people won’t eat. for example, we raise cotton for textiles, and the seed would be industrial waste if we didn’t feed it to cattle. why do we count the water used to make jeans in the water used to make beef? it’s just dishonest.
But animal feed also contains soy oil, so even allowing for part of soybean production being used for human consumption, there remains a significant part of soy effectively produced for the benefit of livestock. Furthermore, animal feed production incentivizes the cultivation of soy. If there was no animal feed incentive, there would not be a need to expand soy cultivation into virgin land.
Which bring us to animal feed causing increased land usage (which could be reforested if nothing else), methane emissions, and waste production connected with raising livestock.
there is no reason to think that the land would be deforested, nor even that it would not have been deforested for some other reason, if everyone were vegan.
what would change if everyone were vegan? what would change to MAKE everyone vegan? you can’t actually know what that world would be like. you’re guessing.
the nature article only talks about the impacts of producing the various foods in the current circumstance. if people shifted to eating less meat, then circumstances would be different, but it’s not clear that the environment would actually benefit at all.
animals are fed parts of plants that people can’t or won’t eat. all of the studies about the ecological impacts ignore this fact and then attribute the water used to produce, say, cotton to beef.
I live in AZ. You know the desert state? The state that catches on fire a lot? Yeah. We’ve had Saudis taking our water, for FREE, to grow food for their cattle back home for YEARS. It’s SO infuriating to see them asking us to conserve water and then looking the other way as we get drained for nothing.
They’re not even the only ones dipping into our water either. It’s ridiculous.
My favorite is PixelFed. I’m an artist, so Instagram was important for me, but for a few years now it’s absolutely terrible (no reach at all with their special algorithms). PixelFed fixes all that, it replicates the feeling of IG as it was 8-10 years ago: chronological feed, tag-based, no extraneous features. I’m really enjoying it, as I can finally grow again my followship as an artist: pixelfed.org
Not yet, because it hasn’t officially released yet. Will happen soon(ish) though I think. Some mastodon clients work with pixelfed as well, although not perfectly.
Don’t know about Pixelfed specifically (dont have it installed) but you can get FDroid from the play store and then use it to install other packages not approved by googul
Do you have any suggestions as to how to find people on there? I have it installed and am trying it out, but I’m running into a lot of the same problems I was having on Mastodon; it seems difficult to discover engaging content.
You can follow me if you like book illustration art: pixelfed.social/EugeniaLoli Another way, is to search for tags. For example, if you like fishing, you search for that tag, and then you find ppl that post interesting fishing stuff.
USA is considerably new country and built with no distinctive, coherent ancient history and mythology. As such, its people often grab every opportunity to produce a mythology they can consider their own. It makes them perceive as unnatural/supernatural things we, citizens of old world rationalize, or brush off as of little value.
USA is an experiment by whatever the “aliens” are, so it’s natural for them to supervise it with more interest than the rest of the world.
There are no aliens, it’s just USA itself testing new technologies of theirs.
Other superpowers are very secretive by default and they simply hush-hush every sighting they can.
America is often the voice of media, being the home of, Hollywood, reality TV as well as the loudest voices on the internet it’s natural that we perceive that to be the home of Alien stories.
Being a ‘wealthy’ country: often a higher employment rate leads to an increase in extra curricular hobbies. Countries with less time to focus on things other than work will also have less time to expand on other interests. This can have a spin off effect of increased time spent day dreaming about lights in the sky.
America is a very new country. There’s lots of vast open nothingness to explore. Considered a ‘frontier’. The concept of unexplored territory and unclaimed space of mystery is very much more engrained in American culture, unlike say anywhere in Europe where every square inch is claimed and has a city within an hour’s drive. All that empty nothingness with strange lights on the horizon can lead to more mysterious musings of what they might be.
An small criticism about your third point is the fact that the world isn’t the USA and Europe. There are many areas in the world with vast open areas. I do agree that in combination with the other factors it makes sense.
Look into using a dns that blocks tracking. I believe Adguard offers a free one. Nextdns offers up to 300k requests free a month. Controld also offers a free trial.
I’m just dumb and forget the world wide web is, well, world wide haha. I just live in my own little bubble sometimes but i’m trying to be better about not blindly assuming the folks i interact with on here and other places are from the US
You don’t have to share the view of others, but can you understand how claiming generic names like ‘bears’ and ‘politics’ for something regional is annoying? Bears and politics exist in other countries, too.
No, I don’t care at all. If I want to speak to Romanians, I go on r/Romania, r/RoCasual, etc. etc.
We are only 20 million people. Americans are 330 million, and its an English speaking site. I don’t expect to see Romanians catered to in any way what so ever in the generic subs.
Even with regenerate, what exactly are you regenerating? If the necessary neural pathways for the legs to work never developed in the first place, they couldn’t be “regenerated”. If this was your goal I think you might need to true polymorph a guy into “the same guy but his legs work”
You couldn’t “restore” something to a state it’s never been in. Cutting off the legs and then casting regenerate would “regenerate” the lost pair of paralyzed legs.
“You touch a creature and stimulate its natural healing ability.”
If stem cells could solve the issue, it’s possible. Turn it into a surgery, high DC medicine check, or an insane arcana check and a DM would probably let it play.
It’s explicitly within the capabilities of a Lesser Restoration, but also I would not allow a player to cast that spell on another player if that other player didn’t want it
Edit: also as another person said, the adult who has never used their legs before never learned how to walk, so even if they had functioning legs, it would not help
If you assume all Russian subs and planes can be sunk / shot down before they release their payloads, there’s still over 3000 land based ICBM warheads. There is no terminal phase missile defense system. Majority of the land based warheads will reach terminal phase. The extrapolation that the events in Ukraine mean that nuclear exchange between the two biggest nuclear nations is somehow survivable is both dumb and dangerous.
there’s a difference between WMDs that work and rube goldberg war crime machines. why do you think all serious militaries ditched chemical weapons and go balls deep into PGMs? hint: it’s not for humanitarian reasons
True, but let’s not pretend that we actually found any substantial WMDs. We found 34 tons of mustard gas. At the time, the US had the most VX gas in the world.
I know that you’re right. I don’t know what I would do if I went to therapy and we determined that the marriage should end. My wife’s health insurance is through my work. My daughter would be wrecked. It is scary.
It’s definitely scary to dive into this, but try to remember: whatever the results of therapy, you’ll almost certainly be better for it on the other side. And your daughter will most likely be better off–because her parents will be in a better place, and because you’ll be setting a good example for her when she grows up and faces challenges.
A therapist shouldn’t tell you what to do, just provide a safe space to explore your feelings, work through all the relevant questions you can think of, and maybe help brainstorm if you can’t come up with your own options.
Your wife and daughter’s situations are relevant, but so is yours. If your wife isn’t in love either but neither of you want to divorce, it sounds like your options are to either work on repairing and rekindling the marriage within the constraints of her diagnoses, or mutual agreement to keep the marriage going for now but see other people. Both are full of challenges and risks. If she’s not ok with either of those, then you may have to make a decision for yourself.
It is definitely scary. I want to remind you that you were once a decently happy person and that therapy (both individual and couples therapy) is likely one of the few options you have to move back in that direction.
It’s worth it (speaking from experience). That weight on your shoulders is just waiting to come off, but you likely need a bit of help to get things started.
“hire good private teachers, and accept the resulting costs as money well-spent.” - Marcus Aurelius
I can tell you from my own experience, you don’t do the child a favor by sticking to a broken relationship, I wished my parents have broken up earlier instead of pretending everything is good and that’s how a normal relationship should be. It took me years and I sometimes still struggle today to draw a line and go into a conflict with my partner to figure things out instead of avoiding the conflict
It’s important to know that, despite her youth, your daughter might be picking up more of what’s going on than either of you are intending to give her. Whatever you end up doing, having a real conversation about what’s going on is probably going to be beneficial.
Kids are the best observers, better than adults, untainted by any preconceived notions. The daughter almost surely knows that something is going on and is watching very closely how her parents handle everything, that’s exactly what children do.
I feel you on this fear, but that fear can be aired in therapy. Therapy is ENORMOUSLY helpful. And, not to play the What-If game, could potentially have salvaged your romantic relationship had it been brought in earlier. (I do not say this to make you feel shitty, but so anyone else struggling may see it.)
My wife and I started therapy at the first of our communication problems. We figured we have our car in for regular tune-ups, why not our marriage? And our therapist was thrilled. He said he wished more married couples began the process when they still got along well, because it’s easier.
But it’s definitely worth it even late in the game. Getting an outside, trained perspective on navigating the issues you have as a couple can dramatically improve quality of life. Even if you never expect to be romantic partners again, it can make you work better as a team for the reasons you mentioned.
The only thing therapy is supposed to do is allow you to be happy/content with your decisions. It doesn’t suddenly make you stop caring about your wife or your daughter. It should allow you to find the best decisions. You’re still your own person with your own decisions and nothing will take that from you.
If you don’t want to end the marriage, then therapy will never mean you’ll suddenly want to end your marriage. There is absolutely 0 reason to be afraid of therapy for this reason, in fact, it’s incredibly irrational and counterproductive.
Also, the question is what’s “wrecking” your child more, an absolutely unhappy marriage and having two unhappy parents? Or having two happy parents that aren’t married? It’s not a clear answer imo. Anyway, after therapy you guys may be two happily married people again, best of both worlds, who knows
And laws that do protect the little guys get ignored by our right-wing courts. For instance, the courts quit enforcing the Sherman Antitrust Act because, in the words of Scalia, “it makes no economic sense.”
<span style="color:#323232;">...Yeah, and I forget the next couple of lines, but then it goes...
</span><span style="color:#323232;">
</span><span style="color:#323232;">Secret tunnel!
</span><span style="color:#323232;">
</span><span style="color:#323232;">Secret tunnel!
</span><span style="color:#323232;">
</span><span style="color:#323232;">Through the mountain!
</span><span style="color:#323232;">
</span><span style="color:#323232;">Secret, secret, secret, secret tunnel
</span>
They also were allied with groups of confederate rednecks with the understanding “we have incredibly different worldviews, but we’re both poor and it’s because of the rich folks in power”
The three-letter-agencies could not allow that kind of class consciousness so they assassinated Fred Hampton.
Tax applies to income. I don’t think that would solve the issue for billionaires with no income. We need to just take their excess money away, in addition to 100% taxes on their income above a certain level
Most rich people are rich because their parents were rich. You can do a death tax, but that doesn’t solve the problem because they’ll continue to unfairly hoard that wealth for the rest of their life
Indeed, most of the billionaires were born with a silver spoon up their ass. But their parents were only millionaires, there’s no way that their offspring accumulated billions without income.
3 billion dollars is three thousand million dollars. That’s enough to hoard for generations without being taxed.
Or that money could be taken and used to end homelessness and provide services to pull families out of intergenerational poverty caused by the crimes committed by billionaire families
Making this comment because I’m seeing some of these issues crop up in the comments, and in comments from different instances that can’t see each other, so rather than reply individually, I’ll just make a separate standalone comment.
It bugs me a little whenever people talk about how old a species is. There are different levels to how wrong it is possible to be about this. The worst level is where people think that it’s the individuals that are somehow ancient. No. The individuals from those times are as long gone as all the other individuals from that time. Most people don’t think that, but it happens. Another level is a bit less wrong, but still is. That the species itself is ancient because it somehow avoided evolution. Nah, it’s just retained a lot of characteristics. Theses species still underwent evolution, it’s literally unavoidable. It’s just that the way they adapted to an ancient environment still works as adaptation to the current (and intervening) environments. They haven’t gone through as many drastic visible changes because the way their ancestors lived still works for their modern iterations.
So it is definitely fair to say a species is old, but it’s important to realize that that doesn’t mean it’s literally old in that it hasn’t evolved. If they are impressed by species that haven’t gone through a lot of apparent changes over the eons, they should check out stromatolites.
There’s a kind of half truth to that, in that a trait already developed is unlikely to simply disappear. Even if it becomes vestigial, it will probably stick around until something forces it out.
Thus we get whale and snake hips, ecidna eggs, human ear muscles, and so on. All can tell us of the conditions in the past, and it would usually be more difficult to remove them entirely as opposed to simply not getting very big.
“Living fossils”, still reproducing and subject to evolution, but it’s interesting that they still look like the fossils we find of them.
I don’t know how many are actually afflicted with the misunderstanding that these living fossils are individually as old as the fossils we find of their ancestors, but I think “they basically haven’t changed” and “even through the pressures of evolution which they are definitely not exempt from, they have retained most of their features because they still work” are close enough for a layman.
kbin.life
Top