The old chef forged documents to take over the restaurant for himself, stealing from the protagonist, took advantage of the name Gustav to sell cheap food for profit.
He didn’t forge documents. He just didn’t want to tell the protagonist that he was the heir. I believe the letter also told him not to tell. So, in a way, he was fulfilling the dead mother’s wishes on that.
Gustav’s was failing. Selling cheap food for profit might have been the only way to keep the business afloat. Yes, he tarnishes the name, but sometimes things have to be done, and he might have had to make that hard decision.
This is the natural progression of the games-as-a-service model. Any game that relies on online support of some kind just to function will eventually cease like this.
Is it stupid that a vr game about a pet relies on online support to function? Absolutely. But it is what it is. Buy more offline games.
This is also the reason I’m all open source. Not just games, but seeing someone abandon a program hurts. Or just wanting to make a change on your own to suit your needs. I don’t have any big fancy programs, but I at least put my code openly on github.com for that reason. Both my “big” ones are just me using another program and realizing I could make something that worked better for me. At like 100x the time investment, but programming is fun.
Looking at the retro computer scene should make anyone a diehard open source fanatic, it’s god awful how much retro stuff relies on a single guy happening to find an old disc in their basement and upload it to the internet, and a lot of the time that never happened and so the software is just lost forever and the only way hardware can be used is by people writing their own software completely from scratch and sharing it with others.
And of course if they then don’t make it open source that’s extra fun.
At least on android Firefox has Google tracking built into the app among much other tracking/ads. If you don’t like Brave you may want to consider a Firefox fork. On IOS Brave is the only big browser with competent adblock afaik until/unless Firefox gets extensions going.
Edit: I forgot criticizing Firefox is wrongthink on the fediverse and will get you donwnvoted no matter what. Even if it’s in the context of advising people to switch FROM Brave TO a Firefox fork on Android.
Brave is an interesting case, they found a way to make money that doesn’t involve tracking their users, making deals with google or be closed source lol
If you hate that fine, I definitely prefer that than the other alternatives lol.
I think the number is a realistic estimate for serfdom, as farming is largely seasonal. However, harvests could mean 2 weeks with 16 hours of work per day for everyone including children.
Arguments like these are also uncomfortably similar to the arguments slave owners would use to justify slavery. “Look, I take good care of them, feed them, give them clothes, and even built them their own shack next to my plantation house! That means I’m totally not exploiting the people I believe are my property!”
Yeah “only worked 150 days” glosses over how much work daily life was. If you were lucky you lived with pigs and cows and their shit in your thatch hut and it didn’t cave in during the winter leaving you for dead, maybe you survived through your thirties without dying of lung disease, because you’d constantly have fires going in the hut. You’d have to wash clothes in the river even during the winters and hang them up to dry in the smoke of your hut.
On the plus size in good times, and ironically, you could have a healthier diet than the lord. It wasn’t like being a lord was a worry-free place to be either, despite all the luxuries they could afford. Christmas was basically 2 months in the winter and festival season could be full of pleasure if you were well situated. “Peasant” encompasses a wide variety of economic arrangements and many of them could live comfortably, relatively speaking. There was no one single “feudalism” and it’s debatable whether the term is useful to sum up the period.
Lol, that’s total bullshit. Medieval peasants didn’t work more than people today. And pre-medieval societies worked even less.
“One of capitalism’s most durable myths is that it has reduced human toil. This myth is typically defended by a comparison of the modern forty-hour week with its seventy- or eighty-hour counterpart in the nineteenth century. The implicit – but rarely articulated – assumption is that the eighty-hour standard has prevailed for centuries. The comparison conjures up the dreary life of medieval peasants, toiling steadily from dawn to dusk. We are asked to imagine the journeyman artisan in a cold, damp garret, rising even before the sun, laboring by candlelight late into the night.”
“These images are backward projections of modern work patterns. And they are false. Before capitalism, most people did not work very long hours at all. The tempo of life was slow, even leisurely; the pace of work relaxed. Our ancestors may not have been rich, but they had an abundance of leisure. When capitalism raised their incomes, it also took away their time. Indeed, there is good reason to believe that working hours in the mid-nineteenth century constitute the most prodigious work effort in the entire history of humankind.”
Here’s the good stuff:
Eight centuries of annual hours 13th century - Adult male peasant, U.K.: 1620 hours Calculated from Gregory Clark’s estimate of 150 days per family, assumes 12 hours per day, 135 days per year for adult male (“Impatience, Poverty, and Open Field Agriculture”, mimeo, 1986)
14th century - Casual laborer, U.K.: 1440 hours
Calculated from Nora Ritchie’s estimate of 120 days per year. Assumes 12-hour day. (“Labour conditions in Essex in the reign of Richard II”, in E.M. Carus-Wilson, ed., Essays in Economic History, vol. II, London: Edward Arnold, 1962).
Middle ages - English worker: 2309 hours
Juliet Schor’s estime of average medieval laborer working two-thirds of the year at 9.5 hours per day
Calculated from Ian Blanchard’s estimate of 180 days per year. Assumes 11-hour day (“Labour productivity and work psychology in the English mining industry, 1400-1600”, Economic History Review 31, 23 (1978).
1840 - Average worker, U.K.: 3105-3588 hours
Based on 69-hour week; hours from W.S. Woytinsky, “Hours of labor,” in Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, vol. III (New York: Macmillan, 1935). Low estimate assumes 45 week year, high one assumes 52 week year
1850 - Average worker, U.S.: 3150-3650 hours
Based on 70-hour week; hours from Joseph Zeisel, “The workweek in American industry, 1850-1956”, Monthly Labor Review 81, 23-29 (1958). Low estimate assumes 45 week year, high one assumes 52 week year
1987 - Average worker, U.S.: 1949 hours
From The Overworked American: The Unexpected Decline of Leisure, by Juliet B. Schor, Table 2.4
1988 - Manufacturing workers, U.K.: 1856 hours
Calculated from Bureau of Labor Statistics data, Office of Productivity and Technology
I should add that I grew up on a farm in the United States during the 1980s and 1990s. We “worked” on the farm of two 10 or 12 hours a day, but the majority of that time was spent not slaving away doing actual work, but moving things around. Driving tractors, animal husbandry, cleaning out barns, transporting feed or harvested crops, or the main labor intensive activities.
Additionally, we spent time doing planning and accounting, as well as ordering products and services that the form required. However, compared to working on a factory floor or in an office job the work was far lower in intensity and did not have the type of oversight that modern office labor incurs.
The other thing is that during the winter, from roughly October through February basically no work happens. Nothing grows, so the only thing you need to do is to feed your animals and keep them clean. That’s it. It’s like a 4-month vacation, although it still requires some upkeep the workload is a fraction of what you do during the rest of the year. Maybe 1 to 2 hours a day.
There’s also the fact that, before the advent of gas and then electric lighting, you really couldn’t see shit after dark. Tallow candles allow you to see where you’re going, but they don’t give off enough light to allow you to do much real work. Thus, throughout the winter there were simply fewer hours in which to do most things.
This is also likely why “dinner” was traditionally at lunchtime, and was also the main meal of the day. This was the time of day when you would most reliably have enough light to prepare a large meal. Then, when artificial lighting became a thing, upper class types started having “dinner parties” late in the evening, and for many dinner became the evening meal. It did not spread everywhere, though, in particular the north of the UK generally still thinks of dinner as lunchtime.
Calls bullshit, facilitates worse bullshit. Classic. I guess I imagined all the hard WORK it took to maintain a home. Remember, if you’re not being paid for it, it doesn’t count as labor. Fucking hell
Biden has already released a statement announcing he’s caving to them. I’d say they’re ‘finding out’ that they can do what they like and the Dems will fold without a fight, but they already knew that.
Well that sounds very bad. Giving the president emergency power to shut down the border? When does that expire? What conditions are required for it to be executed? Does it mean that Americans can’t leave or come home too? This doesn’t sound good at all to me. I really dislike that every administration rules through emergency and executive orders now, instead of legislating intelligent and long-term solutions.
Yeah, that’s not caving, that’s DARING Congress to refuse to pass the bill.
See, they were going to pass a budget bill that has some border funding in it, and Mitch McConnell was telling the Republicans to pass the darned thing – but then Trump said it might be nice to use the border mess in his campaign, and Poof! McConnell spun around so fast, his heels were smoking! (no, not literally) Here’s a link: news.yahoo.com/trump-thrown-wrench-mitch-mcconnel…
The statement from Biden is a double-dog dare to not pass the bill. Every time Republicans cry, “Waaahh! Border scary! Biden’s fault!”, Biden is going to hold up that statement and point out that he was ready, but they refused to sign it.
He’ll say it, but only newsy Democrats will hear him. The Republicans will say the bill didn’t go far enough, cost too much, and blah, blah, blah, glossing over the crazy powers it would have allowed. This isn’t any special ‘5d chess’, this is standard politics. Biden knows Congress won’t do ANY border deal now that Trump told them not to, so it doesn’t matter what concessions it has.
Many immigration and border requirements are clearly spelled out in law. Laws the administration is enforcing as written. Like many other issues, Congressional Republicans have chosen not to update these at any point over the last couple decades, while also complaining about border issues, simply so they can blame any Democrat President.
This isn’t a new issue. It’s an issue the Republicans clearly plan. As soon as a Republican is in the White House the “imminent” border issues disappear, or the President enacts some over the top fascist solution that doesn’t actually do anything for the cause. And Congress then ignores the causes again so they can complain when the Democrats inevitably regain control and are stuck spending time fixing the fuck ups instead of handling the actual causes.
You know that game 6 degrees of separation, where you find 6 people you and a stranger have in common? You can do the same thing with your job and MIC spending by the government.
The MIT license guarantees that businesses will use it because it’s free and they don’t have to think about releasing code or hiding their copyright infringement. The developers I’ve seen using that license, or at least those who put some thought into it, did do because they want companies to use it and therefore boost their credibility through use and bug reports, etc. They knowingly did free work for a bunch of companies as a way to build their CV, basically. Like your very own self-imposed unpaid internship.
The GPL license is also good for developers, as they know they can work on a substantial project and have some protections against others creating closed derived works off of it. It’s just a bit more difficult to get enterprise buy-in, which is not a bad thing for many projects.
Not all of us write code simply for monetary gain and some of us have philosophical differences on what you can and should own as far as the public commons goes. And not all of us view closed derivatives as a ontologically bad.
Software licenses don’t change ownership. That requires transfer of copyright, like with contributor agreements.
Though I am aware that a small set of people seek less copyleft licenses because they think they’re better. They are usually wrong in their thinking, but they do exist.
I’m not sure what you are referring to about ontologically bad. Has someone said this?
I'm not sure what you are referring to about ontologically bad. Has someone said this?
I'm going by the vibe of the comments of people here who are generally anti-MIT. That the very nature of allowing someone to use your code in a closed-source project without attribution is bad. Phrasing it as "hiding their copyright infringement", for example, implies that it is copyright infringement per se regardless of the license or the spirit in which it was released.
Oh no I mean that there are companies that just don’t care about licensing and plod ahead hoping it’s never an issue. Like having devs build a “prototype” that they know uses AGPL code and saying, “we will swap this out later” and then 6 months later the “prototype” is in production.
Personally, I make a lot of my personal projects’ code closed because I specifically don’t want it to be useable by others. Not for jerky reasons, but strategic ones. IMO common licenses don’t achieve what a lot of people hope they do.
And not all of us view closed derivatives as a ontologically bad.
Please explain how allowing a third-party to limit computer users’ ability to control and modify their own property is anything other than ontologically bad?
If I release something free of restrictions to the world as a gift, that is my prerogative. And a third party's actions don't affect my ability to do whatever I want with the original code, nor the users of their product's ability to do what they want with my code. And the idea of "property" here is pretty abstract. What is it you own when you purchase software? Certainly not everything. Probably not nothing. But there is a wide swath in between in which reasonable people can disagree.
If you are an intellectual property abolitionist, I doubt there is much I can say to change your mind.
Because I don't know why it is closed source. Is it a personal project? A private project? A sensitive project? I don't see a moral imperative for any of those to be free and open to all users.
Depending on how you contribute to your OSS code, commits you make on company time are considered property of the company. You could, unknowingly, be forcing your code to be closed source if your company ever decides to make a claim for it.
I prefer to keep things bifurcated. I never reuse my own library and if I do, I rewrite it whole cloth.
“Company time” doesn’t mean much to me, as a remote salaried worker with relatively flexible schedules. Not touching anything but work code from my company machine should be enough, as far as I could understand. Not a lawyer, though.
If you’re the copyright holder, nothing stops you from releasing your work under more than once license. It is not necessary to use permissive licensing; you are perfectly free to release your stuff to the general public with a copyleft license while also granting your company a separate license even with proprietary terms if you want.
You’re not seeing the whole picture: I’m paid by the government to do research, and in doing that research my group develops several libraries that can benefit not only other research groups, but also industry. We license these libraries under MIT, because otherwise industry would be far more hesitant to integrate our libraries with their proprietary production code.
I’m also an idealist of sorts. The way I see it, I’m developing publicly funded code that can be used by anyone, no strings attached, to boost productivity and make the world a better place. The fact that this gives us publicity and incentivises the industry to collaborate with us is just a plus. Calling it a self-imposed unpaid internship, when I’m literally hired full time to develop this and just happen to have the freedom to be able to give it out for free, is missing the mark.
Also, we develop these libraries primarily for our own in-house use, and see the adoption of the libraries by others as a great way to uncover flaws and improve robustness. Others creating closed-source derivatives does not harm us or anyone else in any way as far as I can see.
If the government is the US (federal), I think you are technically supposed to release your code in the public domain by default. Some people work around this but it’s the default.
But anyways, the example you’ve given is basically that you’re paid with government funds to do work to assist industry. This is fairly similar to the people that do the work for free for industry, only this time it’s basically taxpayersl money subsidizing industry. I’ve seen this many times. There is a whole science/engineering/standards + contractor complex that is basically one big grift, though the individual people writing the code are usually just doing their best.
I’m also an idealist of sorts. The way I see it, I’m developing publicly funded code that can be used by anyone, no strings attached, to boost productivity and make the world a better place. The fact that this gives us publicity and incentivises the industry to collaborate with us is just a plus.
Perhaps it makes the world a better place, perhaps it doesn’t. This part of the industry focuses a lot on identifying a “social good” that they are improving, but the actual impact can be quite different. One person’s climate project is another’s strategic military site selector. One person’s great new standard for transportation is another’s path to monopoly power and the draining of public funds that could have gone to infrastructure. This is the typical way it works. I’m sure there can be exceptions, though.
Anyways, I would recommend taking a skeptical eye to any position that sells you on its positive social impact. That is often a red flag for some kind of NGO industrial complex gig.
Calling it a self-imposed unpaid internship, when I’m literally hired full time to develop this and just happen to have the freedom to be able to give it out for free, is missing the mark.
Well you’re paid so of course it wouldn’t be that.
Also, we develop these libraries primarily for our own in-house use, and see the adoption of the libraries by others as a great way to uncover flaws and improve robustness. Others creating closed-source derivatives does not harm us or anyone else in any way as far as I can see.
Sometimes the industries will open bug reports for their free lunches, yes. A common story in community projects is that they realize they’re doing a lot of support work for companies that aren’t paying them. When they start to get burned out, they put out calls for funding so they can dedicate more time to the project. Sometimes this kind of works but usually the story goes the other way. They don’t get enough money and continue to burn out. You are paid so it’s a bit different, but it’s not those companies paying you, eh?
You aren’t harmed by closed source derivatives because that seems to be the point of your work. Providing government subsidy to private companies that enclose the derivative product and make money for their executives and shareholders off of it.
You are almost on point here, but seem to be missing the primary point of my work. I work as a researcher at a university, doing more-or-less fundamental research on topics that are relevant to industry.
As I wrote: We develop our libraries for in-house use, and release the to the public because we know that they are valuable to the industry. If what I do is to be considered “industry subsidies”, then all of higher education is industry subsidies. (You could make the argument that spending taxpayer money to educate skilled workers is effectively subsidising industry).
We respond to issues that are related either to bugs that we need to fix for our own use, or features that we ourselves want. We don’t spend time implementing features others want unless they give us funding for some project that we need to implement it for.
In short: I don’t work for industry, I work in research and education, and the libraries my group develops happen to be of interest to the industry. Most of my co-workers do not publish their code anywhere, because they aren’t interested in spending the time required to turn hacky academic code into a usable library. I do, because I’ve noticed how much time it saves me and my team in the long run to have production-quality libraries that we can build on.
You are almost on point here, but seem to be missing the primary point of my work. I work as a researcher at a university, doing more-or-less fundamental research on topics that are relevant to industry.
This is something I’m very familiar with.
As I wrote: We develop our libraries for in-house use, and release the to the public because we know that they are valuable to the industry. If what I do is to be considered “industry subsidies”, then all of higher education is industry subsidies. (You could make the argument that spending taxpayer money to educate skilled workers is effectively subsidising industry).
This is largely the case, yes. Research universities do the basic research that industry then turns into a product and makes piles of cash from. And you are also correct that subsidizing STEM education is a subsidy for industry. It very specifically is meant to do that. It displaces industry job training and/or the companies paying to send their workers to get a degree. It also has the benefit of increasing overall supply in theur labor market, which helps drive down wages. Companies prefer having a big pool of potential workers they barely have to train.
We respond to issues that are related either to bugs that we need to fix for our own use, or features that we ourselves want. We don’t spend time implementing features others want unless they give us funding for some project that we need to implement it for.
That’s good!
In short: I don’t work for industry, I work in research and education, and the libraries my group develops happen to be of interest to the industry. Most of my co-workers do not publish their code anywhere, because they aren’t interested in spending the time required to turn hacky academic code into a usable library. I do, because I’ve noticed how much time it saves me and my team in the long run to have production-quality libraries that we can build on.
I think your approach is better. I also prefer to write better-quality code, which for me entails thinking more carefully about its structure and interfaces and using best practices like testing and CI.
The MIT license guarantees freedom for developers proprietary software conglomerates to use FOSS code in their proprietary products. The GPL guarantees freedom for end users the entire FOSS community, both for users and developers.
Or buy it on physical media. More and more studios are pulling their disks and it is getting harder to find. If you have a disk, it can never be recalled.
Ever since Disney announced they are also going to ban account sharing, I’ve been going to thrift stores and grabbing any DVDs my children like or might like. I’ve gotten quite a few classics so far for less than the cost of one month of Disney+. I almost bought a VCR because the VHS collection at thrift stores here is huge and they are so cheap, but rewinding sucks.
I still have my CRT and old game consoles and use them sometimes. The blurriness with the games doesn’t bother me, but maybe a movie would be worse. I am constantly forgetting my glasses though so I’m kind of used to blurry. I still might grab a VCR if I see one, though, just to show my children what it was like when I was a kid. Could be fun.
VHS can look as good as DVD (or better in cases where the DVD was poorly mastered), but there aren’t many good VCRs out there anymore. A well maintained VHS tape and VCR can give you a great capture. www.digitalfaq.com/…/1567-vcr-buying-guide.html
The encryption keys are stored on the disk I believe. I use MakeMKV and load the files into my media center software (Jellyfin). That works for DVDs, Blu-rays and 4K disks just fine. Every once in a while if I get a 4K early, the keys haven’t been updated yet and I have to give it a day (usually less) before it rips.
I mean, yeah, but so what? We are talking about an article where Amazon pulled a video someone purchased down so they can never watch it again. I have never heard of a company recalling physical media and demanding it’s return.
But it can just stop playing… I have a handful of discs, still in cases, look pristine, no scratches, and yet can’t be read by either my computer or DVD player. No recourse. It’s a separate problem of course, but similar.
Disks can degrade or be manufactured badly. If they never play you can usually get a warranty replacement. Old disks can degrade, but I have many 20+ year old DVDs that play fine.
According to my local (Dutch) laws, I don’t need to own a physical copy. A YouTube purchase is sufficient for me to legally download a copy over p2p, I’m just not allowed to upload it.
We’re still being charged “thuiskopie” taxes on storage devices, so I’m still allowed to make copies for personal use, either via the app I bought it on, or as an MKV found on torrent sites.
This is banking on someone else providing the data you want when you want it. Things on torrent sites do disappear especially if they are more niche media.
Amazon’s Music service, while it takes some hoops to jump through, actually does let you download music. Though I don’t know if that’s a general policy or on a per music/per artist basis.
I get the feeling they’re trying to get rid of that feature, whenever I try to download something there I have to jump through an increasing number of hoops to get the download option to appear.
I’m fairly certain it’s been the same number of hoops to get there. Same with actually trying to buy it specifically.
But yeah, its so sequestered away that honestly, I’d probably just outright pirate it if it wasn’t for the fact that it’s readily available on release and I’m familiar with the methodology of it.
Everything should allow you to download what you purchased. The fact that the music industry has pushed streaming so goddamn hard is because they’re mad that people can still download MP3s.
And above all of this, let’s not forget that a major negotiating point of the Hollywood strike was getting residuals per stream, something that never existed when people actually had their own media. It’s greed on every single side in that corrupt, hell town and I’m at the point where I don’t even watch TV or movies any more, not only because it all sucks, but because of this bullshit. The greed and the corruption needs to be punished.
Why is owning sth you might watch once every 10 years so important? I don’t care about it, as long as it isn’t some niche content or stuff I watch every year.
Because paying actual money for something that can be taken away with the changing of ever shifting IP ownership and steaming rights is a giant waste of money.
British Cycling is sponsored by oil company Shell.”
Visit www.britishcycling.org.uk and scroll to the bottom. Neither Shell nor Ineos are on the list of sponsors, only lotteries.
On Twitter the group claims that Ineos is fielding a team, now British Cycling is allegedly sponsored by Shell and yet visiting any of the official web sites does not list any of those sponsors. Must be very shy sponsors.
With participants who likely flew themselves their bikes in from all around the world for a pointless competition. I wouldn’t compare an international bike race to a person who rides their bike to work to help the environment.
Sporting events are the best way to reach hundreds of millions of people to deliver the message. Athlete flights are a tiny price to pay for it. And protesters literally fucked it up. Because they are dumbfuck attention whores and nothing else.
Started with the 8" bastards on a dedicated word processor (with a 12" CRT, green phospher glow, and typwriter style printer built right into the top of the unit!) that my dad had for medical filekeeping at his office.
It’s been amazing watching storage tech from those to zip drives, and now, floppies of any kind are dying.
This reminds me of when I got a new PC when I was younger and I was shocked… “WHAT?! THEY COME WITH 128MB RAM NOW!!! AND THEY HAVE A DVD TRAY??? No more floppy disks!!!”
Fuck, those were nice times (except for dial-up internet).
There’s nothing quite like passing around copies of games that are eight-diskettes large and finding out that disk #8 is unreadable after a 30min install. Good times.
The part that’s wild to me is I have an SD card in a computer in my pocket that cost $10 or so and is basically disposable but it’s larger than the hard drive in my first computer from 25 years ago
I remember upgrading my Macintosh computer from 512kB to A FULL MEGABYTE! Wow, what a difference, suddenly I could run two programs at once - even three small ones.
First game I ever played was on those 8” floppies. It was a turtle game where you would type in DOS commands and make it move. I can’t remember the command prompts but it was fun enter like forward 1000 and it would blast across the screen.
Logo ? Anyway there was a this “programming langue” with a turtle and it had like 6 commands : move forward/backwards, turn left/right, pen up/down :-D
Having worked in a datacenter somewhat recently, I can assure you that cassettes are still in use. Now, they manage to fit tens of TB in a 4"x4" square.
I know it’s a shipost and this meme is at least 15 years old. But meat, cheese, and white bread (especially the ones in the US with added sugar) were never healthy
Take care not to make statements so inaccurate they are effectively meaningless.
"US white bread" isn't a singular brand and most brands don't "contain[s] a carcinogen"...
You never mentioned what the carcinogen was. Probably because it would compromise your argument that "US white bread" as a whole contains it when it does not. (It's Potassium Bromate/Bromide (it's used interchangeably online sometimes), for those wondering.)
It's not limited to white bread in where it can be used. It was an additive to flour in general.
A lot of the fear mongering blogs, written by 'influencers' whose research consists of 10 seconds of Googling but not verifying a single fucking thing they write about, name brands that contain potassium bromate... but actually don't. Example: Wonder bread (https://wonderbread.ca/our_products/white-bread-675g/) Chex Mix. Looking up their ingredients list shows the item in question is not used at all. https://www.chexmix.com/products/chex-mix-traditional/
TLDR: Think before you repeat vague, meaningless shit next time.
BTW, You should look into the horrors of Dihydrogen Monoxide.
My statement is far from meaningless. Mild carcinogens are still carcinogenic. Sure, a small dose as a one of will not cause problems short term, but long term build up is a thing.
It’s a preservative widely used in US white bread, but banned in Europe and other places.
I don’t know the specific carcinogen off the top of my head, I’ve never bothered to remember it, and didn’t look it up earlier while I was half snoozing being driven home.
So you do know what I’m talking about.
My source was Dr Joel Fuhrman. I’m not sure if you’d call him an influencer. While I do turn my nose up at some of his preaching, I think much of what he says is backed up by solid science. Not that I follow it myself. If it’s since been removed from most products then good for you and other people in the US.
Your link to Wonderbread is from Canada.
Chex Mix doesn’t contain azodicarbonamide (I’m guessing this is the one we’re talking about? I wouldn’t be surprised if there are others), but it does use butylated hydroxytoluene, which is also classed as GRAS (Generally Recognised As Safe) by the FDA based on a study from 1979. Yet both chemicals have since been called into question for their links to cancer. From a cursory glance, azodicarbonamide has a more proven link, while butylated hydroxytoluene has yet to be properly studied and the link is questionable.
Too much dihydrogen monoxide can kill you.
Alcohol is also carcinogenic - more so than bread additives - but I’m definitely having some of that tonight.
Also, Joel Fuhrman had a podcast talk about lemmy’s favourite, BEANS.
Edit: Bloody kbin users, breaking lemmy threads. Supposedly there’s a comment underneath mine, but it won’t load, and there’s nothing on kbin.
If I were to be fair then my answer would be neither as I don’t believe capitalism is forcing us to consume meat and there was methods to conserve meat for long periods of time before refrigeration was a thing.
I guess meat can be healthy. What certainly isn’t healthy is highly processed meat like burgers, hot dogs and deep fried turkey
Science suggests that meat consumption always comes with risks e.g. of genetic mutations. So if you can meet your demand of nutrients and trace elements without meat you probably should.
Vitamin B12 is an essential vitamin with largely non vegetarian source.[1,2] Indian population, with largely vegetarian food habit, is more prone to harbour deficiency of vitamin B12.[2,3]
There’s been a lot of back-and-forth. B12, like iron and Protein, are digested differently by the gut (with different efficiency) based on how they are consumed.
If absolutely all you care about is nutrition and nothing else, you should be eating a small amount of non-processed red and white meat (and/or seafood) on a regular basis because it is the best and healthiest source of those three things. Key term “small amount”
Interesting that you say this because the high amount of B12 in the meat people buy is because it is artificially supplemented to the animals they slaughter.
That seems like a bit of a red herring even if true. Considering I recognize your handle from elsewhere, I’m going to say “eat what you want” and move on before things get heated.
I understand that your ethics drive your decisions, but my ethics drive mine. As does my nutrition.
Actually, hell. Let me respond to the red herring statement anyway. Yes they supplement cows B12. Not so they have B12 in their meat but because cows need B12 and most of the world’s soil is Cobalt-deficient. I’m such a sucker for trolls I suppose; can’t let misinformation go unanswered :( I hope an upvoted post in a vegan subreddit works for response?
EDIT: Sorry. I don’t really mean that YOU are a troll per se. Misinformation like this is problematic to me because I try to treat people as charitably as I possibly can. But the idea that B12 is in meat due to supplements is one of that family of malicious half-truths that simply could not have been an “honest mistake” from whoever originated it. Whoever started spreading that ABSOLUTELY knows it’s a downright falsehood that can be substantiated by half-reads and mis-reads of actual facts. Like picking out a single vaccine study that doesn’t rule out autism and starting… well, you lived through what it started as much as I did.
I genuinely don’t think YOU knew what you were about to say was fabricated nonsense made to seem defensible from a naive googling. But somebody did.
capitalism has led to never before seen economies of scale, allowing for dirt cheap food prices never before seen in history. if we were to look at capitalism through that metric and that metric only then it would be wildly popular…
Because the focus wouldn’t be on profit just for profit’s sake. That is the main problem with capitalism. The technologies just allowed it. Plus, technologies are not sentient, you can’t blame a technology…
Because the focus wouldn’t be on profit just for profit’s sake
what socioeconomic system has existed where increased productivity was viewed as a bad thing?
e.g.:
pure feudalism would've led to economies of scale because it would make the king of the castle wealthier.
any kind of socialism with a centrally planned economy would've led to economies of scale because it enables the government to more easily meet the needs of the people.
even pure marxist communism probably would've led to economies of scale eventually because any communities that worked together on a global scale would've been more prosperous for their community members, which is still a goal of the system
The technologies just allowed it
or in other words, their invention led to it, which was the original quote I was responding to
Plus, technologies are not sentient, you can’t blame a technology…
socio-economic systems aren't sentient either
nobody's "blaming" a technology—there isn't even really a consensus in this thread on whether economies of scale leading to increased meat consumption is a good or bad thing
I wouldn’t call “profit” synonymous with “productivity”. Quite the opposite. Profit is intentional market inefficiency for individual gain. I’m just calling it because so many people do make the mistake of treating them as the same, presuming the former is inherently good because productivity is.
Pretty much everything else you said I agree with.
because prior to the advent of capitalism the priorities were not on the consumer, but on the aristocracy. while the end results of free market capitalism are clearly destroying the planet, it is insanely more equitable than anything that came before it.
the economies of scale exist due to the consumer pressure, which didn’t exist in other market systems.
i don’t get why people are downvoting that. i’m not saying capitalism is the best thing in the world and nothing will ever be better than it. i’m saying it allowed people to eat more meat and is democratic compared to feudalism or mercantilism
Because people can’t seem to understand the difference between ‘criticizing stuff while also being aware of and acknowledging its benefits’ vs ‘mindlessly bashing something whenever you get the chance bcuz tribalism’.
Hell, even Marx praised capitalism for the immense wealth that it has generated for the masses, which so many so-called ‘socialists’ don’t seem to understand.
Edit Refrigeration is optimal, and we agree on that. Yet, meat was notconsumptwed by regular folks because aristocrats were the only ones who could afford it (and I recall that many of them died of a disease that comes from meat overconsumption). Regular folks ate meat only on special occasions. And driying it makes it last for months if not years (source: the dry sausages that I buy in my granfather’s town, hand made by people, last for 14 months)
The point is that mass factory farming is the reason that meat is cheap now, and one of the technologies that's enabled mass factory farming is refrigeration.
Both. Refrigeration is what allows us to store and (I would argue more importantly) transport large amounts of meat, and is as such essential to the industry. However, Capitalism is also key to the meat industry because its lobbyists constantly push for meat subsidies, which is the main reason meat is cheap enough to be something we have every meal instead of once every couple of days.
*until the advent of mechanized agriculture and fertilizers, which allowed feeding large amounts of livestock in capitalist and communist countries alike
communism requires capitalism to exist … at its invention, capitalism was the cutting edge that allowed massive economies to form. free market capitalism allowed the creation of extremely complex and vast logistical networks that did not exist prior.
this is not some sort of “capitalism vs communism” thing. this is saying that capitalism was miles more efficient and liberating than anything that came before it. inshallah whatever comes after it will continue the trend
In some circumstances you’re absolutely right. In many parts of the word, meat was either scarce or difficult to preserve. In other parts of the word, some peoples survived almost exclusively on animal products. The natives on Alaska are the first that come to mind.
Of course “meat” was a very important part of their diet, they relied heavily on organ meats for their essential vitamins and nutrients. They were significantly more humane and less wasteful than we are today.
But they were also out and about hunting that stuff for days. Unlike average Joe American who never moves more than from bed to garage and from the parking lot to his office chair in a day.
But not in that quantity as we do today. In the past it was very special, because you allways had to kill one of your animals to eat some. And if you were a farmer who can decide to eat one big meal or ceep the animal and have milk for a long time its a preety easy decision.
And if you go back even more when humans were still “wild” meat was even harder to get. You had to hunt down an animal that was way stronger that you. So a hunt took days. If you got meat once every few weeks you were lucky.
Sure, nobody ate anything in the quantities that we eat today, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a crucial part of our diet. It’s amazing that modern industrialized humans are able to get enough calories and protein from a diet of varied plants, but if you’re a hunter gatherer you don’t have the luxury of a variety of genetically modified protein rich plants, you need meat if you’re going to grow. That’s the niche we evolved to fill, it’s why we have a highly acidic gut, a medium length digestive tract common in omnivores, and teeth designed to tear meat. It doesn’t take a lot of meat to meet a person’s protein requirements, the occasional successful hunt is enough, but without any they would die.
I am vegetarian for over 5 years. You realy don’t need any meat. That just some public believe the meat companies planted in our heads. For a vegetarian lifestyle your don’t even have to pay attention to a lot of stuff. In general it’s way more healthy if you do it right. The only thing is that it’s usually harder to cook something tasty, because you can just throw meat in anything and it tastes like something.
But what you’re missing is that being vegetarian wouldn’t be possible without the conveniences of our modern world. You’re relying on plants that have been heavily modified to be more nutritious to humans, and you’re relying on a variety that would have been difficult to find pre industrialization, and absolutely impossible to a hunter-gatherer. It’s not meat company propaganda to realize that human’s evolved to eat meat, it’s evident in everything about our physiology. From an evolutionary point of view, even farming is startlingly recent, an industrial world economy hasn’t even registered yet, so even though we’re living in a modern world, we’re still dealing with bodies that were built to hunt. That’s why so many types of overeating are such big issues, this farmed abundance just isn’t something that we evolved to deal with.
None of that takes away from the fact that vegetarianism is feasible and healthy today, I think that it’s great that we’ve reached a point where we can survive without meat. All that I’m saying is that we need to recognize it for the modern luxury that it is, instead of saying that it was ever the norm
Huh? Humans evolved in a hunter/gatherer lifestyle. Before the advent of farming, it was impossible to get sufficient calories for a tribe or village without hunting and bringing down big animals on a regular basis. Meat was quite literally the “meat” of human diet for most of history.
After the advent of farming, you could pack a lot of calories with things like breads, for when you didn’t have meat (or in early civilization) when the rich folks got the meat.
As for cheese, it really doesn’t take that long to produce unless you’re talking about aged cheese… But that’s a different topic (and both aged/fresh have different health benefits)
The frequency and serving sizes are what make it unhealthy. Coupled with an increasingly sedentary lifestyle and one of the best/easiest decisions you can make to improve your health is to cut back on meat, especially processed meat products. Proccessed meat is definitely, 100% unhealthier than cuts from your local butcher.
Yes, but all these points were not mentioned by the user I’m responding to. He stated that our ancestors didn’t eat meat as frequently as we do now. That was his argument against red meat.
That’s also true of almost any food. Grains and legumes cause liver cancer. Eating too many plain vegetables can lead to nutritional deficiencies. All carbs, even fibers, need to be eaten in moderation. This site suggests no more than 3-4 servings per day.
Although high in nutrients, the difficulty in digestion makes it a carciogen. Particularly red meat - bird and fish (pre omnipresent plastics and heavy metals) are relatively healthier.
It actually is. Most carcinogenic evidence on meats come from processed meats. Per cited references, eating way too much red meat is “probably” a cause for cancer, but eating processed meats is definitely a cause for cancer.
And by “way too much”, that’s 1.5lbs/week. I love a good steak, but don’t really eat 1.5lbs/week of it.
“That’s where the truth lies, right down here in the gut. Do you know you have more nerve endings in your gut than you have in your head? You can look it up. Now, I know some of you are going to say, ‘I did look it up, and that’s not true.’ That’s ’cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut. I did. My gut tells me that’s how our nervous system works.” - Stephen Colbert, 2006
They use “can” and “probably” in scientific sources because it’s not entirely confirmed. The best citation I could find was “probably” an increased risk if you eat more than 500g of meat per week.
“Hard” doesn’t necessarily mean “requiring many resources” in this case. It has more nutrients, and as such it’s usually not digested as fully as herbivores digest plant matter.
That’s sorta half the story. The official statement is that consistently eating more than 1.5lbs (500g) of red meat per week “probably” (their word) increases your cancer risk. The real story is that eating more than 50g of processed meat per week dramatically increases your cancer risk. To the extent that processed meat is ranked as a “Group 1” carcinogen.
Since the grain industry gained power in the 1940s. They funded much research to say
Meat is hard to digest (when in fact carnivorous animals have the shortest gut; we’re omnivores and have a medium gut, we also have the most acidic stomach acid of the mammals which is an adaptation to eating meat)
Grain is the healthiest food (the only type of animal that does well on seeds is birds, they don’t have teeth for bread to get stuck between and rot. The ancient Egyptians lived on bread and had the worst dental health)
That humans need a balanced diet of many different things - which we do when we’re eating nutritionally poor foods like bread, but many thrive on simple diets of fatty meat (Inuit before they adopted the standard American diet; Buffalo hunting native Americans; modern followers of lion, carnivore, zero carb)
The standard diet as recommended by science (much of which was bought by the wheat peak bodies) has made us fat. Getting fatter is the most unhealthy state, it leads to diabetes, hypertension, bad cholesterol and early death
Long story short on what you wrote - meat is a nutritionally rich food option and kind of nutritionally acceptable if your people have been living in the tundra for a few thousand years & have actually managed to genetically accommodate it, since there isn’t much else food the further you go north (although it’s very much overly simplistic to depict Inuit diets as entirely meat-based). But for modern people, in temperature or tropical regions, it makes no sense at all, plant-based diets give you the best balance of nutrients without extremely high fat and cholesterol content…there’s a real anti-scientific hubris going on with people trying to brush away this basic fact.
Specially processed meat, cheese and bread. In the case of fast food these ingredients are basically “hacked” to make us crave more and consume more. These industries have “food scientists” working on exactly that.
Meat, cheese and bread in their more natural form is definitely healthy when consumed in moderation.
Hacking implies a lot more than simply adding fat and sugar, and that’s all you gotta do.
I’ve seen several threads where chefs confess that all they do to make their dish(s) popular is load it down with butter and sugar.
Wouldst thou like the taste of butter, wouldst thou like to live deliciously?
In related news, this American finally figured out why Europeans find our bread sickening sweet, why I love sourdough and why it’s called “sour”. You’re only gonna need one guess.
Hacking implies a lot more than simply adding fat and sugar, and that’s all you gotta do.
In principle yes, but in reality it extends much farther than that and there is a whole industry built around this.
For example, the “Subway Sandwich smell” is something desired but not easily replicable, and is a guarded secrecy that corporate is pretty shush-shush about. It not only accentuates the flavor but can get people into the shop from blocks away.
It’s… Just just the smell of baked bread and yeast. Anyone that makes their own bread knows what’s going on with the smells in subway and can easily replicate it. I worked at one when I was younger there’s absolutely nothing nefarious or secret about it lmao. I personally think it’s the yeast more than anything. It’s a smell that used to be really common but is much less so these days so it sticks out. A lot of subways have the bread proofing/rising right up by the front too
I’ve seen several threads where chefs confess that all they do to make their dish(s) popular is load it down with butter and sugar.
Not “confessed”. That’s a part of what they teach in culinary school. Restaurants strive for increased flavor, and the most effective flavor profiles are sweet and umami. Sugar and butter (or meat or MSG etc).
But yeah, we definitely use more sugar (instead of, or as well as umami) in America. However, there’s a lot of that going on in Japanese and Chinese (real, as in eating in China) cooking as well. When I was in China, everything that wasn’t meat was shockingly carb-loaded. These weird (yummy) sweet cheese breads I swore had simple syrup slathered all over them with what tasted almost like American Cheese.
I see China is on board with the monitors that look like they were glued to the dashboard and not actually part of it asthetic. I like that both driver and passenger get a neat throttle control. What does it do?
Water is best when you’re thirsty. Water is best for hangovers. Water is best for sports hydrations. Cold water is best when you want a cold drink. Water is best for lunch. Drink more water.
My understanding is that it depends on context. Have you been sweating a lot? Are you super dehydrated? Sports drinks (actual “sports drinks” like Gatorade) are probably better for you than water.
The reason for that is because you lose a lot of salt and other electrolytes through sweat, and drinks like Gatorade are meant to replace those. That’s why professional athletes, especially stamina-based athletes like marathon runners, football players, etc, tend to drink some form of sports drink (the sponsorships help though). Additionally, if you’re extremely dehydrated then you may also be low on electrolytes (because you’ve been out in the sun, or you’ve been sweating a lot). I’ve also heard that sports drinks hydrate faster because they’re supposedly similar to saline, but I can’t find any sources for that, so take that with a grain of salt.
However, if you’re just kinda thirsty or want something to drink, then water is probably better. I doubt you’ll hurt yourself drinking Gatorade instead of water, but you don’t need it either.
Basically, Gatorade’s additional sugar and carbs mean that it makes sense if you are highly active, have a considerably above average physique, or actively drinking it mid work out or other strenuous activity.
For more average people, pedialyte probably makes more sense.
Especially if you are going to pick one to replace water.
While I agree with you, Gatorade released a Pedialyte competitor called Gatorlyte recently. Similar benefits but half the price. I’d recommend that (or a similarly cheap option if another exists) to keep from breaking the bank.
The gatorlyte also is way less sweet than the pedialyte. When my some was sick and throwing up we got him some pedialyte and he wouldn’t drink it because it was so sweet.
After he refused I tried some and agreed it was disgustingly sweet. Made me feel good about the watered down apple juice (and usually water and milk for lunches).
Gatorade (or rather electrolyte waters such as SmartWater) is best when you’re dehydrated and also need salt. The electrolytes help your body actually use the water. Too much water will flush your system out and can lead to cramps and other problems. Especially in the case of dehydration if you’ve been sweating a lot.
Spoken like a Lemming who hasn’t worked out seriously or had a serious physical job in their life.
Humans didn’t spend the entirety of their existence looking for shit better than water for no reason lol. Hydrohomies and an iced glass of water is great… But…
You know what’s better than water when you need water? Nearly everything that isn’t alcohol or literal piss.
Yes, this includes milk and soda. Anything with sugar, protein, or fat is great.
And yes, spiking our drinks with low amounts of drugs is also nice.
You know what’s better than water when you need water? Nearly everything that isn’t alcohol or literal piss.
I mean it really depends on the person and their current condition. The article you linked kinda has an abstract definition of hydration that doesn’t take into account things normally associated with dehydration.
If you are working hard outside and are mildly dehydrated I wouldn’t recommend slamming down a sugary soda with caffeine. Excessive sugar is diluted in the intestines which can cause further dehydration, and caffeine is a diuretic.
Normally this wouldn’t really matter, but if you’re already dehydrated it can make the situation worse.
Water is great, it may not be the most effective hydrator in the world as it doesn’t have the electrolytes and sugars that something like Gatorade has. However, it’s the best thing for your overall kidney and liver health which is what really matters. Most Americans already have an excess of salt, fat, and sugar in their diets, so even after working outside and sweating your ass off you are probably better off just having some water.
but if you’re already dehydrated it can make the situation worse.
No, it won’t. That’s the point of the misconception. You even get to it later then dismiss. We aren’t taking about overall health. We aren’t talking about the 'betes.
None of those things will dehydrate you more despite people saying differently. Not soda, not milk, even beer under 2% beer will be better. You will be rehydrated, there WILL be a net gain of water in your body. There is no net loss of water no matter how much people say sugar or caffeine will lower the net gain.
If you’re dehydrated, you’re lacking salt. There’s a reason why physically demanding companies provide free drink packets to their crews. They don’t want road crews dying by the side of the road because they slammed water and had no salt on a 100 degree day working next to a machine shooting out molten tar and rock. We aren’t pumping people’s blood full of sterile water. Saline bags are .9% salt for a reason.
No, it won’t. That’s the point of the misconception. You even get to it later then dismiss. We aren’t taking about overall health. We aren’t talking about the 'betes.
I mean, whenever you are talking about health you always consider total outcomes. The articles you are linking are talking about a very specific type of dehydration.
None of those things will dehydrate you more despite people saying differently. Not soda, not milk, even beer under 2% beer will be better. You will be rehydrated, there WILL be a net gain of water in your body. There is no net loss of water no matter how much people say sugar or caffeine will lower the net gain.
“Beverages with more concentrated sugars, such as fruit juices or colas, are not necessarily as hydrating as their lower-sugar cousins. They may spend a little more time in the stomach and empty more slowly compared to plain water, but once these beverages enter the small intestine their high concentration of sugars gets diluted during a physiological process called osmosis. This process in effect “pulls” water from the body into the small intestine to dilute the sugars these beverages contain. And technically, anything inside the intestine is outside your body. Juice and soda are not only less hydrating, but offer extra sugars and calories that won’t fill us up as much as solid foods, explained Majumdar. If the choice is between soda and water for hydration, go with water every time. After all, our kidneys and liver depend on water to get rid of toxins in our bodies”
From your own article…
If you’re dehydrated, you’re lacking salt. There’s a reason why physically demanding companies provide free drink packets to their crews. They don’t want road crews dying by the side of the road because they slammed water and had no salt on a 100 degree day working next to a machine shooting out molten tar and rock. We aren’t pumping people’s blood full of sterile water. Saline bags are .9% salt for a reason.
Again, you are talking about a specific type of dehydration… hyponatremia is exceedingly rare and is usually a sign of an undiagnosed kidney disease. Your nephrons will usually regulate your thirst in conjunction to the available salts in the body.
Dehydration is not just a lack of salt, it’s an imbalance of salt. Meaning that you can just be low on fluid with too much salt available.
"Unsurprisingly, the ad is sponsored by the milk industry. And while I’d never heard this claim before, the studies behind the idea aren’t particularly new or compelling. "
Finally, the main benefit of water is that it’s neutral. The reason why people don’t tell you to slam a glass of milk or soda if you’re dehydrated is because it can upset your stomach. When concentrated amounts of sugars or fats enter the intestine the dilution process can go overboard and cause diarrhea, which can dangerously dehydrate you further.
Hydration is more complicated than what you are alluding too. Simply stating everything but piss and liquor is better than water is just ridiculous and misleading. In specific scenarios other liquids may provide some advantages, but it’s highly reductive to make that claim so broadly. Especially considering it requires you to separate hydration from kidney health, you know the things that control your thirst in the first place.
Whether or not the shittonne of sugar in Gatorade is a problem depends on the person. A lazy Google search tells me professional athletes require between 3000 and 8000 calories, obviously depending on what sport they are engaged in. They could probably use the sugar; they’re probably pounding protein shakes too, and you can’t get all of your calories from protein long-term, you need sugar or fat or ideally both.
Then there’s alcoholics using Gatorade for hangover recovery. Alcoholism tends to reduce food intake, causing alcoholics to frequently be underweight. Sugar in the default hangover drink isn’t hurting them, they probably need it, and could probably use more calories besides. I know, this one is me. My license says I’m 5’9", and the scale just told me I’m 108 lbs. With a BMI of 15.9, any calorie I consume is a good thing, regardless of whether it’s dextrose, sucrose, a complex carb, or protein.
Inactive people who eat more than they need and are overweight because of it don’t need the sugar in Gatorade, but also probably aren’t active enough to need the electrolytes in Gatorade; they should be drinking water
You cannot say that with statistical certainty. There’s about 8 billion people who haven’t eventually died yet and all it will take is one of them to break that 100%. You should include a disclaimer with an error range or you might get sued by someone who spikes someone’s drink with dihydrogen monoxide and then they don’t eventually die for botching their assassination.
That said, the statistics are pretty strong. 99.9% is basically 100% plus wiggle room so no one can sue me, so readers should be aware that this dangerous chemical can also go by the name of hydrogen hydroxide and some food manufacturers try to sneak it by with the name aqua in their ingredients list.
The average basement dweller probably just needs more water in their life, but anyone eating a balanced diet who is sweating and working out hard or competiting in an athletic event absolutely needs electrolytes not just water. Drinks like Gatorade with simple sugar in them are also still good in this context, the sugar is a readily burned source of energy that is important to have available for high intensity activity. Obviously if you drink sugar and sit on the couch it just goes to your waist, but that doesn’t make it bad for people who are using it correctly.
lemmy.world
Top