Here’s my reason for trying to eat a little more beef than that. If I’m giving “lives lost” any value, you can’t beat cows for calories per animal death. It beats a lot of plant-based foods. And I do have local beef, though it is not fully sustained like local chicken is… which is why I eat more chicken and seafood as well. Not to mention, even though beef around me can be ecologically sustainable, it will not remain that way if too many people eat it because it needs to be supplemented by import. So some beef = good. More beef = less good.
We actually have some ethically sourced local pork, too. I guess it’s nice living in a farming area of my state, despite not living in a farming-state. The butcher’s pork section is always small, but he’s got some.
Also, and I’m fully aware this could just be some kinda subconscious bias, but I swear the meat and eggs taste SO much better than the stuff from the grocery
Not really a subconscious bias. They are fresher, and preservation techniques often have not been started on them. If you eat an egg that has never been refrigerated, of course it’s fresher. (or the opposite, lol)
The seafood my family fishes is right off a boat, generally only a couple hours harvested. After the fishermens’ cut, the best stuff goes to a couple local restaurants and seafood markets, and the rest are frozen and shipped. Yes, you can taste the difference. I never liked scallops until I tasted “the real thing” off a boat.
You’re just using an animal to perform the processing instead
Which they do efficiently. There’s no grass in the resulting meat, or feed, or sunlight. That’s why they’re not on the ingredient list. And water is in everything.
I wonder why poultry or beef isn’t required to list all of the antibiotics or growth horomones that those animals were fed as included ingredients.
Per the Iowa Farm Bureau, because there ARE NO antibiotics or residue in the resultant meat. An ingredient is something actually in the product. Nobody says there’s gasoline in your food vegetables because of the harvester, or insects in your vegetables because… well there actually are!
As for growth hormones… nobody has to say there’s growth hormones in it because they’re everywhere. Beef from a hormone-treated cow has thousands (to millions) of times less growth hormonesthan many plant-based products like peanuts or soy flour. Nobody has to list Estrogen on soy milk.
Google says 86% of plant based meat is bought by meat eaters
The reference behind that Google statement (assuming the same) is a vegan blog talking about the Beyond brand only, and it’s citing a wordpress site as its source, and the wordpress site has been deleted.
NPD has a study mis-cited by vegnews.com (that MPD doesn’t actually seem to cite), but it includes plant-based milks, and I don’t think that gives meaningful numbers. I’ll drink a soy latte with a steak any day. I’m lactose intolerant.
NIH has the most reliable study, that settled around 2/3 of plant-meat consumers are omnivores. Which is saying something, but is also not surprising from the fact that almost 90% of the world consumes meat. So I think it sorta just runs out to nowhere, with regards to being a demographic thing. Clearly, vegans and vegetarians are more likely to consume plant-based meat than meat-eaters. With 10% of Americans being vegetarian and representing over 30% of plant-based meat consumers, they’re eating that stuff up.
I think we need to understand what definition people are using for “chemicals”. They usually are referring to highly processed ingredients, with highly processed preservatives, highly processed artificial flavors (called “natural flavors”, but taken for example from the anal glans of a beaver… yes this is real and common). By the broadest definition, absolutely everything is a chemical. Generally, people should avoid any definition for a word that makes the word nonsensical. And also generally, you will find big lobbyist groups using that general definition to shell-game about the specific chemicals they are trying to protect.
When a food-concerned person mentions chemicals, they are referring to things like antibiotics or hormones, preservatives or processed sweeteners with known side-effects. Some of them are talking about isolates, like soy protein isolate to which there are valid health concerns.
And yes, sometimes people referring to chemicals don’t know what chemicals they’re complaining about. And yes, sometimes people complaining about chemicals are complaining that their meatless burger’s consistency comes from methyl cellulose, (probably) completely harmless but absolutely artificial.
The same way some vegans are made ill by the thought of meat, some folks are made ill by flavor- or consistency-related facts in their food. I mean, I think vegans would be concerned to know the beaver anal secretions above was in some plant milks under the term “natural flavors”.
Dudes who’s entire sense of self is invested in eating meat
This might sound silly. But maybe they enjoy the taste of rare roast beef? Before this “make meat seem like it’s not dead animal” trend, the rule used to be anything over medium was overcooked for most meats. For some odd reason (actually, not odd. freaking additives) a lot of roast beef is sold medium-well. Which is tasteless enough to make someone go vegan!
I don’t understand “yell at the clerks”. I’ve never seen that. But I agree it’s rude. Just **not **because they are buying meat.
I mean, I suck-it-up and sub to all of them. I hate the experience and my wife bitches at me at least weekly because it’s so much work to find and start a show (to the extent she ends up NOT watching the show she wanted, and leaves some stupid channel on at random). We are so close to cancelling all of them, not for the money but because the experience is complete ass.
Guess what I’ll be doing to watch my TV if we do that?
I’m not questioning your motives directly. I’m suggesting that the changes you’re looking for are still going to cause more harm than good to most people.
Is your family privileged? Absolutely! Is it fair to the others that they are able to buy homes and even keep them if they fucked up financially while most other lose everything? Not in my opinion.
Have you ever read Harrison Bergeron by Vonnegut? I’m not a capitalist, but I still firmly believe you need to show your work when you want to take action that hurts the lower 99% to “even the playing field”.
As a privileged person, you might want to add some empathy to your answers in the future.
You just wrongly accused me of not having af air discussion among equals, and then you pull this? The only thing you know about me is that someone in my extended family has made enough money in their life to buy two rental properties. They don’t owe me anything. How does that make me privileged?
Further, you’re accusing me of lacking empathy. Why? I have the same problem with preventing them from buying a house as you would have if I said we needed to kick EVERYONE out of their homes because somebody out there is homeless. It’s the same thing to me. It’s obviously not the same thing to you. Do I get to say you lack empathy because of it? Because I don’t plan to. Instead, I like to engage as to why that’s a bad idea.
I understand the idea and its great if they were able to do that but the world would look a lot different if they would actually do it differently
I don’t think anyone has demonstrated that’s true. If everyone but megacorporations stopped owning property other than the one they live in, I don’t thin housing prices or rent would go down. In fact, it would have unexpected side-effects like increased rental rates (since you’d have to jump through even more hoops). Imagine if you will, the pre-flip car lease market. Owning cars was the way of the poor, leasing a new car every few years was the way of the rich. If only owner-occupied could be rentals, rent would skyrocket and the MANY people who want to rent would have to fight with each other. Consortiums would find a legal way to buy luxury rental buildings and have a dedicated “owner” live in them. As you implied, supply and demand. A lot of people don’t want the liability of property ownership for reasons other than “being too poor to buy a house”.
There would be more houses to buy and they would be cheaper, their money would need to be put in other things to collect interest
Yeah, it would collect more interest. So long as nothing happened to them (which it hasn’t), they’d end up a lot richer. But it’s a lot more risk because if something did happen to them, it would be harder for that money to be earmarked into a trust in the kids’ name like the houses are. So they would have had to live with the real risk that their son would end up homeless, but yay they’d have a lot more money.
The problem with a lot of people suggesting real-estate reform is that they don’t understand why individuals (not big businesses, that’s different) buy rental houses. It’s rarely about maximizing profit, it’s about minimizing or mitigating risk.
To be clear: your extended family is not the problem imo and would not suffer from a law like this.
Except, it sounds like you just said they would not be allowed to do what they did, and would be stuck with riskier propositions. Those houses were purchased under little LLCs so that if they got sued into bankruptcy their kids would still have a home (they themselves are under Homestead protections like most homeowners in my state). Not that they expected to be sued, but it’s called “doing anything to make sure my kids don’t end up on the street”. That’s what happens when you grow up in poverty. And there really is no better, simpler, and more reasonable way to make sure your kid won’t be homeless than to buy them a house. And if you’re not filthy rich, that doesn’t mean buying it cash and handing it to them on a silver platter. (technically, I think that silver-platter method would still be allowed under the plan I’m objecting to because the kids would have an owner-occupied house in their name… yay rich people I guess. My family isn’t rich enough for that)
I’m not sure you understand how Massachusetts politics works (or perhaps any local politics). I can’t speak for the other states with in-depth knowledge, but boy can I school you about Massachusetts.
Federally, we’re a deep-blue state, but that’s just not all of how it works at the state level. With a few exceptions we usually have a Republican governor. Yeah, the rest of the US like to call them “RINO” because the’re not on board with the craziest shit the alt-right has to offer. Most (if not all) of these changes happened under Romney and Baker, both Republican. Of note, none of these changes I’m talking about have ever shown up in a bill in legislature. They’ve all be driven by the executive action upon the mandate. That is, they fall on the governor. Who was Republican.
…and yet, I didn’t say it’s The Republicans, either. Democrats could’ve stepped in by passing laws preventing that behavior. We didn’t because our Democrats like to keep peace with our Republicans and, frankly, because the Democrats don’t care enough to involve themselves in the HOW as long as subsidies are happening.
But Dems aren’t following through with what they say they want to do–affordable housing for all
Again, I can only speak for MA. With one very recent exception (and excepting the recent excessive price spikes), MA does fairly well with providing affordable housing for all as long as it’s outside of Boston. But I think I wasn’t being entirely clear. I am mostly talking about Housing Project availability. Section 8 is, as you suggested, up to the landlord. It’s worded to allow people to live basically anywhere, even in the heart of Boston, with a limited income.
BTW - section 8 should be great for a landlord. You are guaranteed payment on the 1st of every month, and you can still initiate eviction if the tenant is trashing your property or doing crime
From family experience, the issue is that “trashing your property” can cost you years of profits or even force you to sell the building. I’ve had family deal with the notorious “cement in the toilet” meme for real. People really do it and it really costs a massive amount of money to handle. Home and landlord insurance does not cover intentional damage by tenants. We’re talking up to $15,000 damage just because they’re mad you’re evicting them.
Most landlords don’t care about “not wanting poor people” with Section 8. They care about having judgement-proof tenants who can cause damage and never be held accountable due to being poor. They also have to meet certain building code and quality standards that non-section-8 landlords don’t! There’s a LOT of non-section-8 rentals in New Bedford for this reason. No, they’re not trying to gentrify Durfee Street, I promise you that!
There’s two sides to the section 8 coin. Side 1 is that the rent is slightly above-average and some of it always shows up on time. Side 2 is that the rest of it is often late, overall risk is higher, and then you actually can’t be a slumlord. I mean, look at the list of rules. Everyone I know living in New Bedford apartments have (checks list) shitty or broken HVAC, decaying building foundation, crappy interior stairs, pest issues, flaking paint, etc. Not only can landlords get away with a lot of that (and worse) normally, but Section 8 includes annual and spot inspections for all of them.
I don’t fault the state making these demands, but it leads to a lot of people not registering their rental with Section 8, for reasons that have nothing to do with Poor tenants (and in many cases BECAUSE they’re going to have poor tenants who won’t pitch a fit about a not-to-code apartment). I’ve rented from places that would have failed Section 8. And I kept my mouth shut.
One can get place renting for $2k, but can’t get approved for that mortgage amount even with tons of history showing it’s paid
I think the issue there is that there’s more risk to mortgage companies than “tons of history showing it’s paid”. There’s a reason they use complicated equations instead of interviews to make decisions related to risk. Questions that don’t directly relate to someone being unable to pay mortgage:
Will they take action that reduces the property value enough to put them underwater
If they choose to walk away for some reason, what percent of our investment do we get back?
And with the rest of the equation, home ownership is higher risk than renting because a tenant isn’t responsible for damage and repairs. If, for example, peeling asbestos gets discovered and you have to move out to fix it to the tune of $10,000 or more, will that homeowner be able to afford it? Will they just walk out and start renting somewhere? There’s a lot of things not covered by homeowners insurance that can financially devastate a homeowner, and the mortgagee (bank) might notice an income disruption that a renter would not.
What’s Ubuntu’s “particular madness”? They used to be a little FOSS-only, but they’ve chilled out on that.
I agree on the other points, though, with one caveat on both.
No matter how many games run on linux, it won’t be enough because there aren’t ever going to be linux exclusives. Without linux exclusives, there will always be more games that run in Windows than Linux, even if the majority of them run in linux AND run better than in Windows.
Office sounds like a big deal, but Apple managed to prove you don’t need it. The real problem Linux has with office is that it has no well-marketed office suite. There’s nothing wrong with Libre- or Open- except the complete lack of advertising and passive training to its nuances that we get from MS and Apple office products.
It’s not that linux can’t win on games or office. It’s that the game is rigged against it on both. It took me a few years back in the early 00’s, but I quickly realized that there will never be a “year of the linux desktop” regardless of how good Linux gets at games, office, user-friendliness, or anything.
And that’s ok because MY life is easier when I use linux.
Actually, I’ve watched two GREAT workers and good people end up losing their jobs because a easily resolved situation turned toxic. The person who felt uncomfortable tried to take care of it 1-on-1 but had too passive aggressive a nature to really be clear when she confronted the guy.
So 6 months or a year later, she was on the verge of quitting and went to HR. He was terminated because it had gone too far. She left soon after because she still wasn’t comfortable at work after the cause of that ended.
…look. I “obviously never dealt” with anything because nobody is allowed differing opinions here, but I have 20+ years experience at businesses where the existence or lack of good HR has been a deciding factor of the work-culture and comfort level of team members. I work 1-on-1 with my company’s Directors of HR on a regular basis to make sure my team is happy and because I am involved with other teams at my job who have their own interpersonal conflicts. One of HR’s responsibilities in a good company is to involve themselves in interpersonal conflicts BEFORE decisive action has to be taken.
The problem is that face-to-face confrontations without a mediator don’t always end well. And I would rather not have HR decide “we have to fire our Rockstar senior dev or this random guy”. But if you address it earlier, HR deals with it earlier (yes, because the paper trail m eans HR can’t just fire “this random guy” later over the Rockstar senior dev). It’s win-win for all parties INCLUDING the Linus Torvalds in this explanation.
But I’ve “obviously never dealt with a real-world scenario” and my experience doesn’t count. So you can ignore everything I said.
your link lists MPG of 21.82 for 2023, that is almost 1/3 worse then your friend.
That is for a non-Hybrid Silverado, and my friend has a hybrid. Seems to make sense.
The legal issues are a issue not because these are unsafe or high-emission (they are not). They are a major issue because the auto industry has fed you that tripe and like a lot of US consumers you bought it.
That is sorta tinfoil. There is a process in most states to get ANY vehicle street-legal. But Kei trucks don’t just need safety features retrofitted, apparently they lack a sufficient roll cage to pass inspections for valid safety concerns. Even Kei fans can’t agree on whether it’s more or less safe in a crash than a motorcycle.
As for emissions, in a lot of states you just have to pass standard EPA emissions guidelines like any other vehicle. Apparently that’s very difficult for a Kei truck to do. Perhaps it uses a gallon or two less per hundred miles, but its emissions are worse.
Lots of Kei truck fans out there bitch about how the EPA should have better things to do than care about fehicle emissions, but I’d think a “fuck cars” community would care about vehicle emissions.
These are not good on gas, they have convinced people that 29mpg in a hybrid that costs as much as a house is good.
So your viewpoint is entirely about money. Just be straight with it.
and in no world would you catch me in anything made in north America for the last 20 years. Like many other people I had to buy a very old truck (carberated v8 that gets 14ish mpg btw) and it sits by my barn until it is needed.
Why is that? Newer vehicles tend to be safer in collisions and better on emissions than the equivalent older vehicle.
The “cure” to the f150 is just the option to buy a old f150
Circa 2000 F150s rate as low as 10-11MPG. New F150s rate as high as 25MPG. And new F150s are a lot safer to drive. I’ll ask again, is this entire rant of yours just about money? Because maybe I’m the wrong person to respond to if you’re just cheap. I get it, I’d rather take a bus myself than have a car payment.