Farming changed radically after the 1950s, so pretty recently. It's pretty reasonable to believe it will. If you've been anywhere near mega livestock operations of any kind then you would know.
Well certainly antibiotics resistance (MRSA [1]) is a problem exacerbated by intense farming practices [2]. To the best of my knowledge there are two big sources of MRSA: Hospitals and livestock farming (the latter of which actually got its own acronym LA-MRSA as in livestock associated MRSA).
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to directly compare the development of bacterial antibiotics resistance with the adaptation of viruses to be able to infect other kinds of hosts. Surely these disease vectors follow different developments.
It wouldn't surprise me though if intensive animal farming [3] has the capacity to exacerbate these problems, if only based on the high concentration of animals kept together and the generally poor health of these animals (poorly functioning immune systems, which is the whole reason for the overuse of antibiotics).
Those economic gains are not felt by a majority of the population. That was clear by the election, and would be clear to you if you stepped out of your own echo chamber. Nobody wants to hear about U3 unemployment when they can't afford childcare, groceries, medicine, all of which have inflated significantly. For folks who were already living paycheck to paycheck, of which there are many, these explanations are both patronizing and out of touch with the lived experience of most of the population.
I’d love to see some data supporting this argument because I’ve heard it over and over from people all over the political spectrum the past few years but it just doesn’t line up with any data. You act like they’re quoting abstract numbers which are meaningless compared to people’s “lived experience” but unemployment is a large part of people’s experience. Furthermore, inflation adjusted wages are up (with the highest gains in the lowest 50% of earners). If these statistics aren’t fully capturing people’s experiences, I’m sure every economist in the world would love to know what metrics are better. Instead it seems perceptions about the state of the economy have become more tightly coupled to
the media atmosphere than anything measurable.
If the anecdotes are not matching up with the data maybe the data is not measured right. Economics is not a science. Given that for profit media is already tightly coupled with the economy, and supported by advertising, the incentive would be for them to create a narrative that the economy is doing well. Consumer confidence is necessary to continue their model of making money through advertising. Righteous consumers of the media have incentive to promote its narratives to make themselves seem more worldly and educated, and that's how we end up with arguments denying the lived experience of "people all over the political spectrum the past few years". The people who have been saying that are not the ones with incentive to lie to you.
If you can’t see the issues with the data you aren’t looking. If you examine the CPI basket and see that health care weighing vs what it is as a % of the economy and that doesn’t draw suspicion idk what will.
What is your allegation here? Health care is weighted at 8.275% and private spending on healthcare is right around there. Do you think it should include public spending on healthcare for some reason?
> I’d love to see some data supporting this argument because I’ve heard it over and over from people all over the political spectrum the past few years but it just doesn’t line up with any data.
Wasn't one of the main points — perhaps the main point — of the article that the data is measured wrong?
> You act like they’re quoting abstract numbers which are meaningless compared to people’s “lived experience” but unemployment is a large part of people’s experience.
Yeah, and the article was in large part about how the unemployment measures in the data don't reflect what people’s lived experience of unemployment is. That's pretty much the definition of “abstract numbers which are meaningless”.
> Furthermore, inflation adjusted wages are up (with the highest gains in the lowest 50% of earners).
Again, that depends very much on how you measure inflation.
> If these statistics aren’t fully capturing people’s experiences, I’m sure every economist in the world would love to know what metrics are better.
That may be the reason the article suggested some new metrics. Honestly, did you even read it at all?
The security concerns are addressed in the article. The answer to your question is in there, and your comment is easily interpreted as the same reflexive outrage you think others are guilty of.
There are, and when I search I am overwhelmed by blog spam that does not describe it as simply as you. For those curious like me, can you point to a good resource? Or explain to salt water and ferment part - leave in a sealed jar on the counter? Thanks in advance
Here's my quick and dirty recipe for many things including peppers, carrots and kale/collard/mustard greens:
- 3 tablespoons salt to 4 cups non chlorinated water. (for greens I boil a handful of rice in water, discard the rice, add a teaspoon or so of sugar and use that water w/ same salt ratio).
- Cut up the veggies and pack them in a jar. No thick pieces (like a whole carrot is too thick, a carrot stick like your mom may have given you as a child is fine).
- Put a weight on top of the veggies to keep them submerged. A ziplock bag partially filled with water works or they sell special weights and spring loaded jar tops for this.
- Don't seal the jar, gas will be produced. Cover it with a cloth if you like although usually the baggie weight is covered enough.
- Leave it room temperature for about a week. 4-5 days is usually enough but longer produces a more sour taste. I've gone 2 weeks plus no problem.
Put it in the fridge (drain some water if you like), keep it sealed (no air) and that is it. It's pretty simple at the end of the day. Some people weigh things and add 2% salt by weight of veggies/water and there are other methods, but what I listed is how I do it and it works. Key is to keep veggies submerged.
but really it can be as simple as some saltwater and veg in a jar, careful to have then mostly covered with brine. Have to manage releasing pressure, burping it a few times a day is fine. Of course, you can get much fancier if you want, the possibilities are endless.
> Have to manage releasing pressure, burping it a few times a day is fine. Of course, you can get much fancier if you want, the possibilities are endless.
I would at least go slightly fancier: get a lid intended for fermentation that lets gasses out on its own. There are several good designs out there, and your local Target or similar store probably carries a little kit, intended for use with a mason jar, that contains a high quality fermentation lid and a nice stainless steel or glass mechanism to hold your veggies down, for a few dollars.
You will want a lid anyway, and the coated metal two-part lids used for canning jam will be destroyed pretty quickly by regular use for fermentation.
Uniparty probably references the fact that D and R parties have maintained a status quo and only differentiate themselves through inconsequential arguments. Kleptocracy in the way those Congress members have colluded to give money to their benefactors (unjust wars, subsidizing bank failures, subsidizing health insurance companies that screw most of us). It's not mysterious.
What are the “2 issues”? Why do they need to “restore” their “stranglehold” when every president for the past 100+ years has been either a Democrat or a Republican?
It is mysterious for those who have different world views or exist inside of a partisan bubble. I can easily imagine how they might characterize your above comment as a, "conspiracy theory". Interesting times.
Much of Trump's voter base derives from people who distrust the "news". I don't blame them, and those folks would be just as quick to point out the ignorance of DNC voters, a party repeatedly shooting their supporters in the foot every election.
A small truck has just as much possibility to kill as a big truck, and in fact due to the smaller application of similar forces its more likely to seriously cripple you, even if said hit was non-fatal.
While I’m all for reducing the size of cars in USA, pretending that ”massive modern trucks” are the only ones that kill is just wrong.
> A small truck has just as much possibility to kill as a big truck, and in fact due to the smaller application of similar forces its more likely to seriously cripple you, even if said hit was non-fatal.
> While I’m all for reducing the size of cars in USA, pretending that ”massive modern trucks” are the only ones that kill is just wrong.
The argument is that a larger truck is more likely to kill - instead of resulting in injuries that can be treated. There is evidence for this.
There is also very obvious evidence that regardless of size you are overwhelmingly likely to die when hit by a vehicle and that in fact due to the application of force via the hood even in non-fatal crashes smaller vehicles have a higher chance to cripple you for life. I really shouldn’t be surprised that saying ‘getting hit by a car, regardless of size, is deadly’ on HN.
“Large SUVs and pickup trucks are, unsurprisingly, more likely than smaller cars to injure or kill pedestrians due to their greater weight and taller front ends.”
You’ve simply got it backwards. More massive trucks with higher top speeds are more dangerous. An F-150 at 30mph is more dangerous than a Honda Fit at 30 mph.
The only way you can somehow NOT come to this conclusion is by denying that all vehicles, big or small, are dangerous and fooling yourself into thinking that there is some magical size where a multi-ton object going at 60MPH is somehow not a lethal force.
I mean it's just momentum = mass*velocity. Something with more mass inherently has more momentum, and will therefore be harder to stop in an emergency/hit harder when it crashes. That's obviously more dangerous no matter how you look at it. A penny going at 60 MPH at your head probably won't kill you but a truck will. A penny going 1000 MPH will probably kill you, but I wouldn't call a penny as dangerous as a truck even though they're both potentially lethal.
There's an alternative explanation. MSFT and the intelligence community were both aware of the flaw and keeping it's existence. Unfortunately, it was weaponized against them (as can happen in these situations).
To be clear: I am speculating for the sake of discussion.
"The policy also includes all vulnerabilities (hardware or software) that were “newly discovered and not publicly known,” regardless of whether they were discovered by the government or purchased on the grey markets, which sell to governments and other hacking groups. However, in a notable loophole, agencies did not have to submit vulnerabilities that were not “newly discovered.” That is, if the zero day was discovered prior to 2010, they could be retained with no subsequent review. Indeed, once a vulnerability went through the process and was retained there was no periodic review to see if the decision was still solid risk management. Also, this process would have excluded non-commercial vulnerabilities and probably those that were not made or used in the United States or by its allies. If the CIA or NSA were able to get their hands on a zero day in a Russian-made S-400 air defense missile system, they would not need DHS concurrence to keep it secret."
There are a few ways for feds to avoid disclosing zero-days they're aware of, but I don't think any of them apply in this instance. Maybe they have something equivalent to an ISOO notice to prevent news orgs from publishing classified information to prevent Microsoft, etc. from disclosing security vulnerabilities they're actively using?
It was the SolarWinds hack that gave internal access and potential admin rights. It's no different than if a domain controller gets compromised. The attacker has gained control of the keys to kingdom; it's an inherent risk to SSO.
While not fresh on the specifics of this controversy, my implicit understanding through Manufacturing Consent was that the Cambodian genocide was more likely a consequence of the United States bombing Cambodia's arable farmland into a booby trapped hellscape, which caused many people to flee to the capital. After some geopolitical games the US played, a psychopath became head of state for Cambodia, and one of those initiatives was ordering those starving people to suddenly leave the capital and go farm, and another was to unalive people at death camps. I don't think he denied the genocide. It makes a lot of sense that many people died of famine as a direct consequence of US destruction of arable farmland, and that the US would create a narrative to hide that and did not let the tragedy of Pol Pot "go to waste".
Assuming that small percentage were most of the arable farmland in Cambodia, would it make more sense? That is to say, if you were misled to believe the impact was smaller than reality would it make you think differently? Small being a relative term. IIRC, IT WAS 25% of Cambodia's landmass and most of its good farmland.
