The west have had various forms for this since before the internet,
and certainly have huge efforts similar to what you list above,
but have in general been far more productive than bots from
the other side.
Yeah, he's wrong about many things. But hurling epithets and constructing an argument via ad hominem isn't necessary. You can defeat his claims directly.
And FWIW, the claim that eating unprocessed "whole" foods is healthy is almost certainly true.
If it died due to disease that's one, rabies and any prion diseases would be easy to accidentally transfer due to mistakes in handling. Parasites. Mites and fleas which also can harbor disease. Uncertain length of decomposition. Possibly died due to poison, either intentionally or unintentionally which can the poison the eater.
We're discussing roadkill bear. Meaning a bear that was killed on the road (by a vehicle).
It's technically true that it still could have any of the scary afflictions you mention, but that's no different than any hunted game, or any industrially farmed animal.
Barring prions or poisoning (incredibly and quite rare, respectively), all of those issues can and would be evaluated by someone who intended to consume the animal.
I'm curious if you consume meat, and if you've ever been involved in the slaughter or processing of animals.
No, we're discussing a bear that was dead by the road. There's never been a claim it was killed by a vehicle. He found the bear long after whatever occurred did. Also, he then dumped it in central park, so even he thought it wasn't "good meat".
Your interpretation is wrong, and potentially disingenuous.
Animals killed by vehicles on the road are pretty easy to distinguish from animals that coincidentally died on the road.
> He found the bear long after whatever occurred did. Also, he then dumped it in central park, so even he thought it wasn't "good meat"
So your argument is that there's something wrong with roadkill because it might be afflicted with something that would make it detrimental for human consumption; now you admit that he was able to evaluate its fitness for consumption, and avoided consuming something that wasn't "good meat"?
What point are you making exactly?
Yours is the same argument as right wingers screaming "ewwww insect derived protein is gross, don't you know insects can cause ____".
While the mental image of eating roadkill is also unappetizing to me, I have to admit my reaction here is irrational.
Eating roadkill isn’t much different from eating wild game you hunted — except with roadkill, it was someone else and their car that killed it accidentally, rather you and a gun intentionally.
If you didn't see it die you don't know what it died of. Shooting something healthy and then dressing it while fresh is different from finding windfall after some unknown amount of time.
This is just one of literally thousands of resources answering this exact question. There are other resources to help evaluate other potential consumption risks. There's no need to pretend that the only animals people can eat are the ones they witnessed being killed; people do otherwise, and have for millennia.
There are a lot of deer killed by cars around here and people do harvest them. With even ordinary supermarket steak pushing $30/lb it's not completely crazy.
> First do it, then do it right, then do it better. Get the ugly prototype in front of users.
Great, give users something that messy, horrible and not fully functional.
Customer who spend big for production environments are exploited to "be
the outsourced QA"
> But don’t be too quick to attribute its failure to the “ick” factor that many > Westerners feel about bugs.
I think this is a weird wording.
I dont think you need to limit the ick factor to "Westerners"
There are an awful lot of people out there who would feel the "ick"
factor.
And even for some of those who do eat insects, they are specific insects,
form specific places, prepared in traditional ways.
> I think this is a weird wording. I dont think you need to limit the ick factor to "Westerners" There are an awful lot of people out there who would feel the "ick" factor.
Of course, this has nothing to do with “Westerners.” No one in their right mind would want farm animals to be fed insect powder. The fact that the company was allowed to operate and to receive massive funding is the real issue here.
Indeed we already feed them insects and we don't powder them. You can purchase bags of dried meal worms at the feed store. The carcasses are fully intact.
For the longest time industrial and domestic livestock raising used to involve feed that included literally anything the animal would it. Free range birds today regularly eat worms and insects. Pigs were used as a sort of waste disposal system for anything they could digest, leading to a lot of health issues. Still nobody really cared beyond “I’ll cook it until it doesn’t kill me”, not the producers, not the consumers.
There's a famous video of a bunch of kids seeing the nasty, vile process of creating chicken nuggets in front of them. At the end of the nasty process, the chicken nuggets are made and presented in front of the kids. After asking, "Who wants chicken nuggets?" all hands go up instantly.
No, actually showing how the sausage is made does NOT stop people from wanting it. I honestly think that people like knowing how fake/cruel things are! People want the comically fake look and taste. See Mar-a-Lago face and its popularity. Hopefully AI or something can "engineer the human spirit" away from this horrible tendency.
Related, Asians seem to love to take westerners absolute worst food and act like it's okay despite being absolute "food divas" otherwise. Asians (in their own countries) will unironically eat kraft singles on their ramen and use spam everywhere, while simultaneously gloating that "they only go out to eat for food that's hard to make at home" and lamenting about how disgusting fast food is.
You won't win anything by trying to show people how gross food is. You think bugs are gross to people? Remember fear factor?
I really don't concede the point. Kids see food they aren't accustomed to eating blended together and fed to them by people they trust (Oliver is a celebrity in the UK).
What they aren't seeing is the chicken eggs they're eating was laid by a hen that was shat on by the chicken above it while sitting on a bed made of the cadaver of the chicken that held the pen before it.
Steak is the meat that people pay the most attention to in this regard! People will pay hundreds of dollars for a few ounces of steak solely based on how the cow was raised and fed.
For steak, I disagree with the article about stigma of eating bugs. Feeding cows bugs will save money, no doubt, and that might help cost on the low end of the beef market. Steak is a different thing though. A "bug-raised, bug-finished" steak would have to be incredible to overcome the stigma.
Comparing high end, connoisseur based food like wagyu to the plastic wrapped supermarket meat most folks buy day to day isn't a good comparison. Both things exist; there isn't only one way people think (or don't think) about their food in this way.
Similarly with whisky - some folks care deeply some of the time about a particular whisky made by a particular distillery in a particular way in a particular place. This is fun and interesting and there is a lot to appreciate there. That doesn't mean there isnt a massive market for "well" whisky or the flavored ones where they mix up all the lower quality whisky they can get their hands on in bulk then add cinnamon or peanut butter syrup to it until people drink it again.
In the same way people generally don't LIKE the conditions of food animals it doesn't prevent their purchase, especially if it reduces cost or increases availability.
There are probably a fair share of people that care. But I said "most" and stand by it. Maybe you are american? Around here we don't ask how the cattle was fed, maybe in high end restaurants and markets, but that is obviously a minority.
I think we should shut down the current crop of social media
but that isn't going to happen anytime soon.
I think an easier way to achieves instead of imposing this on everyone.
Social media companies should be required to add paid tier where
the individual user can block the types of the user does not want
to see, (or just block all of them).
In some places perhaps the government would ban "free social media"
and only allow the paid tier to operate.
This in the best case would make the price reasonably low, if the
social media company does not want to lose a lot of users.
Perhaps even subsidised. At which point the goal set above is
achieved.
It should be regulated similar to online gambling in the UK (so barely, but it is a start).
The key being age verification. Under 18, or maybe 16 accounts have: Mandatory blackout periods (after 9pm most account functions stop working, parents could set this more aggressively if they cared about the child's studies). Interaction limits like time spent on feeds, type of content that will appear in feeds, number of friends, visibility of comments ect. Only one account allowed and enforcement taken seriously.
Over 16/18s should have the option to "time themselves out" for a chosen period with their account going into a limited mode where feeds no longer work . Similar to the option problem gamblers have where gambling sites are supposed to stop them playing if they block themselves. Maybe when someone needs to focus for exams or a work commitment.
Sure kids will try and get round limits, but I think when you have investment in a main account it would be something you would want to keep, so the threat of loosing it would be real.
I think there is a big legal difference between helping preserve
books and papers with little regard for copyrights, to then turn
around and selling access to large companies.
I envision an army of lawyers and cyber security companies being
prepared to unleash a scorched earth campaign that book publishers
might want to be part of as well.
At the end it may take down more than just this publication but most
others as well.
It seems like an effort to hire newly educated people for a two year
program, to work on various efforts in the federal government as
something close to on the job training.
Once you are done you can pair up with one of the private partners
you had contacted with during your program. (If they want you).
This does not appear to be an effort to hire people to the federal
government, but to get cheap labour from new grads who hope to
work on something cool.
(But yes they will have to hire the framework people)
We have built a new device.
The device is a ring with a button and a microphone.
Pressing the button initiates recording of your voice
captures voice via the built in microphone and saves
it on your phone.
I think it would take a lot of heavy software to process
and index the voice notes for the claim
"Meet Pebble Index 01 - External Memory For Your Brain"
is honest
reply