Also the internet throws a lot of our traditional understandings of culture out the window. A 20 year old and a 40 year old might not have had as much reason to hang out before (although things like sports and hobbies did pull age groups together some) but now they're all playing against each other in the new Call of Duty, sharing memes about Among Us, laughing about how they're too old for the Skibidi Toilet and arguing on Twitter.com

There's lots of injokes and references and slang that I don't understand not because of my age, but because I don't watch Streamer X or play Y game or have Z streaming service. And yet plenty of people younger, my age, and older will get those references because they do. Meanwhile the opposite is true, I've played some online games from my childhood with kids who weren't even alive when the game came out! It was kinda shocking really.

These practices include such offenses as fertilizing garlic with human feces and forms of sewage, growing garlic in sewage

From https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/you-asked/it-true-garlic-china-grown-human-feces-and-watered-urine

there is no evidence that garlic in China is fertilized in this fashion. In any case, there is no problem with this, human waste is as effective a fertilizer as is animal waste. Spreading human sewage on fields that grow crops doesn't sound appealing, but it is safer than you might think.

That would be my guess too at first glance. What do they think manure is if they're grossed out at sewage? As long as it's treated properly to reduce pathogens then it's just "ew yucky I don't like the real world".

It's an opinion article, those always have takes that are much different then the mainstream. For better (like the one here) or for worse (pretty much all of NYTs).

Glad for them, the western efforts to sanction and blockade Ughyur trade was going to harm all the people there (as sanctions are basically always guaranteed to do). The West is well aware of this of course, this is why they use sanctions to "punish" opposition so it's sure strange they're willing to use that tool against the people they claim are being genocided.

A lot of this reporting is a big misunderstanding of statistics.

As the study says

About 45% of the population had zero beef consumption on any given day, whereas the 12% of disproportionate beef consumers accounted for 50% of the total beef consumed

Now just as a thought experiment, do you think that almost half of the US never eats any beef? No, of course not. But on any given day? Sure, quite possible. People's diets vary.

A randomly selected person might have a McDonald's hamburger for lunch and a steak for dinner and be part of the 12% on the first day but then eat mushroom ravioli for lunch and pizza for dinner on the second day and be part of the 45%.

And there might be certain demographics that are more likely to make up that 12% on a given day but that doesn't mean there's a particular nonchanging group of high consumers.

I'm not going to dig into the study here but just as an example, let's say Dog Breed X is 1.5 times more likely to bark than Dog Breed Y is. You can't hear a dog bark and say "Ah it must be Breed X then!", you can only say "Ah, it's more likely from Breed X than Breed Y".

I think that way about evolution sometimes. It's blitheringly obvious when you consider the two points

1. There is a difference between parent and offspring and yet they also inherit traits
2. Differences add up

Both are easily observable in the natural world. The first one can be seen with babies "oh you have your mother's eyes" while also the baby not literally being the mom. The second one is used by walking where we cross a large distance one step at a time.

And all you need is those two principles to come to the conclusion that the small yet inheritable differences between offspring will add up over a long period of time. The question to be asked isn't if it will happen but rather just what traits it happens to.

And yet, it took humanity (and for many people still they refuse) millennial to grasp it. I'm looking at the process as so simple only from the lens of someone born after it was figured out.

I think it's a good post honestly, main critique is that it feels accusatory like "I gotta teach you all to not be anti semitic because you currently are" ya know?

But I'm not sure how to get rid of such a tone so maybe it's unavoidable. I totally agree with you though that this shit is messy and you need to be hyperspecific in criticisms.

To be clear here, while they advocate for UBI this isn't really a study on the topic as much as it is on direct cash payments to the homeless. Which has been supported by tons of different research in Canada, London, so many places I can't even remember them all.

The funniest thing to me is the people who are like "It's against the law to be in the left lane if you're not passing!" because dudes, it's also against the law to be speeding yet you're doing that.

You can't really sit there and start getting angry about traffic violations when you're in the middle of one.

I don't think it's particularly unreasonable to conclude that any decent approach to the first will also include the second. That shit is literally designed to be addictive, even the best teachers are gonna struggle to compete.

It's all been invented before yeah but at least some of them are within the past two decades like the smartphone projector or whatever.

Seat cushion Kitchen gloves

But some of this stuff has been around for 50+ years.

I also love how much of it is normal product but with the word college put in front. A clothes hamper? Simple, boring, not innovative. A Collegelife clothes hamper? Genius.

Well actually, have you considered I'm doing it right now?