-28 karma · joined November 11, 2018
I think you are confusing him with Putin, who actually said that. He said the cheka was mostly jewish. Which is correct.
Why? Just because an author disappoints you, doesn't mean you need to try to undo your enjoyment of a book they wrote.
Calling people you disagree with trolls and then going back through their comments to post irrelevant ad-homs in other threads doesn't seem like it is within the spirit of the commenting guidelines as I read them. Maybe I'm just reading it wrong.
>Again, you are incorrect here. If you don't believe me, please come to London (or any one of dozens of cities in China and Europe) where battery electric buses routinely operate all day, every day, with overnight recharging only.
I do not need to physically go to London to know you are incorrect. I can speak to an operations manager in London and ask him directly. There are absolutely no electric buses in London that operate a full day. Zero.
>In London, virtually all diesel buses are retired by the time they are 10 years old.
Yes, lots of cities do that. They are not retired because they need to be, they are retired because federal funding is available to retire them. Those exact buses are sold at a huge loss to private companies who operate them for another 30 years. In countries where there are no programs to throw the public's money in the garbage buying new equipment that isn't needed, diesel buses operate for 30-40 years.
>Overnight electricity is not only much cheaper, but largely produced by renewables and nuclear, so the carbon intensity is low.
It is not much cheaper. If it were actually a net benefit to shift electricity usage to night time using batteries, then that would still be done. You don't need the batteries in the buses to do that. It is actually much better for them not to be in the buses. There's lots of trollybus systems all over the world in active use. None of them install batteries to shift electricity usage to the night time. The reason is obvious, it isn't cost effective. You can't pretend a negative that you are stuck with is a positive when if it were actually a positive it would apply to the system you are fighting against too.
>However, it would be very difficult and costly to reinstate such a network today
There is nothing difficult about running wires. We already have people who do this job. It would be expensive. But it is less expensive than batteries, which is why cities where there are no corporate interests bribing politicians to buy expensive battery systems are buying trollybuses. You can't compare wires to nothing and proclaim them expensive, you have to compare it to the alternative, which is much more expensive.
>Battery electrics offer the best of both worlds
No, they do not.
>The smooth, quiet passenger experience and zero emissions of a trollybus
They are not zero emissions, they burn diesel all winter to heat the bus.
>with the flexibility and low fixed costs of diesel.
What low fixed costs of diesel? The only definition in which diesel is low cost is upfront purchase price, and by that measure battery powered buses are high cost, 160% of the cost even. In any long term cost comparison, trollybuses are cheaper than battery which are cheaper than diesel.
Yes, there is. Montreal runs $60k per km.
>I’m glad the city is forward thinking in some areas.
The city isn't forward thinking, it is exploiting ignorance to steal from people. Wasting tons of money on stupid nonsense like this is possible precisely because people think "oh its green so its ok" when it is the same corporate bribery to corrupt politicians to steal from the people as always. This is tremendously wasteful, and still burns tons of diesel. Tram buses would cost less and stop burning diesel period.
Neither are batteries.
>Plus there may be new safety considerations compared to when trolleys were retired.
Like what? What new safety consideration prevents us from using overhead power lines now? And trolleys were not retired in lots of cities.
It is less than, as I said.
>then they would last 54 years with daily cycling!
Which isn't the case unless they are buying 10 times the batteries and swapping them all day. They can't run all day on a single charge.
>Diesel buses do not usually last much more than 10 years in daily service anyway.
What? There's tons of Diesel buses that are decades old and in use. And what on earth do diesel buses have to do with anything? We're comparing batteries vs wires.
>That is incorrect
https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/success-of-montr...
>The range of a battery electric bus is hundreds of miles
Not any of the ones anyone has. And those buses are burning diesel to heat the bus in the winter, which would not be needed using a tram bus.
>I expect that at some point in the next 1-2 years, London will commit to purchasing only zero-emission busses with the goal of an all-electric fleet by 2030 or so.
What does that have to do with anything? Electric buses are "zero emission" (move the emission somewhere else) regardless of batteries vs power lines.
How so? You're talking about literal tons of batteries, and the charging stations for them. And you have to replace those batteries every decade because their useful lifespan is less than 20,000 cycles.
>or replacing diesel
Sure, if you are just replacing a couple of buses it would make sense.
>Also, batteries are charged overnight, allowing cheap off-peak energy to be used
Batteries have to be charged multiple times per day. It isn't feasible for a bus to carry around an entire day of energy in batteries, the extra weight uses more extra energy than is worthwhile. And lots of places don't have cheap off-peak electricity, they have a single rate.
Relative to what they used to cost, sure. Relative to batteries they are quite cheap. It takes a lot of batteries to move a bus, and they have to be replaced every few years because they are charged and discharged multiple times per day.
Only if there is a benefit to doing so. If it was simply a case of "nature can optimize really well" then we would expect to find many species at or near the limit of intelligence, not just one. Other species did not have the evolutionary pressure to cause as high of intelligence to be selected for. It is very reasonable to think that we also did not have the evolutionary pressure necessary to cause us to have even higher intelligence than we do.
http://www.tampabay.com/projects/2016/food/farm-to-fable/far...
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/farmers-markets-lies-market...
That action may bring it up to a safe temperature. The fact that people die from e. coli poisoning from undercooked meat all the time shows that this is not foolproof.
>I'm likely to just rinse off an apple or lettuce, which may or may not successfully clean the food.
Which is an absolute non-issue if that food hasn't been sprayed with feces in the first place, as the parent poster pointed out. You can't get e. coli from unwashed vegetables unless someone has sprayed animal (including human) feces on it first.
That's not required at all. Most grain is grown no-till, you seed directly through the residue of the previous crop. This is the typical problem, people researching solutions to problems that don't actually exist. Why are agricultural researchers completely unfamiliar with basic farming practices?
>you could work an area of land with less than half the total labor.
And get less food from it because the grain has such a low yield. You're burning fewer gallons of diesel per calorie of food produced to grow normal wheat than any of the perennial grains they have come up with so far.
>Less soil prep and planting (with heavy machinery) means less soil erosion, less microbiome destruction, healthier soil
But we solved that problem decades ago, solving it again but worse isn't very useful.
Several times a week, every week.
>It won't rise.
Yes it will.
>Anything more than 50% wheat flour and in the oven it's just not going to get big
Use a whole wheat bread recipe, don't use a white bread recipe and just swap in whole wheat flour.
>but if you have to use more than flour, salt, yeast and water, it isn't "bread" to me anymore
Almost all bread has more than that. Sweetener and fat are both normal.
Companies are tripping over each other trying to hire women. My wife is blindly offered jobs entirely because she is a woman. Not secretly or anything, they literally say "we are looking for women for our team".
>If it would be considered shockingly newsworthy that a company hires old female programmers in India for the same pay as young white guys in SV, that in itself seems evidence there is no shortage at all
No it isn't. There is no reason to believe old Indian women are as qualified as young white men. There's actually huge reasons to believe they are not. And why are you so fixated on white men? Considering the demographics of the USA, white men are under-represented in US tech jobs, Asian and Indian men are over-represented.
You are literally linking to youtube videos by an infamous crank.
>link a book that I will not buy
You don't need to buy it. The point is, biology text books contradict your advocate fraud. Which is more credible?
>The web page puts dogs in the category of omnivores like many experts do or did.
Dogs are the same species as wolves.
>I live in West-Europe and from primary school to university, the recommendation for food has always been less meat and less cheese and less fat and less candy and more vegetables including fruits and more fiber.
And health problems have gotten worse. Funny how that works huh? Myocardial infarctions literally did not exist prior to the 1900s when "vegetable oil" was introduced to our diets. We consume far less animal fat than Victorians did, yet have far worse health. Hmmm.
>The benefits of a plant based or vegan diet have become only more scientifically validated and more accepted in the population.
There is no evidence to support that belief.
>Also because of a growing acceptance that actions against climate warming and pollution and unsustainable and horrible animal farming are needed.
That has nothing to do with veganism, it is a red herring vegans use to push their agenda on the back of environmentalism which people are more receptive to.
No it is not, read the context you intentionally cut out: "Quite a large population in the the world lives at place where fishes aren't available".
>The human body works best with vegan food as main food or only vegan food in 2018 with modern vitamin supplements
There is no evidence to support your assertion. The fact that vitamin supplements are required in order to avoid dying is incontrovertible evidence that humans are not herbivores. Our digestive tract, dentition, and enzyme production are those of an omnivore. We have absolutely no characteristics of herbivores.
>Even cows can digest milk and meat to some degree
All mammals can digest milk, that is why all mammals produce milk. That has nothing to do with your claim. Meat fed to cattle is pre-digested in order to allow them to get some energy value from it. They can not digest it normally.
>Again, human physiology that you can not deny or call a lie:
It is a bunch of lies and deliberate nonsense. Claws do not define diet, that is a completely irrelevant characteristic to focus on. Dogs are not omnivores they are carnivores. Our closest primate relatives are omnivores just like us, not herbivores. Notice how you keep referencing vegan activists spouting nonsense on blogs and videos? That is not evidence. There is a reason every biologist in the US has read this book rather than watch vegan youtube videos: https://www.amazon.ca/Mammalogy-Adaptation-Diversity-George-...
>Most humans do not even like predigested meat in the form of cooked meat or grilled meat without further additions like salt and spices and other plant based food for the taste.
And your basis for this claim is that the vast majority of the population of earth consumes meat all the time? If lots of people choose to add additional flavorings to something they eat, then that means it isn't part of their natural diet? By that definition, the natural diet of humans is absolutely nothing, not even water.
But that point is not relevant to the post you replied to, which was wondering aloud about human adaptation to the availability of fish. The availability of algae is the same as the availability of fish.
>I have not seen any study what shows that ALA and LA are not essential.
Have you seen one that shows it is? Because there are none.
>Link please.
I can't find the original study, just people talking about it. They gave up on the original premise as the linseed oil was killing people instead of making them healthy, so they ended up reporting on smoking and blood pressure.
https://tidsskriftet.no/en/2012/01/life-expectancy-and-cause...
>But some truth is known in 2018.
But people with agendas lying on their blogs or youtube isn't truth. Pretending carnivores are omnivores and then saying "look we're not like omnivores" is just deliberate dishonesty. We are not like carnivores. We are, 100% without any question, omnivores. Read literally any text on mammology, there is no debate, no controversy, no ambiguity. Poor studies like the adventist study vegan advocates like to cite may show benefits when they don't control for anything else. But properly defined and conducted trials show veganism is not associated with lower mortality: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4691673/
>(even “vegetable oil” itself lists the actual specific oil or oils used,
Often it just provides a list of oils the company uses, and you have no idea which one or how much of which ones is in the particular container you're looking at. There's plenty of "soybean and/or canola oil" out there.