throw8383833jj

Also, these ultra processed foods set up unrealistic expectations of what "good" food should taste like. years of eating UFP ruins the taste buds. So, once you start eating real foods like whole grains, beans, fruits and vegetables (especially if its cooked without truckloads of oil), you think it doesn't taste good when actually the problem is your ruined taste buds.

and let's not forget the increase in crime that SF has experienced. Even department/CVS/etc stores have had to close due to the increase in crime.

Suburbs on average have less crime. i wouldn't say that south bay is ideal but it's better than SF.

this is really sad. as I will ONLY be buying an EV in future (it's EV or nothing). i certainly don't want another ICE, that's for sure. I guess i'm in a tiny minority, yet again.

but judging how awful the targetting is, I don't think anyone watching your screen as you browse should be able to make any kind of conclusions of you. if anything, the ads we receive are a reflection of human beings at large or at least what advertisers think of them.

you wouldn't believe how irrelevant to me, the ads i get are.

i get the having control of your data part (at least for address, name, social sec #, phone number and email - those are really important). but i could care less if an algorithm knows i like elvis presely or what my taste in food is, etc.

but i don't understand how personalized ads are harmful. if you don't like the product, just don't buy it? what am i missing?

personally, i only buy products that I really want or really need, so if an ad pops up that convinces me to buy, then it's done me a huge favor. but this almost never ever happens. usually, the ads are terribly targetted and don't show any clue of understanding who I am as a person. to me, it seems the problem is they're not targetted enough, rather than too targetted.

yeah, i really don't get why people are so against personalized ads. As a user of these platforms, I feel the ads are already nowhere near targetted enough and now looks like we'll be getting ads that are even more irrelevant. at this point, I think they're just trying to find more way of fining fangs as a means of selective taxation and punishment.

why not just allow the price of water to accurately be reflected in the prices that farmers pay for water? if they paid more for water, they'd use it more wisely and more varieties would get planted that use less water, more efficient irrgation would become financially viable. you can't expect farmers to take financial losses by saving water. however, if you make it in their financial intereset to save water, it'll automatically get done.

where is this whole below minimum wage thing coming from?

Everytime, I take an Uber or Lyft and calculate the hourly earnings of the uber driver minus vehicle miles, uber's take, and x2 the time needed (for the return trip), I come up with 15$-20$ an hour or so.

there are legitimate technical reasons as to why a roll out would happen for one place rather than everywhere at once.

I just think it's remarkable how people can take any piece of good news and find the most negative interpretation of it.

It is a salary cut because the dollar is worth less every year. It's already lost well over 99% of it's value in the last 200 years (a time when the average house cost 800$). So, if inflation goes up by 10%, your salary is being cut by almost 10%.

i thought the answer was Jack welch philosophy of management: always overhire and then prune 10% of your workforce every year. the theorey goes that way, you keep the best and loose the rest. But, that assumes that employees are interchangable like cogs which isn't true. plus, most companies aren't necessarily able to determine who's best and worst and may even end up laying off those who are better.

plus you know it's organic, whereas the grocery store's "organic" label sometimes has some give to it. Some wheats for example, aren't entirely organic.

whether or not you save money and how much you save depends on how much your regular job pays. Sure, a google software engineer will be better off just buying all their food. but someone working a minimum wage job, will be much better off growing their own fruit trees. Here are some quick calculations/back of the napkin. with an average harvest labor of 3 apples per minute, that would produce 180 organic apples per hour or 40 lbs/hour or about 80$ worth of fruit per hour, not including time spend watering, pruning, irrigation and mulching (if done). Organic Berries on the other hand are 4-10 times more expensive, thus even giving some engineers a run for their money!

there are many things that absolutely are scalable to the entire human race, at least outside of the city. Permaculture asks nothing of you but your effort. The "massive amount of labor put in is what's needed to produce that amount of food. It's only in rich countries where people can produce food for much less labor (by working a high paying job and buying the food at the market). there are many countries where people are much better off growing their own food, rather than working at a minimum wage job and buying the same food.

You should watch John Jai on Youtube. He's in thailand a country where the GDP per capita is a fraction of the US and yet he has more land, 3 small paid off huts and enough food to raise 4 kids all with plenty of time left over to read books. "Life is easy" he says, not bragging about his riches but rather to let people know about an alternative way of living.

that sounds like a fantastic way to grow up. I wish I could raise my kid in this kind of community. permaculture has so much to offer people.

Nutritionists will tell you what really matters is what type of fat/protein/carbohydrate. It's not one or the other. You need to eat plant based whole foods protein, fat and carbs too. For the most part, humans are carbohydrate processing machines (good carbs: like beans, whole grains, fruits, vegetables), these should be your staples.

Jack welsh school of management: you've got to reward the top 20% and layoff the bottom 10%, about once a year. this is very much possible when there's an oversupply of labor.

It always comes down to two things: Land cost, and building cost. You get those two down and you'll see housing costs come down.

Land cost can be brought down by building furthere away from the center or in the countryside -> have smaller villages or towns outside of london.

As for building costs. How about we talk to developers and ask them what the biggest building costs are? Often times, it's regulation, regulation regulations. Get rid of all the ones that are causing high prices: at least this should be done in certain areas to allow those who want low cost housing some options.

200 years ago, Henry david thoreagh built a cabin for 28$. That's about 3000 dollars in today's cost. and back then the average person was able to pay off their house in just 10 years! The average house cost about 800$ which was about 800 days of unskilled labor (1/5th of what it is today if you include prop taxes) If it could be done then, then why can't it be done now? why has our standard of living dropped so much, that it's actually considerably lower than it was 200 years ago?

but how do you avoid it completely? "Hazardous PFAS chemicals contaminate the drinking water of up to 110 million Americans and the blood of nearly every American."

How on earth can I find bottled water that doesn't contain PFAS in it? and chances are it's aleady in my body.

everytime i see something like this I feel disgusted about using paypal. I'll definately sweep funds out of there even more frequently now. financial institutions that don't understand the value of trust, can't be trusted!

and we could solve this problem by creating new cities/towns. Why on earth, can't we do that anymore? for most of human history we were able to do that, now all the sudden everyone needs to be in the same exact geographical area.

People follow the jobs. Give companies a subsidy for starting in a new town/city/village and the people will certainly follow it. And you'll get all the benefits of starting with a clean slate: you could make it walkable, bikable, keep land costs low by not limiting it(enough supply to keep costs low)

well, people already do that with their news feed.

old media is a dieing industry so desperate to kick big tech into the ground, they'll do just about anything. I've seen their scathing editorials on big tech: it's getting pathetic.

As parent, I expect to protect my own child. I don't need politicians using that as an excuse to expand their authoritarian powers.

It's so true:

* I can't even install Netflix on my Iphone 7+ anymore (the phone practically brand new, it is less than 6 six years old!)

* Screens in cars replacing usable buttons, are a disaster. give me buttons and knobs.

* the TV takes 15 seconds to start up??? and takes 10+ seconds to select a youtube video to watch. back when I was a kid, tvs turned on right away and you could change the channel in less than a second.

based on the chart, the amount of VC funding is roughly equivalent to what it was the last 3 years prior to the last. I don't see why this is such a disaster.

the timing fits but the reasoning doesn't. I'm having a hard time believing that WW1 & 2 had an impact on consumer demand. I think it's lack of appreciation of good design. People don't care if their house looks like crap. All they care about is that it's got a ton of car garages, and a crap ton of asphalt all over the place to park all their garbage everywhere.

I've seen it firsthand. There's a beautiful house on a decent lot with lots of nice trees and landscaping, I know of with a side garage. Guess what draws all the compliments? the stonework?, the bueatiful roofline? the landscaping? the archicture. Nope none of those. First thing people care about and compliment is the horrendous side garage to store their crap in.

not to diminish your success, but I've found similar results in the past. I think there's something about scarcity. As soon as one company knows another company wants you, all the sudden the 1st wants you now too. and if two other companies want you well, then you absolutely have to have that candidate. it's kinda messed up.

but, congratulations!

I once chose hertz because it was cheapest and I regretted it! They didn't specify how much the baby seat was going to be and it end up being like 20$ extra! they should have mentioned how much the baby seat costs on the checkout page. and then when i complained about it, they just wanted to blame the 3rd party checkout processor. Hertz, never again!

In life, i've learned, that if an optional extra price isn't listed for that option, don't select it. and if you really need that option and the price isn't there, just hit the back button and don't use that service ever again.

Gladly.

Everyone, even billionaires undergo social conditioning from an early age. Some people have a need to be successful in order to feel good about themselves. they feel they need to "be" someone. And for some, their work becomes a part of their identity.

Becoming a billionaire doesn't free you from all the stuff that's been conditioned into you.

Absolutely! I'm 40 years old exact and I've never had a particularly good short term memory. In meetings, I have to write every new piece of information down in notes, otherwise it's gone completely. Fortunately, i have excellent long term memory, so once something gets in there I can remember it forever.

In grade school and college, I had excellent reasoning skills but my short term memory was pretty average or less than average.