I have seen crazy videos of where people even in video interviews are using AI to live generate a script and reading that. Now some companies require you to share screen to avoid that but people will put their phone under the screen where the camera can’t see it instead. I think soon we will return to in person interviews.

My exercise bike gives me a calorie count and apparently they are a bit better because the bike can actually measure how many watts of power you are generating which is the dream scenario for any calorie counting device. However even then they are only 80-85% accurate in counting calories because apparently we humans are all differently efficient in converting calories into watts. Despite this I still use that calorie number, but not to measure how many muffins I can now eat post workout, but just to compare my different workouts to each other. Recently I have been doing 1k kcal per day. Who knows maybe I’m efficient and it’s actually 800kcal. But it gives me a goal to move towards each day.

Same concept applies to any different type of women. I can be a straight man and say I like women. But in reality maybe I don’t like women with short hair or women with a certain personality trait. No less straight for that. All women are women but being straight doesn’t mean you like every single type of women in the world.

I would see this as the term straight and gay not being a complete description of one’s sexuality and leaving some ambiguities. If you’re a man and you say you’re straight then it’s clear you like cis women. Doesn’t mean that you necessarily like trans women. At the same time if you are straight and like trans women you are no less straight. If youre straight and like trans women and you want that fact to be explicitly clear you have to add something to the single word description straight. Same would apply to the word gay or lesbian.

Yes I’ll admit I was thinking of market economy. Nevertheless both the Nordic countries and modern day China are places where having money makes money. That’s still capitalism. Only north Korea would be out.

Still according to your definition we still have capitalism in the Nordic countries and in China. Both allow for private ownership of companies and have their own stock exchanges. So my point still stands.

And when do you mean we didn’t have capitalism? Since the dawn of agriculture it has been possible to own farms where the owner of the farm profits off the laborers of the farm and the land itself, the means of production. Isn’t that capitalism then?

North Korea has markets nowadays where currency is traded for goods, even if they also have government rationing and almost total government control of the economy. China does not only have markets where currency is traded for goods but also has the whole stock exchanges and billionaires thing. The democratic socialist states of northern Europe also follow capitalism, even if the government is heavily involved in both the economy and is giving out large amounts of welfare. Capitalism is very broad. You can absolutely be left wing if you live in the USA and want capitalism to work more as capitalism works in the Nordic countries. In a way you can therefore be pro capitalist and left wing. However I kinda get what the guy in the post means but I still want to be clear that you can be left wing and not want to abolish currency at the same time.

Should be whole food and not organic. You can process organic food how much you want. You can buy organic ultra-processed pure white beet sugar if you want. Doesn’t mean it’s healthy or chemically different than regular white sugar. Organic only applies to how it’s grown, not what happens to it after leaving the field.

Thankfully not actually! I live in a region with such an overabundance of water that slightly less than 0,2% of the water volume in the river is used by us humans. The rest goes straight to the ocean. I only pay a monthly fee for the maintenance of the pipes and the water plant.

When I go and water my pumpkins part is evaporated and part is put into ground water. That groundwater then drains to a part of the local river upstream of the treatment plant and in theory a part of the water I put on my pumpkins may go right back to my house again. A peculiar water cycle for sure. One could imagine that a few water molecules may have made the trip more than once.

Yeah thinking about it using the lightning rune twice is really sus. Very hard to defend that.

I don’t have the email but I would assume those emojis in this case are Slavic neopaganist symbols, also known as rodnovery.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Rodnover_symbols

I was thinking of doing beets, pumpkins, celeriac, carrots, parsnips, zucchini, Jerusalem artichoke and ornamental gourds. They are not vegetables but I’m also planning on growing melons.

I know two local small scale vegetable growers. One grows exclusively brassicas. The other grows exclusively brassicas plus carrots. I’m planning to start a small scale vegetable business myself and honestly thinking of just straight not growing a single brassica to have zero local competition in the local farmers market.

The original point is that billionaires, as I interpret it, is that billionaires are worse than animals. Or at least that if we look at billionaires as if they were animals we would still diagnose them as ill. My point is that that’s not true. Animals can be just as psychotic. Most have absolutely no morals and a subset of them regularly do things that are way worse than what the billionaires are doing, hence my examples.

However animals are not humans. Billionaires are humans. If we say billionaires are like animals that’s already a really bad grade. We humans are supposed to be much better than that. I’m not defending billionaires at all. I’m saying one should compare them to something else. There are much better and more effective ways to criticize them than this.

They don’t do that because they physically can’t. If they could they would. If you have two starving bears and throw them one carcass. Only one will eat because they will fight and scream away the weaker one.

Hey I’m no big supporter of billionaires but “that behavior in any other species we would classify it as some kind of divergent behavior” is extremely wrong. Altruism is extremely rare outside humans. Most animals would absolutely love to get every single piece of food in the forest all to themselves. They steal food from each other constantly. Whole species are based on the very concept of stealing as their main or sole life strategy. There are fish out there whose main food is the juveniles of the exact same fish species. Literal baby-eating as their main strategy.

We humans are supposed to be better than animals. Comparing someone to an animal is comparing them to something bad.