subreddit
stringclasses 11
values | text
stringlengths 246
28.5k
|
|---|---|
todayilearned
|
My family is from Eastern Kentucky. As family members have died off, the value of guns as invaluable and meaningful items of inheritance has become very apparent.
I think it is the fact that they are durable goods that are both portable and useful. It makes them a pretty ideal item of inheritance to bestow meaning. My father would eat roadkill before he would sell the Winchester Model 92 and S&W Model 10 that were passed down to him. Neither are particularly valuable in the market.
|
todayilearned
|
I’m a lawyer in Texas and the entire homestead, regardless of value, is exempt property. This was one of the big holdups in passed the 2005 bankruptcy revisions (Florida has a similar law). Growing up in an environment where homestead is sacrosanct and the bedrock of nearly everything property related, I was shocked when I was hired to collect a judgment and tracked the judgment debtor down to a small town in Tennessee where he owned a small house. Tennessee’s constitutional homestead protection hadn’t been changed since the 18th century when the original constitution was drafted. They allowed something like $30.00 in homestead exemption. I had that house levied and sold in a matter of months. No mortgage so it was likely he’d bought it with the money he embezzled from my client.
|
todayilearned
|
My Grandad got a lever action winchester .22 when he was a boy by saving up some proof of purchases for something I don't remember right now. Anyways, he gave that rifle to my Dad when he was a boy and my Dad gave it to me when I was a boy. The rifle no longer fires and is in need of some repair but it's definitely the "family rifle". So many memories.
|
todayilearned
|
so how does bankruptcy work? your creditors can just come in and take your stuff? or is it more geared towards "you bought X with this Visa so Visa can come take it back, but not just rat fuck your house"?
if you had a debt consolidation loan, how does it work? those creditors were paid back but the bank now I have a loan with the bank, what are they allowed to take?
im not thinking about bankruptcy or asking for any kind of legal advice or anything, im just curious about how this works and you have some knowledge in the area.
|
todayilearned
|
I have six shotguns and rifles I got from my grandfather. None of them are of any special value monetarily, because he was a small-time farmer who never had the money to buy anything for reasons beyond simple functionality. To me though they have sentimental value, so that's all that matters. The .22 hornet rifle is still dead accurate as a varmint gun, but the 12 gauge double barrel has an issue where one of the firing pins isn't striking so I will get that replaced at some point when I feel like it. Also considering modifying the double barrel into a coach gun because it will look cool as hell.
|
todayilearned
|
Bankruptcy is a process you initiate because you can't meet your obligations.
Basically, you file some paperwork with the court saying "I'm in way too much debt there's no way I can pay this off, we have to figure something out!"
Then the court will see if you're right. And if it's true that you have so much debt you can never pay it off, they'll basically make the debt go away.
But if you have a bunch of assets, they might make you sell them to pay off some of the debt first. However, there are some assets they won't force you to sell. In a lot of cases, for example, they won't make you sell your house. Apparently they often won't make you sell your wedding ring either.
What they make you sell will depend on the law. I think in some cases the law gives discretion to judges, in others not.
Bankruptcy law is super complicated, but this is the basic idea.
|
todayilearned
|
There's a few different types of bankruptcy. Chapter 11 (usually for businesses/people with large amounts of assets), Chapter 13 (debtor is locked into repayment plan for 3-5 years to pay off secured debts while retaining the property and a percentage of unsecured debt like credit cards), and Chapter 7 which is the stereotypical liquidation of assets). There's also Chapter 9 but that is reserved for municipalities. So, depending on the chapter that a bankruptcy is filed under will determine what creditors are able to claim, who gets property, and how much their payout is. Chapter 7 isn't complete liquidation sales, though. There can be reaffirmation agreements which is a promise to repay a secured loan such as a car note. Sorry, I haven't done bankruptcy work in a couple years and I'm freewriting at the moment.
|
todayilearned
|
Are you sure? If the jesus nut disengages, the blades will still be attached, along with the swash plate. The blades would just be spinning freely, meaning no engagement from the motor. During auto rotation, you are adjusting the pitch of the blades with the swash plate to spin the blades at high speed then adjusting pitch to create lift and slowing down your descent.
Im not a chopper pilot or anything. This is just my understanding from my helicopter fascination.
Maybe someone at r/helicopters could chime in?
|
todayilearned
|
It's actually an obvious conclusion. We as a civilization have created specialization of jobs because it means each person can hone their skills in one area and focus just on that and then we can share with each other the fruits of our labours.
Each part of a sandwich, from the sauces, to the bread to the lettuce and the meat, take an incredible amount of skill and work to make it as good as you expect in a sandwich each day. It would be near impossible to be excellent at every aspect as just one person unless you devoted your life to it.
|
todayilearned
|
I think what people like the sandwich guy overlook is that at pretty much no point in "civilized" history did anyone make all the ingredients for a meal like a sandwich themselves. People were even more specialized back in medieval times and before. The smith was not growing grain. The baker was not butchering pigs. The butcher was not building mills. Farmers grew crops. Bakers sourced their ingredients from farmers. Salt as exotic and imported. You specialized in a trade and utilized your skill to make money or barter with others.
The idea of making a sandwich from complete scratch is a modern one. Growing all the different plants, owning the equipment, having the animal, producing the seasonings, etc would have been a completely foreign and insane idea to anyone in the past.
|
todayilearned
|
> on. We as a civilization have created specialization of jobs because it means each person can hone their skills in one area and focus just on that and then we can share with each other the fruits of our labours.
> Each part of a sandwich, from the sauces, to the bread to the lettuce and the meat, take an incredible amount of skill and work to make it as good as yo
Didn't read article but it seems like it's more about the economy of scale. Mass producing heads of lettuce lowers their cost to negligible margins whereas the startup cost of growing a single head with the equipment and time needed will cost a lot more. Do this for all the ingredients and those percentages will multiply into a greater figure in the end.
|
todayilearned
|
Invest in science and technology so that we can eventually have a world where everything is automated. At the same time, push more and more for socialism (especially free post-secondary education). Ultimately, this results in a world where no one has to work a back-breaking job just to survive and no one expects people to work a back-breaking job. Robot slaves do all the necessary jobs that used to suck, medicine is advanced to a point where all the worst diseases are eliminated and the populace is educated enough to make if not always ethical, then at least not incredibly stupid decisions. Basically Star Trek.
|
todayilearned
|
I would agree with you here. The problem wasn't that he made a mediocre sandwich, it's that he spent 6 months and $1,500 making said mediocre sandwich. It's entirely possible in this day and age to make a good sandwich totally from scratch provided you have the space to raise the farm animals and grow your grains/veggies. I live in the city and backyard gardens (even extensive ones!) are increasingly common, as is raising chickens and even goats. Couple that with the sheer amount of knowledge we have at our fingertips today and one could certainly learn to make a supremely delicious sandwich from the ground up.
But it's *waaaaayyyyy* easier to go to the supermarket and buy enough ingredients for 20 sandwiches for $10.
|
todayilearned
|
Wrong.
I wouldn't say it's not obvious, but not at all for the same reasons. Your reasoning applies to crafts that result in better products/services when being done by a professional but there's no skill needed to put lettuce on your sandwich. Moreover, the lettuce doesn't taste better because it's being harvested by a farmer in contrast to a private person.
Example: Why does any self made burger look and taste better than a McDs burger?
Your reasoning is true for the economy of scale, which means the sandwich is the lowest cost when it comes from a conglomerate of professionals (=a dollar burger). It's also true to a certain degree when it comes to looks and taste, because companies invest in food designers and add additives for look preservation and taste. But the former are still restricted by the price (=McD burger looks still shitty) and the latter is matter of taste and can't simulate a fatter pattie.
I think you really wanted to share that knowledge but this thread gave you the wrong example with a burger/sandwich. It might be more difficult for an average person to make good bread and sauce, but that's about it.
|
todayilearned
|
That's not capitalism, it's just lots of people doing lots of different things. Capitalism is just the system wherein people who *don't* do anything leach away the lion's share of the value produced and get to reign as petty tyrants and warp society to suit their desires. It is fundamentally just feudalism with extra steps: those who own extract wealth from those who work and their ownership is guaranteed through the implied threat of state violence against unruly workers (also the *active* state or non-state violence against unruly workers, as with the pinkertons attacking striking workers, or the cops attacking striking workers, or Coca Cola hiring paramilitary death squads to murder labor organizers).
The solution is pushing for the democratization of the economy and the establishment of a more egalitarian society, instead of the absurd autocratic oligarchy playing at democracy we have now. Short term, that means supporting any measures that weaken the power of the oligarchy and improve the lot of the average person, while being clear that that's not the end goal and the struggle will not be complete until the oligarchy is abolished as a class and power is held democratically, instead of as a consequence of wealth.
|
todayilearned
|
I don’t think this is entirely accurate. In cities it’s true, but farmers were largely self-sufficient right into the mid 20th century. My own mother grew up on a farm where they slaughtered their own animals, churned their own butter, and cured their own meat. My grandmother kept a family garden that grew the vegetables they would eat throughout the year - extras were canned for winter. Mayonnaise was certainly made from scratch, and they made their own relish and sauces, mostly to preserve extra fruit or vegetables for later consumption. The only ingredients that she wouldn’t have made entirely from scratch were the flour and yeast, and I suppose sugar if it was used in making the relish.
Even then, flour used to be sold to the mills, but in medieval times it could often be ‘paid for’ at least in part in flour, which is pretty much the equivalent of renting a flour mill. Most country families had their own ‘family dough’ which is a bread starter - basically each time they made bread, they would break off and set aside a piece of the dough, and then kneed that together with the next batch. That ‘starter’ contained the yeast to make the bread rise, and mixing it through would seed the new loaf. Some of those starters could be hundreds of years old - some still exist today. Salt and spices simply weren’t added, because they were too costly. I think that making our complicated sandwiches that source ingredients from all over the globe would have been impossible, but making your food entirely from scratch is an old, old concept.
|
todayilearned
|
The farmer could most likely get closest of doing it all. Back in the day, people did everything they could themselves. While a farmer wouldn't have a full blown mill to themselves, hand mills were a thing (usually illegal, since milling usually worked as tax as well). It is [also possible to extract salt](https://youtu.be/SssqL1OFuoU?t=372), but that will depend wether your farm is near a resource to do this.
But ofcourse when I say farmer, it doesn't mean just one person. These places used to have a huge amount of people living in them, and different people could have different expertise.
|
todayilearned
|
> Sort of like the assembly line. Instead of training a bunch of people to build a whole car, train each one to install a particular part.
Except not because people who prepare food are knowledgeable about many many aspects of food preparation while an assembly line is like saying "No, you can't butter the bread, you get to slice the meat, but only that particular kind of meat, and only to that thickness, and I expect you to do it over and over again at the same rate for the next 8 hours, 5 days a week, for the next 10 years."
If anyone working in a restaurant were given that restriction there'd be no sandwiches.
|
todayilearned
|
No I wouldn't stand a chance. Now tell me who makes that kind of sandwich, *"where an artisan sandwich chef goes out and selects the best quality meats, cheese, breads, etc. all made by people at the top of their game in that field"*? You yourself have never eaten a sandwich like that.
The article compared a self-made sandwich to the average of all sandwiches tasted by that person before. The average of all sandwiches tasted by an average person does not correspond to a sandwich *", where an artisan sandwich chef goes out and selects the best quality meats, cheese, breads, etc. all made by people at the top of their game in that field."* It corresponds to a mix between McD's quality and subway's quality.
​
Now tell me again, how my McDonald's burger example is wrong. It's not a sandwich, alright, but McD is at the top of the game financially (=reaching the whole world with their products and standing for what we could consider burgers and sandwiches of the industrialized world), yet the price doesn't offer much taste quality.
​
Really you just got a little angry for me dissecting your claim didn't ya
|
todayilearned
|
> Their cars were objectively inferior in almost every way, including safety
Any and all cars built purely with a profit motive in the era of few if no safety regulations were extremely dangerous to drive and the companies building them resisting regulation for safety because of the threat to profit.
Its only because of a coercive force found in the state that profit isn't allowed to endanger people in automobile design now. Pretending profit motive leads to safety is absurd given the history of profit and lack of safety, exploitation and dangerous work conditions, and how much that changed with laws.
|
todayilearned
|
Because without a capitalistic incentive, the technological advancement and incentive to create large organizations to accomplish specialist tasks more efficiently just doesn't occur, or occurs at a much slower pace. Incentivization is the root of advancement. There is one thing you can trust when dealing with others and that is greed. Capitalism exploits that to get people to work together in an efficient manner.
Modern day socialists can only advocate a decent society by standing on the back of the gigantic societal and technological improvements that the concept of capitalism gave us.
|
todayilearned
|
That 100 million dead number is one of those fantastic triumphs of cold war propaganda. The determination of the figure is so biased that it means nearly nothing as the desire to reach that particular figure by the author of the book that popularized it polluted the analysis, leading many contributors on the work to disavow many of its assertions it in the end, and of course it fails to account for applying similar methodologies to come to similar figures for capitalist societies. As Chomsky has pointed out a Black Book analysis of Indian capitalism would itself be a dire reading.
I suggest you come up with better ways to analyze the results of authoritarian socialism in the 20th century and recognize that there's a lot of diversity to socialist ideology, much of it highly critical of the Soviet and Chinese versions of it. But that's too complicated as we naturally need to boil it down to emotionally stirring statistics to short cut any meaningful analysis of either socialist ideology and its effects and absolutely must avoid any discussion of capitalism in a similar light.
|
todayilearned
|
Setting aside that the few million deaths in embattled revolutionary states that were quite literally beset on all sides by hostile powers was nowhere near even *100* million nor does it have anything to do with creating a more democratic and equitable society - except in so far as the revolutionaries set out to try to do that and the only ones who managed to get power without being curb stomped by entrenched reactionary powers were the most brutal and paranoid ones who could defend themselves against subversion and unite people against their very real enemies (which, it turns out, are great traits to have when you're in a life or death struggle with fascists and feudalists, but make for pretty shitty administration later most of the time, Castro being the sole sort-of exception) - the excess death toll for capitalism over the 20th century was approximately 1.6 *billion* from violence committed by capitalist states and deprivation under capitalist states.
Like, even if the most excessive, ludicrous accusations of excess deaths under """communist""" states were true, they still come out as only a fraction as bad as what's accepted as the inevitable norm for capitalist states. Since WWII, the US and its direct proxies have actively killed some *20 million people*, more than the USSR's total excess death toll, and every single year some 20 million people die from starvation or preventable disease in capitalist states *and no one cares* for the chilling reason that "there's just no profit in helping them, so of course it won't be done." The deaths from state violence perpetrated by capitalists in the 20th century alone exceeds the total excess deaths under all communist states to have ever existed, including deaths from administrative incompetence or malice.
The sheer, mindbogglingly huge scale of the misery, death, and destruction that capitalism brings about as a simple side effect of how much the people with power don't give a flying fuck about human life or really anything other than stuffing their pockets and increasing their own power is just so horrifying that almost any alternative brought about by almost any means would still be better than sticking to the status quo.
|
todayilearned
|
It also makes for a better story to say "look at how great modern society is that you need to do this much work to make a sandwich!" even though you don't actually have to.
Part of the issue with these sorts of experiments is the desire to get exactly a certain kind of ingredient when in reality all cuisine is a product of availability. You use regional ingredients usually and things that grow nearby. There are still many things in our supply chain that make sandwiches with certain ingredients very expensive if you want them to be shipped form the other side of the planet.
|
todayilearned
|
The definition of poverty will shift yet again. Even today’s poor are barely even really poor.
“Work? To SURVIVE?”. Yeah, that’s kind of how it’s works. In a future world where everything is automated and advanced, “poor” will be a life of mere luxury while everyone else gets to live in a computer and be immortal. The poor in evil capitalist America have it fantastic compared to the poor most everywhere else.
|
todayilearned
|
You have a slight misconception.
Capitalism is the system where the chicken sandwich gets made and the person who organized all the workers gets 2.5% while everyone else gets 0.001%, enough to afford a whole bunch of sandwiches because thousands of unskilled workers were directed in such an efficient, intelligent manner that they ended up making 100,000 of them a week.
The alternative is the chicken sandwich not getting made at all because people are stupid and can’t do anything without being imbued with duty and responsibility.
|
todayilearned
|
“Deaths causes by capitalist states” is different than “deaths caused by capitalism”.
Please understand that starving because the government promised to give you enough seeds and land to farm, but didn’t, and then proceeded to take away most of the food leaving not enough for you. Is different from being a lazy ass and not being able to produce the incredibly small amount of money needed to feed yourself in a capitalist state. In the US You can subsist on $5 a day on average. There is so much surplus wealth that beggars on the street make enough for a weeks worth of food in just a few hours. Do not pretend that anybody starves in capitalism that isn’t just incredibly stupid. Food god sakes there are heaping piles of food being thrown out everywhere because there is so much of it that even if everybody ate as much as the year possibly could at all times they could not possibly eat it all. There’s even a dude who ate a whole daily calories worth of food in New York City for a single dollar.
Do not for a second try and compare capitalism and communism by their ability to provide food. The fact that you even do proves you don’t live in reality.
|
todayilearned
|
"Anti-democratic hierarchy is good because how could anything get done without the divine leadership of... [checks notes] some dipshit failsons who've literally never worked a day in their lives whose stock brokers bought them portfolios containing some shares in a company they've probably never even heard of! Clearly literally anything about this nightmarish shellgame of bullshit makes sense and is better than democracy and equitable payment for labor because why else would the CIA keep killing anyone who tries to do anything else?"
I mean seriously, it's an [established fact](https://www.uk.coop/sites/default/files/uploads/attachments/worker_co-op_report.pdf) (pdf warning) that more equitable and democratic leadership systems produce on average larger, more productive, and longer lasting businesses that also provide their workers with a higher quality of life. And you do realize that, for example, McDonalds pays out more in dividends and stock buybacks than it does in wages? In a more equitable model that would mean that every employee's salary could be doubled while still keeping the business operating, meaning more motivated and healthy workers who are thus more productive in general, but somehow a massive amount of wealth is taken from them to be given to unrelated 3rd parties; in a very real way more than half the surplus value created by McDonald's employees is being stolen from them in a manner that has nothing to do with the continuing operation or management of the business and everything to do with paying out to idle owners, who do and contribute nothing as a class.
|
todayilearned
|
I personally enjoy sandwiches that I make because the consistency of the process and I know the percentage of people that wash their hands after they use the bathroom. Well actually I don't but I'd imagine it's around 50%. So that seems to throw a wrench in your eh hypothesis.
*The exception is foods that I can't cook, like a Philly cheesesteak. I've tried many times but I can't recreate an accurate Philly at home. Maybe it's the flat top. Maybe it's the Amoroso's, which I've been reluctant to buy, since I think you can only get them shipped in bulk, and what if it's something else that's missing? Maybe I don't chop the onions right. I don't know, and I don't care. I'm willing to fork over $12 for a sandwich because of that essential mystery. It would probably cost me more at home somehow. But I digress.
I prefer cooking for myself than other people cooking for me, and if I could cook a killer philly I would in an exacerbated heartbeat.
|
todayilearned
|
That's not how literally anything works, and comparing waste and excess in the states that are beneficiaries of imperialism and colonial exploitation - and *who still have food insecurity because of how extreme crushing poverty is* - to the unchecked starvation in their colonial victims is disingenuous at best. Destroying excess foods at a Whole Foods in a wealthy suburb doesn't negate food insecurity in the inner city or poor rural communities, nor the mass starvation in the third world that's caused by capitalist colonial powers keeping brutal dictators in power who let western corporations rape and plunder with wild abandon, while farmland is turned to the production of cash crops for export to the benefit of western corporations.
>Do not for a second try and compare capitalism and communism by their ability to provide food.
Because communist countries win hands down on the issue of "actually feeding their populace"? Because in every case they came from the ashes of capitalist countries with centuries of periodic famines and after some initial stumbling blocks stopped the famines completely; meanwhile famines continue to regularly occur in third world capitalist countries, and that's not even getting into the normal accepted baseline rate of starvation, which roughly matches the starvation rate at the height of those few famines in communist countries. The USSR even managed to have higher daily calorie intake for the average person than the US did at the same time for its entire existence, just with less meat.
At the end of the day, the autocratic, inegalitarian structure of capitalism means that anything that doesn't benefit the oligarchy doesn't get done, and that means massive death and suffering for those outside their immediate sphere who they don't consider useful enough to help. People starve because there's no direct profit in making sure they don't, and in the first world there are only safety nets to help people - tattered as they may be now - because the alternative was the starving masses literally eating the rich.
|
todayilearned
|
That's irrelevant to the erroneous statement claiming capitalism is nothing but people working together without central authority dictating their actions. Capitalism has of course at times been a command economy, specifically during war time. However the central authority of the businesses are dictating to people who work within them what to do. That is the power of private property over economic production, the central tenet of capitalism.
Also its not like market driven economies are alien concepts to anti capitalists or that free markets are required elements of capitalism since capitalism has existed as extremely protectionist, highly coercive and unequal for most of its history.
|
todayilearned
|
Well, that's the only number that matters to me. And it seems to me that one is enough to disprove the rule (it's either me or your science that is mistaken, and I'm not lying). At the very least you have to admit their hypothesis is incomplete, if not entirely mistaken.
>Also, the study was measuring tastiness and not non-olfactory enjoyment such as consistency and hygiene.
Also, then find me a study that has to do with what we're talking about (whether a chef chooses to eat there) and not whatever wannabe bullshit you're peddling here. Your study fails to take into account why chefs (and I) prefer eating at home. And my point still stands with taste. I meant "consistency" as "consistency of taste." Got it?
|
todayilearned
|
And if you were talking in 1800 you'd be ranting that "if democracy's so workable why are the only democratic countries some hillbilly slavers in the middle of nowhere, huh? Clearly if it worked better than the divine right of kings it'd have naturally outcompeted them already!" It's like you fundamentally don't understand systemic inertia or how entrenched interests being relics of a more brutal and anti-democratic era works. The anti-democratic model is more popular because it is more profitable for the individual, who if successful can sell it all off for a nice payday or just fuck off and keep drawing value from it, and thus more startup money goes into founding such businesses. The same function could more effectively be performed through democratic allocation of resources, the resulting businesses would perform more effectively than the average business now does, and the feedback loop of allowing those who have wealth to turn it into more wealth by just having someone buy lots of tiny pieces of different companies they can passively leach value from or sell as a commodity later would be eliminated, thus dealing a blow to the institution of oligarchy and its toxic effects.
|
todayilearned
|
> Also, then find me a study that has to do with what we're talking about (whether a chef chooses to eat there) and not whatever wannabe bullshit you're peddling here.
What are you going on about? My original comment was about sandwich tastiness and so is the study. My original comment was meant to be funny anyways because science doesn’t decisively prove anything—hence the quotation marks. I guess you took the comment very seriously because you started rambling about your sandwich preferences, and trying to seriously argue that one data point disproves a research hypothesis.
Wanna be bullshit? I’m not the one discussing the merits of my cooking/sandwich-making when nobody asked me.
|
todayilearned
|
>Wanna be bullshit? I’m not the one discussing the merits of my cooking/sandwich-making when nobody asked me.
>Science like pretty much “proves” that sandwiches taste better when someone else makes them—something about olfactory habituation.
You actually *were* talking about the merits of my sandwich making. You said science proves that sandwiches taste better, etc. It's right there.
Unless you're taking it back? So you're saying you *didn't* mean that, that it was a joke, and you *don't* believe that science proves (a point you already argued) that my sandwiches are inferior to for example Schlotzsky's Deli? Is that what you're saying? I'm fine with that too. I've tasted both, you haven't. So for you, N=0.
Which one is it? For someone who throws around the word science a lot you sure don't have the hang of logic one bit.
|
todayilearned
|
The anti capitalist position sees limiting that corruption by limiting the economic power people have over others. That's why labour organization is typically a very left leaning if not explicitly anti capitalist tradition. The state having a long history of betraying or abandoning the working masses' interests makes the power of the state dubious as a true solution, hence why the decaying power of labour in America is so much correlated with the stagnation of wages and worker rights. The state in a political democracy being subject to the disparities of power found in economic power makes the state the corrupted entity. Limiting that corruption doesn't solve it of course nor does it address the underlying disparities of power that make that corruption possible and so detrimental.
|
todayilearned
|
You’re being literal. There is such a thing as an outlier. You think every rule is infallible?
The research *indicated* that—as per their **parameters**—the general finding was that sandwiches are tastier when other people make them. It doesn’t apply in every case. Perhaps you’re confusing a research hypothesis and theory.
Of course there are exceptions. I never said you didn’t find your sandwiches to be tastier than others. What I said was that your sandwich quality and preferences don’t pertain to the Carnegie Mellon study because your definition of a good sandwich wasn’t used in the research hypothesis.
The problem is that you took a science-based comment very literally, as in there is this infallible law about sandwich tastiness, and proceeded to try to disprove it by talking about your sandwiches.
You can be the best sandwich-maker and adore your sandwiches above all others, but that doesn’t make the Carnegie Mellon study “full of shit,” as you put it.
It’s like you think I’m saying that you *must* find your own sandwiches to be inferior because SCIENCE! That would be a ludicrous thing for me to claim.
Does that make sense to you?
|
todayilearned
|
in the video (which was like an hour long) it was said it was extremely bland with the entire thing sucking the moisture out of their mouths.
its also significant that it doesnt **exactly** take 6 months to prepare something from scratch since the ingredients should be growing/being-harvested throughout the year (e.g. people didnt start growing sunflowers when they were craving fried chicken they were already being grown and it was harvested prepared.)
|
todayilearned
|
Oh man, Friday, I really wanted an egg salad sandwich and I was just obsessing about it and I was like, 'Man, I'm gonna make one of those.' So Saturday, I went out and got, like, a dozen eggs and then I boiled them all and I just, I spent, I dunno, probably three hours, like three and a half hours making, you know, the mayonnaise, and the onions and paprika and, you know, the necessary accoutrement. And then, by the time I was done, I didn't really feel like like eating it.
|
todayilearned
|
Okay, so first, let's just get out of the way that the part where you said
>"My original comment was meant to be funny anyways because science doesn’t decisively prove anything—hence the quotation marks. I guess you took the comment very seriously ... I’m not the one discussing the merits of my cooking/sandwich-making when nobody asked me."
was complete bullshit.
Now that that's out of the way, I don't give a shit about the Carnegie Mellon study. I believe it's shit. Do you have any other way to convince me? Otherwise I expect you're shit out of luck.
The problem is you've tasted a shit sandwich. And now you're basically trusting a shit sandwich of a paper (no offense to the minds that went into that undoubtedly esteemed paper) over mine own taste buds and experience. So you see the conflict here. I believe your study is full of shit, and so are you, for believing it and generally science over your own experience. That's basically the bottom that I'm getting at here. Take it or leave it.
|
todayilearned
|
It's still never ever a good idea to eat undercooked chicken.
Beef is mostly fine as long as the surface is seared (though "rare" burgers are a bad idea because the meat had been minced)
pork and chicken: always cook all the way through.
If someone tries to feed you some bullshit line about how it's fine because the animals it came from are raised in a disease-free hippie commune: don't buy it.
|
todayilearned
|
That link doesn't remotely support the claim.
It specifically says to make sure pork reaches a safe minimum internal temperature.
>**Safe Minimum Cooking Temperatures**
>Use this chart and a food thermometer to ensure that meat, poultry, seafood, and other cooked foods reach a safe minimum internal temperature.
The closest it gets is saying that you can't tell at a glance that it's safe from just looking and to get a food thermometer.
[How much do you **really** want to eat raw pork?](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Fazil_Gelal2/publication/7838517/figure/fig1/AS:601716693143558@1520471847358/Evolution-of-brain-lesions-in-trichinosis-A-TSE-T2W-axial-image-at-admission-shows.png)
|
todayilearned
|
I disagree, whilst capitalism can be an incredibly flawed system without any form of regulation or state intervention to prevent market failure and under provision of public goods. A centrally planned economy will never be a truly efficient economic system, even if the state involved has only benevolent motives (which spoiler: it never does in any form of government).
​
If the means of production are all owned by the state and not decided by a price mechanism then there is no rational way for the state owned producers to know how to use their capital goods in an efficient way to meet public demand for any given final good.
​
|
todayilearned
|
..... You know your link leads to
>"Oops!
>We can’t seem to find the page you were looking for. Please try our search or A-Z index."
You probably should have tested it before linking it 3 times.
Yes, the CDC says to cook pork to 145 minimum internal.
Which is **medium to well done.**
https://www.seriouseats.com/images/2016/02/20160208-sous-vide-pork-chop-guide-food-lab-40.jpg
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/17/d1/d7/17d1d752d087c51f8d3f957a0848efca.jpg
I'll note that the image above is from **[your own fucking source.](https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/9gp6l2/til_about_andy_george_who_spent_1500_and_6_months/e66qsyj/)**
**Apparently you've ended up with too many brain worms chomping away to be able to read your own linked sources.** so maybe lay off the "rare" pork a bit.
|
todayilearned
| ERROR: type should be string, got "\nhttps://www.cdc.gov/features/befoodsafe/\n\nHere's the link, from before without the /index.html that got tacked on somehow or another.\n\nYou literally don't have a leg to stand on here buddy. First you claimed that 145 isn't safe and after being prooved categorically false by your own source you shifted the goal post to this new pedantic crap of what exactly is \"mid rare\". You even fabricated evidence to support yourself with your \"CDC pic claiming 130 was mid rare\", while insulting my sources as \"blogs\". Then posting your own cherry picked picture they uses sous vide to temps which are lower because it's an extended cooking time. It's almost like you are literally retarded. Just accept the fact that you were wrong and move on with your life."
|
todayilearned
|
Please link me to **anywhere** I claimed that 145 isn't safe
You've picked up some stupid idea somewhere. **Your own source** lists "medium-rare" as 140 degrees, which is unsafe.
Those "cherry picked" images? the first is from your own link, that food blogger website that *you* linked to.
Since you're too thick to accept any real sources provided by anyone else I just **started using your own**. Because they still contradict you. Because you apparently haven't read them.
**According to your own links*, "medium-rare" pork isn't safe.
|
todayilearned
|
Watched it.
Was so frustrated at how much work he put into some things, and decided to ‘just wing it’ for others. Ten minutes of reading could have improved the results by miles.
The bread and chicken had serious errors in it.
He didn’t separate the wheat properly, used too little salt in the bread, too much flour to water in the bread. Had no clue how to make proper sour dough and just kind of guessed, and guessed wrong. Over cooked the chicken and used barely any seasoning on it.
It was such an interesting concept and I feel he blew the whole thing.
Pick a chef. Pick a baker. Pick a cheese maker.
Bring them store bought flour, salt, chicken, cream, and seasoning. Have them help you make your end result. Taste it.
Then start from scratch. Go to actual mills and learn how the wheat turns into flour. Don’t just guess. Then go to a fucking pioneer village to learn how to do it with minimal technology by hand. This is all way more interesting than “flour is just ground wheat, right?”
Take your flour to the baker and learn about sour dough. Have them help you turn your flour into bread.
Continue with each ingredient.
The journey would have been more interesting, and the results would have been delicious.
Multiple people who read/watch this, shit on making food from scratch because he fucked this up so badly, with such easily correctable errors.
|
todayilearned
|
It's so annoying arguing with disingenuous retards on the internet who care more about protecting their fragile ego than understanding new information when they are presented with it.
I said Med-rare pork is safe to eat, and you replied with " That link doesn't remotely support the claim ". Meaning you disagree with the claim that med-rare pork is safe to eat.
[https://www.porkcdn.com/sites/porkbeinspired/library/2014/06/2924.pdf](https://www.porkcdn.com/sites/porkbeinspired/library/2014/06/2924.pdf)
\>The National Pork Board recommends cooking pork chops, roasts, and tenderloin to an internal temperature between 145° F. (medium rare) and 160° F. (medium), followed by a 3 minute rest.
[https://www.bonappetit.com/recipes/healthy/article/is-it-safe-to-eat-medium-rare-pork](https://www.bonappetit.com/recipes/healthy/article/is-it-safe-to-eat-medium-rare-pork)
\>But some restaurant chefs across the country are going one step further and cooking pork medium-rare, or to about 145°F.
[https://thetakeout.com/we-should-be-eating-medium-rare-pork-1828528374](https://thetakeout.com/we-should-be-eating-medium-rare-pork-1828528374)
140 is for sous vide which is a longer cooking method so you don't need to extra 5 degrees.
It's fine if you didn't know that med-rare pork is cooked to 145, and that 145 is safe. But arguing like this makes you look retarded as fuck because you literally don't know anything about cooking.
​
|
todayilearned
|
You're acting as though millions of people didn't starve to death in communist states or that capitalism hasn't lifted billions out of poverty. Or how about all of the people who met their deaths at the end of an AK-47 in the numerous conflicts communist nations had started when they existed. The 10's and hundreds of millions numbers may only be estimated, but it absolutely did happen and not from starvation or war, but at the direction of the state in communist nations against their own people, specifically in china and russia at the hand of Moa and Stalin and their successors. Capitalism isn't perfect and yes a lot of people have died out of the greed it fosters, but you're completely oblivious if you think it is even close to the scale that happened as a direct result of communism. I'm also not opposed to socialist policies applied carefully to help curb the excesses of capitalism, but pure socialism has never ended in anything but countless deaths.
|
todayilearned
|
Yeah look mate thats not exactly the case, but let’s just for the sake of argument say that the Soviets and Chinese were great commies and wantonly slaughtered their own people for absolutely no reason like you say.
What would that have to do with the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production?
So far you’ve got a South Park style:
-Phase 1. Instigate common ownership and democratic control of the means of production.
-Phase 2. ??
-Phase 3. 100’s of millions of people die.
If socialism/communism is the cause of such catastrophe then it shouldn’t be too hard to point out what phase 2 is.
Edited; Sorry, made a couple of formatting/spelling errors.
|
todayilearned
|
I absolutely agree that division of labor makes everything cheaper for everyone, but I think part of the reason this sandwich cost $1600 is that he's paying tons and tons in startup costs and put all of the cost on this one sandwich.
It probably wouldn't have been significantly more expensive to make a hundred sandwiches this way, at which point they're "only" $16 dollars, pretty much what you pay for one at an airport or music festival.
|
todayilearned
|
Yeah, team members on the line are cross-functional and change positions on the line every two hours for a couple reasons:
- The repetitive motion is taxing in the body, so it’s important to switch it up;
- If the seat installer wins the lottery and doesn’t show up to work, then we’re not without someone who knows how to install seats, and production doesn’t stop and;
- As you mentioned, to curb boredom and keep team members engaged.
|
todayilearned
|
Phase 2 is getting rid of anyone who doesn't want to give up their stuff to the collective and causing a famine and economic collapse after you kill, enslave, or imprisone all of the successful and productive people leaving onlyu the people who don't know wtf they are doing in control of the means of production. Maybe you get a popular uprising as a result; which needs to be swiftly put down. Phase 1 never seems to happen. The people in political power end up having control of everything and it quickly turns to fascism with a veneer of socialism. It's such a common theme you could say actual socialism has never even gotten off of the ground; because it immediately devolves into fascism.
|
todayilearned
|
Well I'm sorry you're incapable of understanding that point, but capitalism incentivises division of labor to an almost extreme level and plays a huge part in the rapid development of groups focusing on improving one aspect of the division, causing exactly what the first person was talking about. Hundreds to thousands of specialists doing one particular thing to make a product, each group incentivised to improve upon their part.
It's basic economics and societal theory.
|
todayilearned
|
Now we are getting somewhere (well aside from the bit about the necessary imprisoning all of the productive people, you know that’s hyperbole that doesn’t make sense).
So which is it honestly? Has phase 1 happened?
Additionally, how many times has it happened?
Btw, I wouldn’t necessarily use the term fascism for what it’s devolved into. Fascism is a very specific ultra-nationalist conspiracy-theory situated ideology, and deeming polities as such is way overdone these days (probably a legacy of WW2 being a landmark catastrophe of out time). Sorry, I realise that’s beside the point but I thought it worth mentioning.
Edit; Perhaps a comparison might help. So far you are saying that the necessary slaughter comes from the deaths of people who reject the new laws of the polity.
Couldn’t you charge capitalism with the same? How is it different from when capitalists put to death those defending the old feudal order?
|
todayilearned
|
You need land (remember there is a cost to land, unless you're growing it on the side of a road... which is still worth something), water, in many cases fertilizer and also pesticide. Plus buying a shovel just for one head of lettuce sorta proves my point. That's like a 30 dollar head of lettuce, as opposed to 1 dollar. Hence, the first head is expensive, but everything that comes after becomes cheaper and cheaper and... you get it. But yeah, now further apply that to the full equation of everything that goes into a sandwich.
|
todayilearned
|
Capitalism's problems, as we seem to be experiencing them, is that they take it's philosophy as a form of governance rather than purely economic policy.
When the market also starts buying power and consolidating into monopolies that now have no balance check. Capitalism will collapse. You need to make sure the capitalistic economic policy is kept separate from the governance. Not to dissimilar from our separation of church and state, frankly.
The ubiquitous "money in politics" problem. Free market for politicians, as it turns out, not great.
Centrally planned systems, when done correctly, still abide by laws of supply and demand. They do so from a different angle though. Protections come from regulatory limiting rather than competition. When done in this theoretically ideal way they do work. They fall apart for similar reasons though, ironically. Consolidation of power. Except instead of it being the richest person in the room it's the best connected party leader.
Really there is just no ideal world. The founding fathers of the US understood the balance of power required to keep tyranny at bay but there's no way they could have predicted every angle that power could grow from. We merely found a new way to build tyranny.
|
todayilearned
|
In many cases yes. With good intentioned people that share a similar value system and hence share a likeminded outlook to such transactions.
But in somewhere in a parallel dimension, there's a nefarious cheese maker that is trying to hold their dependent buyers hostage, making the argument they're the only ones capable of making cheese, and if you want to keep buying it, you're going to have to trade over your secrets to making bread, meat, and pickles. No thank you, I think I'll go cheesless or make my own.
|
todayilearned
|
There remains a fundamental difference though, which is that monopolies are not an essential feature of a capitalist system, and even though it can be very hard to avoid the formation of monopolies even with state intervention, they only control a given sector of the market. A centrally planned economy is, by definition, in effect one giant monopoly on all sectors of the economy.
​
Not trying to defend a libertarian 'the market is always right' ideology here, and it's obvious there are inherent flaws in market economies which are very difficult if not impossible to overcome. But it's obvious both in theory and from historical experience that centrally planned economies suffer from severe inefficiencies and that market oriented economies are much better at increasing people's standards of living over the long run.
​
Advances in computing and AI could make centrally planned economies a viable option in maybe even the near future, but that also raises all kinds of problems that have to be dealt with.
|
todayilearned
|
Frankly, in more ways than one, USA was founded on the principal of competition. Not just in the capitalistic sense but I'm our own governance in the form of our checks and balances.
Our forefathers did see many things first have. They foresaw the problem of a people subjugated by a government. They saw the problem of religion running the government. What they never saw was a government bought by companies. We discovered, surprisingly late, the importance of labor rights. But even that movement doesn't account for what should be a "separation of corporation and state." I don't mean to imply it should have exactly the same relation as religion but recognizing it as an entity or power and influence is important.
|
todayilearned
|
I have made the link several times, you just want to stick your fingers in your ears and go "LALALA CAN'T HEAR YOU." It all boils down to people being able to make money off of creating businesses (groups). It incentivises people to take risks and create said groups, without capitalism there is little to no incentive to do so.
People like yourself are especially guilty of not understanding the mechanics of this, believing business owners aren't deserving of reaping the benefits of their business.
|
todayilearned
|
I agree with you in most ways. It depends on your goals. A market kept free of monopolies is the strongest for growth but you need a level of regulation to maintain that. Centrally managed tends to have a strength in maintaining a standard of life against crashes or other interests but is much weaker on growth.
Centrally managed certainly has one biggest weakness though, that is, with more power in one place it's simply easier to grow corruption.
For some insight: Personally I consider myself a fan of capitalism. I actually lean near liberatian myself on some topics. Doesn't mean I fail to see some lessons we should learn.
|
todayilearned
|
What does taking risks have to do with the division of labour?
Look mate if you are so sure that this is basic stuff you should be able to link to a source which explains it (because you aren’t doing it). Even if you were doing it, it should be easy to link to (even easier in fact). That would clearly settle which one of us is sticking our fingers in our ear and going “LALALA” etc.
Edit, look mate ffs, this is what you’ve presented.
Because capitalism apparently incentivises something via the profit motive, that somehow means division of labour (a concept that has existed before captalism, and in nationalised economies, and especially in the public sector) is somehow inherent to capitalism? That’s what you’ve got so far.
|
todayilearned
|
My apologies, I edited my above post. I’ve marked it with an edit.
Anyway, so now you are getting into dodgy adhom. Mate just post a link to a source. If you are right it will prove you so. Pretend for a second that I don’t know what I’m talking about and just post a link.
Edit, I shouldn’t have to say this but the reason I ignore large parts of your post is because they are totally off topic. We are talking about how the division of labour necessarily relates to the private ownership of the means of production and you are laying on thick standard internet cliches about why capitalism is great. Can you not see the difference? Shit I don’t know maybe you can’t. The language you use, and the total logical inconsistency, and especially your complete inability to produce a source suggests you don’t.
|
todayilearned
|
> Because the profit motive leads to lobbying government to mandate safety regulations to prevent underpriced goods.
The lobbyists for safety in automobiles were not the manufacturers. They weren't lobbying for more expensive cars, they were lobbying for safer cars.
Your goofy argument just tried to say that without the people trying to risk others' lives there'd be no safety because nobody thought to demand they stop risking lives until they did... which makes no sense.
|
todayilearned
|
There are plenty of capitalist societies that didn't go through a purge. You only have to look as far as current capitalist societies that still have the remnants of their feudal systems; such as token royalty. I can't think of a single case where an attempt at a socialist society hasn't been preceded by a purge and was ultimately unsuccessful or devolved into something else where you have a single party state run as little more than a dictatorship.
I'm also not saying that it may not achieve success under different conditions as technology advances and the need for labor disappears or that socialist policies can't be an excellent tool to temper the excesses of capitalism that harm people.
|
todayilearned
|
Yeah, look not really no. Look at everything from the crisis of the 14th century to colonialism to the French Revolution and the German/European revolutions of the early to mid 1800’s to much more. It’s centuries of bloodshed and horror as society transforms from one way of organising the polity (defined by ownership of the means of production) to the next. I understand that these aren’t exactly commonly well understood chunks of history but surely you can see that’s because they aren’t politcised/have no recent political context.
The bodycount truly isn’t even close, but you’ve hit on something very relevant to that in your last paragraph. It’s not really a fair comparison in either direction because socialism is still in it’s infancy. There’s been a handful of goes at it and at least 90% of them have been under the Leninist blueprint. Do you reckon the first time private owners of production started a colony and brutalised the locals with savagery until then unseen we should have wrapped up capitalism, called it a day and gone back to the divine right of kings?
What’s more important though is questioning whether the aforementioned bloodshed and horror is a necessary link to the mode of production. Why is the bloodshed and horror of the transition to socialism necessarily linked to the mode of production where it isn’t for capitalism?
EDIT (sorry about another edit mate, i am truly terribke with that) Just wanted to add that your mention of monarchies isn’t residual feudalism and proves nothing of the sort. They are just constitutional organs who have no say in the mode of production.
|
todayilearned
|
Dude, "bad things happened in the process of poor, embattled revolutionary states rebuilding and modernizing, due to a lack of available expertise, because of stupid interpersonal politicking, or because reactionary hostile powers invaded and systematically isolated them" isn't a good refutation of "actually we need to rework the system to be more egalitarian and democratic." The problems communist countries faced had material, not ideological, causes; we can see time and again that comparable capitalist countries experience much higher excess death, similar or greater political repression, lower literacy, worse civil rights, and much slower and more inefficient development, and we can also observe that liberalization always causes mass suffering and death as production shifts from meeting societal needs to serving the interests of the oligarchy.
|
todayilearned
|
Interesting.
If it’s square bread, perhaps cutting it into a triangle makes the sandwich more comfortable to hold, thus increasing enjoyment.
Thinly cut deli meats are usually tastier than thick cuts because it increases air circulation around the meat and makes it more aromatic—or something like that. Perhaps cutting a sandwich diagonally increases the surface area of exposed meats/cheeses, creating a similar effect.
Or maybe a sandwich is more enjoyable when the first bite isn’t a mouthful of bread.
|
todayilearned
|
I would disagree- where I live, as well as many other areas in the world, have lots of rabbit and deer that will readily eat lettuce. Whereas in my 20 years growing potatoes and onions in gardens, not a single plant has been eaten by wildlife. My family has also never used fertilizer and have produced bountiful yields. However, the last few summers have been extremely dry and hot, dramatically impacting the harvests of all my veggies (with the exception of peppers).
|
todayilearned
|
>Regulation is a fundamental and necessary component of all capitalist economies.
No it isn't. Its a fundamentally necessary component of capitalist economies that don't kill, harm, or cause suffering of its participants at higher rates than unregulated ones. There is no requirement for regulation in the manner we're discussing in capitalist society because capitalist society existed for a very long time without that regulation and in fact experienced some of its greatest economic booms under the periods of terrible regulation. Capitalism functions persistently in many societies which lack strong regulations or anything resembling the even half assed representation of western liberal democracies and people die, suffer, and are poisoned, exploited, whatever, and it trucks along. Often its a very attractive venue for investment because of the profit motive being unleashed. I see no indication that regulation is necessary except from the perspective of someone who wants to live within it without being the primary ownership beneficiary of that profit motive.
|
todayilearned
|
As far as I know they arent regulated by any authoritative body, but they are universally agreed upon by all industries.
​
You keep posting that picture of what temp to cook sous vide pork at without understanding or reading my explanation that sous vide is a long cooking process, so the temps don't need to be as high to denature the proteins and kill pathogens. You are the definition of someone arguing in bad faith and it's disgusting.
|
todayilearned
|
You posted it first.
They're not universally agreed upon.
hence why they vary across various sources.
**For example** at the top of *this very discussion chain*, in the article you didn't bother to read because *reading is hard*. The one I origionally responded to saying that people should fucking cook their pork properly.
>you're free to even cook it to medium rare if you like, we suggest you stick to **medium** (about 140-145 degrees)
The article by the idiot food blogger was directly advocating cooking below recommended temperatures even lower than 140-145 degrees, their own special definition of "medium rare" is sub-140, (with, surprise surprise, no mention of sous vide), specifically under safe temperatures and idiots like you defended it.
you made yourself look like a moron again and again... and again and again and again. then flounced out in a huff when it became clear that you'd made an idiot of yourself ranting against claims I'd never made... while posting links to sources that contradicted what you were claiming.
I hope to fuck you're not responsible for anybody elses food because if so they should be fucking worried.
|
todayilearned
|
That's rather incoherent nonsense. You used the term regulate to refer to laws unrelated to economic regulations. When we talk regulation we talk about impinging on free economic activity, ie the free market.
You understand the system so little, or you're so dishonest a speaker, that you deform terms to win arguments, or you fail to understand them at all. We don't regulate crime, we forbid it. You must in a capitalist society protect property right. Enter crimes against property. You must in almost any economic system create a stable order under which to operate. Enter crimes against the person.
That has nothing to do with discussing economic regulations that are part of discussing free markets. Free markets has nothing to do with talking about making murder illegal.
Anyone who tries to over simplify things like you do is desperate to undermine the complexities that seem to disrupt your perception of your pet ideology.
|
todayilearned
|
Yeah, restricting murder is restricting free economic activity. What if I want to work as a hitman?
What if I want to sell items that I seized with my own force on eBay? What if I want to poison my neighbor's crops so that mine increase in value?
These are all economic regulations.
And no, this isn't my pet ideology mr monsantobreath. You are the zealot. You have a twisted and deformed view of Capitalism to the point that you don't even recognize that Capitalism requires a base level of regulation to even function. You think that anarchy = capitalism, when the two are fundamentally opposed to each other. If anarchy = capitalism then Syria would be the world's largest economy. It isn't.
Property rights and the enforcement thereof are the most fundamental tenant of capitalism. Deciding who owns what. Deciding how a person can get a fair return on investment. Deciding what is a scam and what isn't.
Unsafe items that are expected to be safe fall into that last category: scams. They are fundamentally anti-capitalist.
|
todayilearned
|
>you don't even recognize that Capitalism requires a base level of regulation to even function
This is where you're now entering the realm of ignoring the person you're actually arguing with and instead substituting him with the caricature your type inevitably resorts to because its comfy and easy. I specifically said that capitalism requires a state or some authority to enforce property rights. But talking about economic regulations being necessary and saying any rule you deem necessary constitutes regulations on behalf of capitalism, including unrelated criminal ones, makes your argument so generic that you can say anything supports your argument.
Its terminology rendered meaningless and it ignores the discussion about how many laws we have for regulating society are not required for the functioning of capitalism and in fact many go against the impulses of what capitalism is most concerned with, namely production for profit. This is why many capitalist societies undergo strong deregulation efforts that enrich the primary holders of capital.
That you seek to conflate murder laws with things like work place safety, labour rights, or anti pollution mandates says you are arguing to win by deforming the nature of the discussion rather than having a clear conversation.
>What if I want to sell items that I seized with my own force on eBay? What if I want to poison my neighbor's crops so that mine increase in value?
Those are laws against property crimes you're infringing on. As I said, property rights are the cornerstone of capitalism and so are things that are protected by a state entity. A state entity exists to facilitate these key values. You repeatedly turn to mostly property related crimes which are all related to the original point I already stated.
> You think that anarchy = capitalism, when the two are fundamentally opposed to each other.
You're making things completely up now. Anarchism would be a stateless society that opposes capitalist property rights. Yes anarchy is opposed to capitalism. I never said capitalism is a state less society without property rights. I specifically said that it was one.
>Property rights and the enforcement thereof are the most fundamental tenant of capitalism.
Which I said before you did in this exchange. I literally said that.
Your last reply shows how foolish you've been in this exchange.
|
todayilearned
|
Psychedelics show you that "seeing the world as it really is" is bullshit because you can never know if what you're seeing is the "real" perspective. Your brain can barely tell the difference between a face and a bunch of coloured pixels on a screen arranged to look like a face. What makes you think your brain has the capacity to decide how the world "really is" when you're in a state of mind where the effort of getting out of bed makes you want to fucking die?
Making thousands of negative judgements about everything around you and then a few of them turning out to be correct is not "seeing the world as it really is".
|
todayilearned
|
Yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and....disagree here. Someone that has tried mushrooms one time should not be just winging it and trying to grow their own.
Not sure if you're aware of this but mushrooms aren't really that easy to grow safely. These types of processes can go badly at home.
For instance, curing meat in some Italian cave where the air has the spores needed? Great! Curing meat in your basement utility room? Have fun with your poison.
|
todayilearned
|
I tried those in adam but they felt somewhat weak tbh...was still a funny experience: I went to the heineken museum and also got inside a big oldschool sailship. Sometimes I had to concentrate on remembering where I am exactly and then, in the middle of the ships belly, I would realize "Oh, I'm in amsterdam on holydays, and touring a ship". This would happen like once every hour, complete deorientation lol. 10/10 would do again
|
todayilearned
|
'#TrueFacts
Many plants other than fungi use spores. For some strange reason I learned this last week from a book on how not to kill my houseplants.
>Not every plant grows from a seed. Some plants, like ferns and mosses, grow from spores. Other plants use asexual vegetative reproduction and grow new plants from rhizomes or tubers. We can also use techniques like grafting or take cuttings to make new plants.
https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/resources/104-plant-reproduction-without-seeds
|
todayilearned
|
I actually did this for a few weeks one autumn and never actually found any that were psychoactive lol. I went to the forum "the shroomery" and got educated and everything. I found a few that I thought might be but after consulting the experts there, they weren't. It was during a time that the experienced people there were having a lot of success too.
It was an interesting little hobby for a bit but my lack of results made me lose interest.
|
todayilearned
|
Yup, it's called the [coastline paradox](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coastline_paradox).
Coastlines have fractal-like properties. The closer you measure them, the longer the line you measure becomes. A true fractal has technically infinite length along its borders. In real life, if you could somehow freeze time so the tides and waves and whatnot don't interfere, you could measure a coastline down to the atom. It'd be a staggeringly large number, but it'd be finite. For all intents an purposes though, you could say a coastline has an infinite length if you don't specify a scale or resolution.
[Here's a numberphile video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dcDuVyzb8Y) that does a decent job of explaining it.
|
todayilearned
|
Wait... I understand the concept that the smaller the unit of measurement, the larger the number becomes...
But he says that eventually the number would exceed the actual length of the coastline by millions of miles...
How does that work?
Even if you’re measuring it in millimeters, the end result would never be larger than the true length of the coastline, right?
You’d be getting more and more accurate as your unit of measurement got down in size, and then eventually it’d be small enough that you would just be able to measure the actual length of the coastline without missing any of it, right?
Probably once you get down to measuring in inches the differences in length start to get pretty negligible, or at least far smaller than when you’re measuring in miles or whatever, right?
That part doesn’t make sense to me...
|
todayilearned
|
I was born in Geurnsey (a channel island) and recently visited for the first time in 15 years last was when I was 7. My dad and his friends are the ones that told me they have the second largest tide in the world and let me tell you it is amazing to drive into town and the area around the bank is empty and dried up with rocks and moss then only 3/4 hours later your leaving and its about to break the bank and flow over which it regularly does.
Also on a side note they have the worlds smallest distance between a pub and a church, they all called it the church pub and the two roofs from the buildings basically touching. It was an honor to have a beer there.
|
todayilearned
|
Nah pretty much just that first episode. Maybe a bit more in the next one or two as that specific storyline continues and he keeps giving that speech, I don't recall if that finished up in the one episode or not, but once they actually move to the Ozarks I don't believe it ever comes up again. It just becomes part of Marty's sales pitch to anyone in the cartel as he's trying to convince them of his plan. Once it's approved, that's it.
|
todayilearned
|
A goose actually bullied me throughout my elementary school years in Canada. That mofucka would be at the same fucking spot as I walked home from school. Sometimes he'd just stare at me, other times he'd run up at me. Other times he would just charge then stop and then stare, 100% in a *that's right bitch. know your place pussy* sort of way. I genuinely believe I saw that goose laugh at me a few times.
Ngl I was scared to walk home from school most days at a point. I started taking a way longer route just to avoid that fucker.
He probably grew up and has a hotass goose wife now, and they probably talk shit about me and laugh. And I don't blame them. He got me good those days
|
todayilearned
|
Want to know a good way to get a sense of the amount of lakes/water in Canada? Open Google maps on your phone. Zoom so that the USA from the southern tip of Texas to the northern border takes up the full height of your phone. Center it so that the southern tip of Texas is in the center at the bottom. Now scroll North. See all those lakes? Those are just the huge ones that can be seen at that scale. Now zoom in a spot with a lot of lakes. Keep going. It's like a lake fractal.
|
todayilearned
|
Not really, if you measure with fractions of km its the same as measuring in cm. It's when you measure a coastline and zoom in, it seems to get longer because you have more detail to change angle more often.
You certainly can change angle more often than every km if you're measuring the coast in km while walking along it.
e: saying you need to measure in full units is beyond retarded, imagine measuring a 0.51 km by 0.51 km box. Yeah if you measure in km (1x1) instead of meters (510x510), its bigger with the rounding. Likewise, when there's tons of .001 km lines around the edge, all those kms get rounded to 0.
|
todayilearned
|
>Conclusion
>It is evident from the above analysis that determining the country that has the most amount of lakes is a difficult task. When researching the amount of lakes a country has it is important to use accurate and reliable websites. Depending on who you ask, the country with the highest number of lakes may differ. The topic is still open to a lot of debate.
Holy shit, it's like reading my high school essays.
|
todayilearned
|
Imagine you're trying to measure your yard. You could set a straight line end to end, or you could measure up and down each individual blade of grass in a straight line, which will be much longer.
The difference is there's a majority consensus on how to measure a yard. Measuring a coastline really depends on your frame of reference... If you're walking it, you measure by pace lengths. If you're looking at a globe, you might measure by multiple miles.
|
todayilearned
|
There's something called "The Coastline Paradox" where you can keep measuring at smaller and smaller intervals and never get a truly accurate answer because of how much it changes based on how precise your measurements are.
Best way to demonstrate this on a small, visual scale is by trying to measure the coastline of Long Island, New York. When you zoom out it doesn't look too difficult, but keep zooming in and realize how impossible it is to get an accurate measurement with a smaller scale, like feet or inches.
That's one island, less than 120 miles long.
Now try mapping Florida's coast. Or the entire United States.
I'm amazed they use something as specific as miles or kilometers to measure coastlines.
|
todayilearned
|
Ehh, if you really want to be picky about terminology you could argue that unit of "measurement" means the unit in which the measurement was taken, essentially the unit on the tool used for taking the measurement, and that would be the limiting factor on the precision of the measurement for the purpose of the paradox. The unit in which the measurement is expressed would not change the results but the actual unit of measurement does.
|
todayilearned
|
Measuring something in kilometers does not mean you have to use a kilometer long stick and keep moving it. When I measure something in feet I use a tape measure which has inches and centimeters and meters on it. This is just a pretty stupid thing and could be said for literally any shape in the world. Oh you have a perfect square that's 1.5km per side. Well if I measure in kilometers I'm gonna get 2 kilometers per side? This is just a really stupid random "fact" that isn't even a fact it's more an idiots interpretation of how things are measured.
Edit: looking at the descriptions of the coastline paradox in other posts, your description is just poor. It's not a fun fact, it's a thought experiment, where a coastline is used as an example due to it's shape. This is not a fact, it's a good way to think about the issue of "how close of a measurement is close enough" because the fact is you can measure something in kilometers without using a kilometer long stick.
|
todayilearned
|
If you allow fractions of a kilometer, then you have to keep on dividing that kilometer into smaller and smaller measurements until you reach, well... atomic scale, I guess.
It doesn't have to be a kilometer "resolution", it could be 1/2 of a kilometer, or 1/10 of a kilometer. But you have to stop somewhere and decide "okay, this is the smallest straight line that I will use to measure the coastline".
|
todayilearned
|
the point is where do you cutoff though
last .3 kilometers to finish an island make sense to use decimals
however those 10 inlets that are 1 meter wide and 5 meters inland over a 50 meter stretch, do we count them all as straight coast and just take it as 0.05 kilometers or do we add .1 kilometers to account for them.
If we account for them what about the large rock that fell in the water on an otherwise straight shoreline adding 2 meters to go around it
So when a map of shoreline is measured in a unit it is usually assumed that its the shore traced out as best as possibly by that unit
|
todayilearned
|
All I did was use your interpretation of the coastline paradox to point out why your interpretation is wrong. You can literally do this with a perfect circle. As your units of measurement get smaller, you will approach a circumference of exactly pi*d. It is a thought experiment, not a fact.
Edit to clarify: All I'm saying is that your explanation would apply to my square and circle examples. In reality this thought experiment deals with measuring infinite fractals. The farther down in scale you go, the more of the fractal you see and can measure. You can keep going down in scale forever, so the length goes to infinity, even if it all fits on a single piece of paper. Another actual fact is that coastlines are nowhere near perfect fractals down to a infinitesimally small scale so either way calling this a fact is just misleading and the reason your post irked me. It would have went much better if it started out "Fun fact: there is a thought experiment regarding coastlines..."
|
todayilearned
|
That's America's secret climate change strategy. Once we run out of water because the entire lower 48 is desert now, we take over Canada and put all Canadians to work in the water mines of Northern America. The propaganda posters of the era will call this pond hockey, hearkening back to the days when Canada's vast network of freshwater bodies would freeze over during the Christmas shopping season. Allegedly these stoic Canadians would tape knives to their shoes and repeatedly stab these outdoor ice cubes until one of them demonstrated that they had more grit over a period of 60 minutes, then they would form opposing conga lines, give each other full body hugs, and collect a novelty drinking mug from the forest nymphs. Which I guess had to be returned or something because they were too poor to make new cups every year, and everyone in Canada had to share the one.
PS: At this time America will no longer be known as the United States of America but the Corporate Alliance of Capitalist America. No longer having a government, but becoming the libertarian paradise of a *strictly voluntary* confederation of corporate interests with no regulatory bodies or collective checks against their unlimited power.
All labour will be done by robots, but instead of it being a good thing that no one ever has to work again it will be a bad thing because the CACA will just continue to generate wealth for themselves exponentially while sharing none of it with the dirty poor. Our lives will be their entertainment.
|
todayilearned
|
Yes, but you get different measurements depending on how wiggly the string is.
Consider points A and B which are 20m apart in a straight line. Coastlines are never straight so you measure using a string which bends (wiggles) every 1cm. Straighten it out and you get a measurement of 35m (for example). Then you use a different string, but this one bends every 1mm. Straighten it out and you get a measurement of 80m.
As you keep using a smaller and smaller unit of measurement the length of the coastline increases.
|
todayilearned
|
Well first of all it’s not a true paradox, just looks like one depending on how you word it.
Second, I’m pretty sure I did say it came down to semantics, but regardless, the two measurements are just two different versions of the real answer, differing on levels of accuracy.
Third, please tell me how it is incorrect that the km measurement is just a less accurate measurement than the cm one.
If I count how long it takes for someone to run 100 meters and get 20 seconds, while a timing system gets 20.03 seconds, was my counting wrong, or just inaccurate? You could argue it’s wrong, but the error would be 0.15%, basically negligible. What would you round 20.03 to? 20
Now imagine if you wanted to find the average velocity, and from that find how long it would take that person to run a few kilometers, and from that find their energy output. After all those calculations, that error can be amplified. So no, my counting wouldn’t be a rounding error, but it might as well be; it would have the same effect in the long run.
|
todayilearned
|
My point is that based on your explanation this effect would work with any shape, which is just how I pointed out your misunderstanding and your poor explanation. You talk about moving a kilometer long stick or something as if the unit of measurement matters at all. It is the scale at which you are looking at the problem, and has nothing to do with what unit of measurement you're using. With a fractal, the closer you look at something the more complicated the shape becomes. You are physically measuring a different shape when measuring at different scales. Your explanation is as if the shape remains the same and it is the size of your stick that is changing, which is why a circle has the same effect you are describing. You are describing the wrong effect.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.