Evil_Shrubbery

Lol, yes, posted at late American time, mentioning “feds” in EU, for a split second I thought we had a major international incident because some stupid badged individuals powertripped to Spain ‘to bust a crim’nl’.

I’m glad they didn’t, tho it would be at last something to read about.

A cow is a bird without being a bird, you just have to expand you perspective & neglect the original context.

What I’m realising is that cows are spying on us …

Really? I would have said that was a learned behaviour, with all those feel-good stories (& the hype & how it makes them respectable).

I have noticed I initially immediately distrust “charitable” people bcs at best I discovered their empathy is purely visual (like the shellshock of a crying child, but directly confronting to or advancing the causes of that are outside of view so fuck that child, we all gotta do what’s best for us). Not to mention, it has to be public charity, ie they need to get something in return.

Beyond emotional support, charities are only for cases when society already grossly failed, not something we want to see more of.

So many people needing charity for things that arent even scarce, is just horrific & should make us want to make whether changes needed to fix the system.

There are WAY more rats than cows. Period.

So if you know that, why would you insist it’s saying that instead of immediately looking for something that does fit?

Also a planet is not a pen and no farmer ever will say they have 241 animals!

Yes, that describes the complexities of language perfectly (and the process of how you decipher the meaning)!

We tend to forget how complex communication is, expressing huge concepts with a few sounds/characters/gestures is one of the greatest achievements of Earth’s animals (humans included).

It’s amazing it even works. But requires a lot of brainpower to encode & decode.

Exactly.

“Let’s have less regulation so it will be simpler!” – I think having more or less of it is so irrelevant that ‘why not more’?
(It doesn’t hurt the people, the opposite actually.)

Especially when the talking point (almost the opposite of what you said) “we need less regulation but better regulation” is promoted by individuals looking for deregulation for their personal financial gain regardless of consequence to anyone & anything.

Also let’s not forget there is a thin line between regulation & corruption bcs with (regulation) corruption the law framework stops working correctly & gets over-complicated for the sake of it, in some cases such laws even protect specific companies & hurt everybody else.

It’s not the lawmakers or the public that makes for complicated laws, it’s the companies that want very specific things achieved & at best look for compromises adding complexities to regulation.

But by default I believe that with more “regulation” comes more professionals in the specific field & the larger the work force (and their personal agency & personal responsibilities & normal lives) the harder it is to corrupt. People revolt & people generally want to do their jobs good & for good (evidenced by a myriad of public minimal wage workers doing real important shit with all their power).

Oh, no, I knew that (it fascinated me before), this isn’t even the first such study, but mammals are there dominant species, a lot of other biomass is supporting it (eg oxygen, weather, etc).

I’m basically saying that you can see from the context (the numbers) that it’s biomass - the same-ish as below even when/if the first thing you think about doesn’t make sense, you search for the way it does (again, not dissing, but strictly technically it is about literacy, which in this case the pic is at fault for not all of the audience not getting it, and you for not understanding it, an overlap just didn’t happen):

And yes, since this is pun-ish territory, it’s normal to feel some anger, puns are there worst.

Oh, I see now, thx.

For me (how I perceived the simplified pic) the main difference was that I didn’t think ‘in a pen on a farm’ but ‘on a planet’.
And your example also screams of ‘it’s not comparable, don’t do that, in what scenario would you need a number 241 that would made sense?’
(I really can’t think of on answer short of making a Twitch channel for each individual animal.)

Also that question is leading bcs you ask how many, whereas the pic in the post doesn’t specifically say anything (which is the complaint as I gather - but we deduct the meaning of words from context all the time in all languages, if the ‘by individual’ doesn’t make sense, it’s obviously not that).

you have 240 rats and one cow in a pen on a farm

Do you not think the farmer saying he has 241 animals would be made fun of?

A planet used up for specific food cultivation (which left no ecosystem unaffected).

Should have invented (energy to) food replicators before having the hubris to feed 100s of millions.

Why would the infographic be by number?
(I’m not dissing you, I only ask bcs I never even thought about it being my population, like, what would it compare by population in such a vast group as mammals.)

this is the way it’s been for tens of thousands of years

Human population needed to be fed 10+k years ago:
> 1,000,000
vs now
10,000,000,000

Which just means it has never been the way it is now. Those two numbers on a finite planet are represented by the pic perfectly.

… where the bear shits? … one of those old-timey tiny outdoor shithouses? … military latrines being dug in the middle of an active shootout?

Dumping mercury should not be permitted & should be heavily persecuted.
(And basically researched out of industries.)

But you adding sugar to your diet (I’ll be overreaching & exaggerating with this to keep your example) can affect or stem from more than your own person.

Individually looking it’s your health & your health does affect people around you long-term, including healthcare (again, exaggerating - if everyone is fat we now have to redesign hospitals … + the long term effect of this being normalised, but this is more related to the next point actually).

However there is also a an economic view - sugar is biologically speaking very precious & rare, so humans having it available at next to no cost is fucking with our evolution-moulded minds (our mind tell us when we had enough of just about anything of strategic nutritional importance other than carbs, especially sugars - there is no limit for sugar bcs “you never know when the supply will run out”, no limit apart from the speed of begin able to process it I mean). \But it’s also insanely profitable in the industries that use it (sugar beverages, spreads, cereals) so it’s everywhere & caused serious health issues.

And there is a bunch of other harmful & easy to produce chemicals that we regulate in various ways (“drugs”).

I’m not saying you shouldn’t be allowed to add sugar to your own water (and we are far from that point anyway), just that regulation is such a live & cultural thing that lawmakers & agencies (regulatory or law-advisers) just have to live with the people & adjust on the fly bcs culture & people change significantly over just a few years.

In this sense I’m proud of the actual way of how EU lawmakers are doing things for the vast majority of time - all is very live, open/transparent, & hands on (and ofc “costly”, bcs complex problems require adequate solutions, otherwise it is just senseless cost).

First is the research (year/s), then live market consolations & current practices (year/s), then the draft proposal & a new round of even broader market consolations (sometimes literally mandatory, eg in financial industries, to cover like 3/4 of the market) of all stakeholders (year/s), then the regulation frame adoption (EU, country levels, responsible agencies, market leaders, etc), then after it’s all live years of market consultations again to get where the problems are (or where there arent & they can scrap/simplify the approach), what new problems & adaptations emerged, then the proposal for legal framework update, then consultations again (anyone can & must be heard), then the adoption of the v2 laws, and after that the cycle repeats for v3 etc.

This is in contrast with things done on a local level that are hastily done & require quick adoption by the industry (as a consumer I think even this is far better than nothing effective being done - if it’s stupid I’ll just try to vote them out).
I mostly know about EU regulations that are about to affect me (personally or professionally) years in advance and with about 12 month precision (some complex laws get delayed - or even just the live date if the market couldn’t get ready by due date with effort to do so).

Oh, yes, that totally too, and with competition better products, faster dev of new tech, and an economy guided by the consumers/citizens instead of megacorps.

But I meant more directly too - people bitch are taught to bitch over bureaucracy, reporting, “costs”, etc but all that only affects (very short term speaking) individual companies profit margins, not the economy - extra work being done (idk, measuring and reporting salmonella stats, or making salmonella tests or whatever, and agencies that go over the data) is just anther income that gets reinvested into the same economy (instead of getting wealth consecrated, on average). It’s not lost, it’s not counterproductive.

Sure, but a lot of EMU members never met the criteria (if you mean Maastricht), so it’s always a per-country decision.

Anyway, UK opted out at the beginning iirc (bcs politicians didn’t want to lose power), so I’m just saying we don’t let them have that luxury again (that € isn’t negotiable).

Yeah.

And now imagine the sheer power of this single industry that EU countries are getting pressured directly (lobbyists) and indirectly (literal USA politicians) hard to lower our standards just so they could export their torture chicken carcasses here.

They succeeded in a few other industries but with chickens the standards behind food safety are just the right level of complex (mostly bcs it’s not just one agency to put pressure on, and not that the regulatory definitions are complex or anything they do being over the top - I do want industries regulated and have regular monitored reports on various things, that’s the only way you know the guidelines are followed).

Americans believe regulation is bad

Were taught to and continuously are taught to believe regulation is bad.
Let’s not glance over how hard it is (& how much money is poured into this) to convince people that are suffering direct consequences of unregulated & deregulated businesses on daily basis how regulation is bad and only further deregulation, that brought on problems in the first place, will help solve them - at not at a single point even presenting the logic why would that ever work, like even theoretically.

(Even their ‘golden era’ of some 50~80 years ago everyone for deregulation is so nostalgic about was the era brought upon & maintained by high regulation investments supported by higher top-bracket & profit taxes.)

And it’s not like regulation is even bad for economy overall (even financially looking), it’s just had for the current businesses in power (and even that only for short term gains). So minority’s whims rule undisputed over the majority & ecology.

This is important info you will be judged upon on the internets (and I’m glad this raw chicken will still get used, we produce enough trash as is).

It’s on a fancy plate so you know the restaurant knows rare meats well, prob paired with salmon sauce emulsion.