There's been a single recent study that came out with the claim that any drink with high sugar can increase your overall cancer risk and sugar may impact tumor growth. Unlike the study is repeated though it's just a single study that could be an aberration.
Rebranding like hamburger and pork but only not chicken and water creature like fish, clams, etc. It's weird, but it would probably work.
Many vegetarians don't eat animals because they feel pain not because they are alive, were that the case they would eat animals that died of old age. Plants have no mechanism to feel pain and some plants specifically spread through consumption, though there are some plants that vegans won't eat because insects play a necessary part in their creation i.e. almonds if memory serves correct, they don't eat honey for the same reason. Vegans generally want no animal or insect, sometimes even bacteria involved in the creation of there food and there's numerous n different forms of veganism that in not knowledgeable enough to describe. There's debate about some sea life for vegetarians, however recent information highly suggest insects feel pain and most vegetarians probably wouldn't include intentional insect consumption as valid vegetarianism (there's no real avoiding unintentionally consuming some). It's not grossness thing. Most people who are vegetarian started as meat eaters and chose for a time or for life they were no longer comfortable with the equation of enjoyment of eating meat versus the harm to other creatures they were causing. Everyone needs to figure out their own line of comfort and that changes over a lifetime.
Your arguments about sustainability while not incorrect don't actually factor into the debate about whether or not insects are agreeable to a vegetarian diet and lifestyle. They are more of a concern about animal welfare which doesn't require a vegetarian diet. There are numerous animal advocates and farmers who advocate for animal welfare without practicing a diet other than omnivorous.
I'm pretty sure bugs are covered under omnivores and carnivores which is plainly what pescatarians are as well. You've given a really good definition, though I admit, I've never heard of eggitarians, sounds like a delightfully British term. I've always heard egg only called ovo-vegetarian, milk only as lacto-vegetarian and missed vegetarians as lacto-ovo vegetarian. Pescatarians just want to feel better about themselves by saying that they only eat one type of meat, which to me isn't really an argument against calling them omnivores if it makes them feel better I don't really see the harm though. For an extreme example you wouldn't say a thief isn't a criminal if they only committed thievery. It's covered by the original term it's busy a more specific form of that term, it's just odd to me.
Yeah it's only been recently since the nut and soy milk have started eating into the profits of dairy farmers that they've started being all up in arms. Look for vegan cheeses and vegi burgers to be the next targets. The also went after mayonnaise substitutes as well. It's just a move to use the legal system to student stifle free market competition.
You're not going to solve the problem and your municipality isn't helping unless it burning the garbage, because that's what contaminated loads are. There's absolutely no reason to have multi stream plastics recycling at the consumer end, save for plastic bags because at scale they can be recycled. Only a very small amount of plastics are monetarily valuable. I would not feel guilty at all about throwing out plastics unless they are clean and food free. It's pointlessly wasteful as most processing plants in the US cannot handle soiled recyclables efficiently if at all. I say this as a long time, Earth hugging, reusable bag toting, fuel efficient vehicle recycler. The US is not a major contributor to plastics pollution. There should be no moral dilemma here. Just by trying to do the right thing in this case you're doing. If you want to do more have a cheese pizza night once a week instead of one with meat toppings and you'll significantly reduce your carbon footprint with minimal change to your lifestyle. If doing the by the planet is your thing having one vegetarian meal that you enjoy a week is going to be significantly more impactful at keeping the planet cleaner and using less resources (the reduce part of the 3rs) than most of the plastics recycling you do. Contaminated glass, plastics, and paper can ruin an entire comingled load which generally happens anyways.
Some specifics on ocean plastics that covers a bit of general plastics.
Thanks I'll see what I can do with this information. I'm in Massachusetts so anyone with regional or local information would be greatly appreciated as well.
It's definitely a possibility that the intention is there, but I don't know that it's always intentional. I see it far more used by the type of organization than the specific political leaving of that organization. For example in American politics Mitch McConnell is in charge of a portion of the same party at the President. He often agrees with the President and has defended on numerous occasions. Despite this his office isn't generally described as a regime. He governs by consensus. I think that most western cultures tend to view dictatorial, non consensus governments as bad, which means a word associated with these might get a bad rap. In some quick research it appears that your belief that the connotation had shifted appears to be fairly correct. Usage has become more common for heavy handed governments, the word itself doesn't have that as part of the established long running definition however.
I made more than 100k as a software support tech with no management experience and minimal college. Not sure that amount measures up in every locale. 100k for a CEO of a large charity seems pretty low.
Baseball also has verifiable, long term data on specific metrics with a guaranteed minimum rate of pay for entry level people. You're comparing different things.
You're comparing executive pay, which isn't based on verifiable public data. It's not the same thing.
While your assertion that pay doesn't correlate to performance is correct that's based on the idea that the wrong tools and metrics are being used to measure CEO performance. At a certain point you're not going to attract talented people for the task with 25% of the pay unless they've already made their money. There aren't a lot of those types of executives with this experience available unfortunately.
Care to provide a citation on anything you're making claims to?
Examples include that charity CEOs aren't required to have the same skills as private CEOs, companies failing at larger rates, companies having smaller margins, etc. You're making easily falsifiable claims without backing up your assertions.
Just based on the fact that it's pretty easy to start a business compared to a charity I'd say the average soil requirement for a functioning charity is as high if not higher than a private entity since you can sell your services to make more money, you typically don't have the income incentive to a large portion of the population, you have an unstable workforce of non-paid resources, and unlike an established business you're in constant fundraising mode. I'd say it's more akin to operating mode of an established company with the income model of a startup.
On top of this you need someone willing to spend either time or money to hire a professional to navigate the legal system. It's not a easy as just trying to be good. Our church for example can't be used as a warming center in the winter due to liveability requirements, we had to work with our local city government who has a full time paid grant writer to get funding to cover just the building resources and we volunteer the staffing for the center.
Then there's logistics. Any professional organization needs to know what it has and in what quantity to be able to effectively distribute those resources. That requires software, logistics expertise, and sometimes physical hardware. All of these are professional roles in a company of any real size.
I think you may be understating the difficulty of the task compared to private enterprise. This is why I'm asking for references, I did a cursory look and didn't find anything directly for what you stated, perhaps you're aware of some information resources I'm not?
I work for a local church food bank. We don't get these amazing rates they talk about. Does anyone have information on where we can go to get this? We run the food bank out of our local church and have a weekly meal where we buy the food for a fresh meal for 50+ people every week. We also provide a small food bank including toiletries, clothing, and blankets and would love the opportunity to do more.
It's probably because President Obama and Angela Merkel don't/didn't generally do things we associate with regimes. President Obama on numerous occasions at the start of his first term attempted to work cross party. I think it's generally used more when talking about a dictatorial style of government. President Trump, regardless of whether you like him or not, is not a consensus builder. His style is that of directions from the top, no compromises, everyone is either with him or they are potential enemies. I think this is why you would see it used more. I don't know that it demoted a bad or good government more than any other word, nor would I read into it that way. It's quite possible that it was intended to be read exactly the way you're describing.
What you're describing are perverse incentives. The incentive to take care of your family or yourself means that you build a career by short term value because that's what gets you promoted. Taking care of the customer or user first is generally a path to stagnation or getting fired in most companies. Directives come from the top, first things that get cut are training and travel, then customer impacting tools, then sales incentives, then the company downsizes and executives give themselves bonuses for "being decisive" to save the company, when all they've done is gut the company of any long term viability for short term stability.
If there's food/greade on the item that can't be removed for one reason or another toss it, it can't be recycled efficiently. There solved your moral dilemma. Generally only clean paper, glass, and metal are recyclable. Plastics depend entirely on the locality and still require it to be clean.
Also I work at a food pantry. Donations of canned goods are always welcome, same for razors, toiletries, etc. Anything that can be eaten without a stove is generally welcome.
Saying that people are looking for things to complain about is the exact reason that people dislike Google. The problem isn't you, it's that the entire company feels the same way as you do, that users of Google products are just looking for reasons to complain when their favorite app gets shut down. It's as if the company was created with no one who's job it is to think about users and it's bitterly apparent. Real people are really inconvenienced and impacted by switching services Google likes to kill off, whether it's this Compass product, Reader, Picasa, SketchUp, G+, Inbox, Hangouts, Nests, Blogger, or Android for Fuschia, or something else, it doesn't matter. Other companies don't treat unknowing users like beta testers. People choose to opt in, knowing it might fail, and take that risk. They don't get functions for something they physically installed into their house willfully broken for no reason. It's not just a few products. Try and fix something with Google DNS, go ahead I'll wait while you find the appropriate place to contact. I'm going to guess it's going to involve knowing someone at Google because there's no way to report that Google servers are breaking connectivity to websites. The entire company is like this now, no one cares about the users and it's blindly apparent.
Wouldn't that have been what Project X or Google labs was for? People don't generally like to constantly be unwilling beta testers. Google is doing it wrong. They ditch popular products that could work and are popular instead of spinning them out. They buy and then kill profitable and popular products. Google hasn't really had a successful project in a while. The last major one I can think of being Google Docs. Google sometimes builds applications that compete with their own products and then kills both the stable and new product.
What people expect is that one you have a stable of popular and successful products that you will either focus or provide long term support for the products that they rely on, whether you have to move to a different model or not. Microsoft and Apple both build new products and don't have the same animus directed at them because there's and expectation of stability or planning when a product gets sunsetted. How long did XP last? Windows 7 still gets security updates even if it's a dead product. Google just kills things, even Google Fiber that people rely on, with no transition plan and messaging that basically reflects that customers or users of the product don't matter to then at all. Google has worked hard to get their bad reputation and it turned from a darling into a dangerous entity.
It's a combination of regulatory capture and the intentionally making these organizations toothless by Republicans as part of their pro-business, regulation budgeting platform. What they claimed would happen is that businesses would lower prices, and if you look at advertised prices they probably claim a win, it's all the hidden prices that are a problem and those fall under regulatory groups that are underfunded or run by people who disagree with their intended mandate, for example Scott Pruitt being put in charge of the EPA, or John Bolton in any organization that deals in diplomacy.
Most companies that intend to go public maybe. Private ownership and pride in what you sell does still exist in America, just takes more looking. Patagonia for example just made a decision not to support the VC vest culture any more than it already was. I've got a chain of local hardware stores that are still family owned nearby. There's tons of real Amish furniture companies that aren't looking to sell out. Just because it's the common way didn't mean it's the only or best way.
There are tons of good books that are in the public domain. Lots of self published good content. You could also listen to music which has tons of free sources like Jamendo. You could also create your own amusement by learning a skill or crafting.
Peter Thiel would make an excellent Bond villain. You can feel empathy for him for being genuinely wronged and at the same time be disgusted by how he's harmed others in the pursuit of his private justice. He should never be underestimated and just when you think you've found a weakness he can expose it as a secret strength. If he weren't using his tremendous skills for so much ill in the world he'd be extremely admirable and hard not to cite as a role model.
You can't have it both ways. Police can easily hold someone as guilty of a crime for being in the same car as someone committing a crime. If you can be charged for that then a creator can be held complicit for any actions done using their software as intended.
Much of what they are doing stretches and very likely breaks constitutionality. The fact that they can track you without any probable cause for any amount of time and then store that information means that essentially they no longer have to get warrants, meaning there is no oversight, on anyone they want as long as they claim it's related to a case. That's absolutely wrong.
No one wants gang members running around shooting people up. We are very clearly not a nation of laws as laws apply differently depending on the very things you claim not to care about. Sentences are harsher, applications of justice are different depending on what race, nationality, or religion they are or even how much justice they can afford. This isn't an affront against the police, I'm good friends with officers, but at the end of the day as citizens it's our responsibility to hold our police accountable and establish the limits imposed upon them. Our founding fathers lived under a police state that was unaccountable to the people and we are drifting closer to that line. Our character as a nation is not defined by what we do when it's easy, but how we act when the decision are hard.
That assumes that the department you're speaking of wasn't already cut. The President only seems to care about history as it relates to what he believes it should. Consider for example how many times he bashed President Obama for golfing and has since surpassed President Obama's rate. Or how he criticized Sec Clinton for a private email server then did the same thing or illegally destroyed documents. The President seems to be confused on the differences between an office with shared powers and the dictators he has made a habit of becoming friendly with.
Before tech I did a stint in recruiting. We had a client demand only "white sounding" names. We ignored that and provided any qualified candidate. They complained because they mistook the recruiters name for an applicant. We fired that client the same week. It was a truly disgusting thing to be asked and I'm glad my company made the right call. Any future client that asked that was immediate grounds for client dismissal, i.e. didn't require management approval.
Isn't this just kind of like wedding photography before Instagram? Photos everyone else has already done in fake "spur of the moment" situations, you're selling illusion just like P.T. Barnum.
Well the reason there won't be a cleanup is that the lake exists for the power plant and the plant is still running, the US has similar water features near many of their power plants. According to the plant it's not poisonous per say, just not a good place to swim for irritant and safety reasons, and you don't want to drink the water. There are probably far more toxic naturally occurring areas than this based on the lack of immediate health impacts to visitors.
Non competes only matter if they're competing. At the price they are offering I'd spend about 1/2 an hour trolling stack overflow for random bits of code, push whatever I find whether it is relevant or not and call it a day. This kind of blind abuse is literally to encourage H1B abuse. They are just going to use this to claim they couldn't find a local resource and export the job. It's illegal and should be cracked down on harder than a fleck of marijuana in Texas. It's apparently a felony to have weed in Texas, why is it not a felony to commit employment fraud/H1b fraud? You're destroying lives other than your own in one case and just enjoying yourself in another.
I literally just looked at home prices in the bay area. I found a literal handful of homes/apartments available in that price range. One was a 300 sq foot apartment, most of the rest were unbuilt lots. I'm not sure if you're talking about auctions or foreclosures, etc. Can you elaborate on that? I can't even get a home in my much lower cost area for that price. I can tell you $1k/month for a family of three in my area is typical grocery expenses before eating out. We can certainly cut back but bargain basement is about $800/month unless we're eating nothing but ramen and cereal.
You forgot healthcare costs. Many businesses either don't offer or have really, really bad healthcare options. Why it's still considered something tied to businesses and not the individual I don't know.