2,368 karma · joined December 18, 2021
The only thing "wrong" here is all the people chiming in to tell others that their differing preferences are incorrect.
Legitimately laughing out loud at this response. You're sitting there at your keyboard telling other people that their food preferences are wrong? Seriously? No one is going to take you seriously if you can't acknowledge the basic premise that food preferences are personal opinions.
"Food is all about personal preference"
Because meat tastes better, and I want it. If I can have that taste without an animal involved then it’s all the better. If not then I’ll continue eating meat.
Vegetarians and vegans just don’t seem to understand this. Food is all about personal preference but the extreme majority of people eat and enjoy meat. They enjoy it because they find it delicious. If people felt vegetarian options were as delicious as meat we wouldn’t be having these discussions.
People who don’t have a taste preference for meat are obviously not the target for plant based meat.
This comment brought to you by the year 2008. Europe did look elsewhere for partners, and cozied up with Russia.
I can’t wait to see how Europeans shoot themselves in the foot this time.
If we expose ourselves to these pathogens and wait a few thousand years we might naturally evolve to be resilient.
…otherwise I have no idea what you’re proposing here. You can’t just decide to be resilient. Pathogens kill people. They don’t die because they lacked willpower.
The Model 3 is ridiculously expensive. Base price RWD $47k. You can get into a Prius for $25k. At 58mpg there will never be a breakeven for the Model 3. Economics will be different with this upcoming $7,500 tax credit, but that obviously doesn't apply to any current owners.
...except at least Spirit Airlines is cheap. The Mercedes EQS sedan starts at $102k for relatively middling performance of 5.9s 0-60 and range of 350 milse. I have no doubt that the EQS is a more luxurious car, but the Tesla Model S is $105k for significantly better performance of 3.1s 0-60 and better range at 405 miles.
I doubt anyone is cross-shopping a Model 3 against a Mercedes, but the economics are almost comical in favor of the 3. Model 3 $63k for 3.1s 0-60 and 315 miles of range.
I can only wonder who would buy this. Pay a significant premium for a Mercedes and then stuck with a $100/month subscription? I'd love to hear from someone who is into this, and why.
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23462333/sam-bankman-frie...
There are absurdly under braked e-bikes with 30+ mph motors, electric scooters with 40+ mph motors, "unicycles" with 40+ mph motors, and even competing "onewheel" type products. Based on the arguments provided in the linked article these are all worthy of regulation. I disagree with the premise, but if they're going to regulate one they should regulate all.
Make of that what you will.
https://www.longtermtrends.net/home-price-median-annual-inco...
You'll probably die of old age before there is even a whisper of a battery powered passenger plane the scale of a 787. But you may live to see a hydrogen powered passenger plane.
However, Friday also saw a broad drop in pharma stocks. If I'm quite generous I'd say 50% of that 2% can be attributed to the Twitter tomfoolery.
Except it's not. It's trivially easy. Any exchange (or person/entity) can mint a coin, and FTX collapsed in-part because they were backed by their own coin.
No true crypto enthusiasts would use a centralized exchange. If they’re using an exchange, they must not be a true crypto enthusiast.
These established sites are now designed to show you content most profitable to them, not the content you’re most likely to like.
This is why YouTube will endlessly recommend news videos to me. I’ve never watched a news video on YouTube, and any time I see it on my “Home Screen” I flag it as “Don’t show me this.” Is the algorithm comically idiotic? No, it’s trying to shove profitable (for them) content down my throat.
These platforms are fundamentally broken and we’re just waiting around for the actual implosion.
The reason people don't believe the official CPI numbers is because the CPI numbers are not properly weighted for life or dollar impact. If we look from 1970 the price of health care has increased 54x, a new house has increased 19x, and annual tuition has increased 25x. If the price of milk increases 19x what do I care? I'll just stop buying milk. I don't want to stop being alive, I need a place to live, and I want and need an education.
Even the numbers they do include seem gamed or fake. Shelter shows a 6.9% increase year over year, but the price of houses is up 17% over that same period and the price of rent is up 12-30%. I'm sure there is some ling winded explanation for how shelter excludes such and such thing, but it just loudly screams bullshit for many (most?) Americans.
>And see that consumer goods/services can't have increased by that much or otherwise everyone would be destitute...
I think people are pretty destitute to be honest.
This site really loses its value by including public company layoffs alongside actual tech startups.
That was never on the table. The US doesn’t even have the export capacity to manage it.
Germany should have pursued energy independence for the the European Union. It’s as simple as that.