Travis Rieder's new book, Catastrophe Ethics, "aims to advise the well-intentioned, morally anxious & philosophically curious person" confronting the questions about whether our personal choices about the environment, technology, & justice matter.
In the Texas Panhandle, which produces a fifth of the U.S. beef supply, communities are being choked by fecal dust from nearby feedlots. The state’s regulatory agency isn’t doing anything about it—and it’s about to get a whole lot worse.
EDITED: One of journalism's consistent flaws is ignoring relevant context.
Case in point is this NY Times story about a judge tossing out a new federal regulation limiting extortionate credit card late fees.
Here's the context the Times didn't care to include: The financial companies went forum shopping, and landed one of their favorite Trump-appointed judges, who (to his credit) objected to the process, but then predictably ruled against the administration.
Controversial opinion: we should have some pubs that allow children (and actively welcome them, with playgrounds and kids’ meal deals and stuff) but also some pubs that ban them (because sometimes adults want to drink in child-free environments, and that’s a legitimate desire that is easy to fulfil), and some pubs that are in between. There should be lots of different types of social spaces, so everyone is catered for 👍
@girlonthenet
After reading your original post I thought "how is this a controversial opinion?" but now that I've read your follow-up comment you seem less of a weirdo 😉
J.K. Rowling also writes under a pen name of "Robert Galbraith", publishing over half a dozen titles under that name, most of which have TV adaptations.
Robert Galbraith Heath was the American Psychiatrist who pioneered Gay Conversion Therapy to convert homosexuals through electro-shock therapy.
@ned The conversion therapy experiments described in the Wikipedia article you linked to are highly unethical and disturbing but it's not clear that they involve "electro-shock therapy" the way that term is normally undestood
Contrary to popular dogma, industrial agriculture cannot "feed the world." Below are seven key takeaways from a report comparing the industrial food chain to the smallholder peasant food web.
Peasants are the main or sole food providers to more than 70% of the world’s people, and peasants produce this food with often much less than 25% of the resources — including land, water, fossil fuels — used to get all of the world’s food to the table.
The industrial food chain uses at least 75% of the world’s agricultural resources and is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions, but provides food to less than 30% of the world’s people.
For every $1 consumers pay to industrial food chain retailers, society pays another $2 for the industrial food chain’s health and environmental damages. The total bill for the industrial food chain's direct and indirect cost is 5 times governments’ annual military expenditure.
The industrial food chain lacks the agility to respond to climate change. Its research and development is not only distorted but also declining as it concentrates the global food market.
The peasant food web nurtures 9-100 times the biodiversity used by the industrial food chain, across plants, livestock, fish, and forests. Peasants have the knowledge, innovative energy and networks needed to respond to climate change; they have the operational scope and scale; and they are closest to the hungry and malnourished.
There is still much about our food systems that we don’t know we don’t know. Sometimes, the industrial food chain knows but isn’t telling. Other times, policymakers aren’t looking. Most often, we fail to consider the diverse knowledge systems in the peasant food web.
The bottom line: at least 3.9 billion people are either hungry or malnourished because the industrial food chain is too distorted, vastly too expensive, and — after 70 years of trying — just can’t scale up to feed the world.
@Tutanota I just read your latest blog post https://tuta.com/blog/best-free-email-accounts and I notice that you describe Tuta as a "free" email provider and Protonmail as a "paid" email provider, but what's the difference exactly between the two?
It seems to me that there is no difference between Tuta and Protonmail in this regard because both offer free as well as paid accounts, or am I overlooking something?
@Tutanota This blog post you linked to is a more comprehensive comparison and it confirms that "Both Tuta and Proton Mail operate on a freemium model, offering free and paid versions of their email service", so I don't see the logic in the more recent blog post to describe Tuta as a "free" email provider and Proton Mail as "paid" email provider.
@Tutanota Further, the title of the blog post "10 best free email accounts in 2024" doesn't accurately describe the content of the blog post if half of the list is actually paid providers! (In this case the title should be "10 best free and paid email accounts" or simply "10 best email accounts").
You have a great email service but I think you need more attention to detail here ;)