He wrote honestly about a profession he worked at all levels. His travel/food programmes sampled the fanciest of foods as well as the greasy spoons, local cuisines, and all without arrogance or false humility. He was very relatable for many people.
I would recommend reading Kitchen Confidential. Alternatively watch any of his travel shows although I think understanding the man through the book first makes it easier to appreciate the shows.
Regarding this specific find I don't see anything particularly special but for many it's one final glimpse into the life of someone they admire.
His really early ones were kind of rough. Like you could see he was still figuring it out. There was one episode where he just narrated a lonely planet guide.
I think the thing even worse than false information is the almost-correct information. You do a quick Google to confirm it's on the right page but find there's an important misunderstanding. These are so much harder to spot I think than the blatantly false.
Sanctioned by who? The president who thinks his tech companies shouldn't be subject to European laws when they operate in Europe believes completely separate countries have to abide by his rules when doing business?
I don't see how this reasoning would be at all applicable in that situation.
There are good reasons to believe that Edmundo González won the elections in Venezuela, there are no good reasons to believe anything similar about illegally occupied territories in Ukraine.
Can someone explain why US sanctions on Iranian oil would have any relevance to Venezuela? And why the US would have any right to enforce those sanctions by seizing some other countries tanker? Or is this the US just doing what it wants because nobody will tell it otherwise?
> Can someone explain why US sanctions on Iranian oil would have any relevance to Venezuela?
"Brokers in Singapore told The Wall Street Journal that a tanker called the Skipper was the vessel seized off Venezuela early Wednesday. The tanker, formerly called the Adisa, had been sanctioned by the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control for carrying Iranian crude" [1].
There are shadow fleets of tankers trafficking oil across the world. Venezuelan oil is sanctioned as well as Iranian so no company without licenses and correct paperwork would touch it unless you move it enough to hide the origin. In the end they all know where it comes from but like the plausible deniability.
Most Venezuelan oil is very heavy and sour and needs to be mixed with lighter oil to be refined and they need access to restricted chemicals for the process. As it was explained to me a few months ago Iran provides lighter oil, solvents and materials for the refining and they take the heavier oil to sell it in the black market.
Sanctions aside the tanker was there for the taking by any government. Spoofing location and flying a false flag are enough to justify boarding and seizure by any country since it's a stateless ship likely involved in illegal activities.
In short yes, USA does it because it can and there's legal justification for it beyond "Trump oil, Trump bad lel", but as usual HN devolves to a potato when world events touch USA politics.
Oh, I think I know this one. Venezuela crude is really heavy and dirty, but a lot of refineries, including ones in Texas and I imagine Iran, are designed to mix it with some lighter crude to derive a decent gasoline yield. These refineries only work like this however, and have basically become dependent on dirty crude sources like Venezuela. The USA I think is dealing via Alberta tar sands, but maybe they decided to just steal the oil from Venezuela directly (Trump is unhinged like that).
>> Our kids are up against problems we didn't have during the great expansion of social.
I'm not sure I agree with this. Our societies globally have become hugely polarised and are manipulated daily because of social media. The damage done by social media is 100x greater than any good that came from it and the lives of adults have been affected by on it a societal level at least as much as the danger to kids.
It isn't possible, but if social media was suddenly completely unavailable I think the world would get a lot better in a very short period of time.
> Our societies globally have become hugely polarised and are manipulated daily because of social media.
Watching 18 year old kids getting drone striked every other day has done more for the anti-war movement than a hundred years of post-WW1 globalist utopianism. The only demographic of war hawks you find online anymore are psychotics and boomers, both being unfit for military service.
This is the fundamental reason why western countries are turning on social. The TikTok ban had less to do with Chinese influence campaigns and more to do with it being a platform where Israeli war crimes were openly discussed without being hindered by shadow algorithms.
You’re seeing Zionists like Larry Ellison make plays in the media space for the same reason; military-aged white men are going off the plantation, and Zionists feel threatened by it. That is literally all these bans are intended to remedy.
I am from Ukraine. Tell me anything you know about drone striked humans. For you it is just pictures from Internets happening far far away, you never know why do they find themself being drone striked.
What anti-war actions have you done to prevent the end your life by drone striking? Post some dislikes, duh?
> For you it is just pictures from Internets happening far far away, you never know why do they find themself being drone striked.
I’ve seen more than one begging for his life getting blown up by a grenade dropped out of the sky. The killers then post videos glorifying these executions complete with music and motion graphics.
> What anti-war actions have you done to prevent the end your life by drone striking?
I haven’t done anything, and that’s the point; there is nothing that will compel me to treat my fellow man in the way I have seen men treated in this footage.
Curious about your thoughts on (a). I understand privacy concerns but not your point about scams. How are people going to lose their life savings? A photo ID is useful because you can compare the photo on it to someone human. Passports contain mirochips. If losing your ID was so dangerous people would be in trouble all the time, because people lose them all the time.
I guess it comes back to again not whether things are technically watertight, but how socially normalised something is. People are used to giving their ID out for significant transactions. This law says now that pretty much any random website has a good reason to ask you for ID documents. So when someone seeking to steal your identity already has two forms and is just trying to fill in that 3rd document to get over the line to where they can call up the bank to reset your password - the bar just got lowered. They no longer have to trick you into thinking it's a message from your bank or anything else significant. It can literally be "oh my cousin sent me pictures of their grand kids, let me just get my passport to upload so I can see them".
reply