Happiness is an inside job. Sitting with your emotions is very important. That's not to say we can tolerate an unlimited amount of information. But rather to highlight that we can become the observer of our emotions, rather than be consumed by them.
Wow! That's crazy. Here in the UK, the most expensive eggs in my local supermarket - which are Clarence Court Burdord Brown eggs - are only the equivalent of $5.08 per dozen. Those are the posh, expensive, eggs that only those with a bit of extra cash in their pocket, and a desire to eat more healthily, would buy.
Food additive manufacturers sell farmers aditives to produce yolks with specific hues[1]. There are regional/cultural variations in color preferences, so regional farmers will target different sades.
It's slightly disingenuous to call carotenoids "additives". Although it might technically be true, carotenoids are naturally present in tons of vegetables (hence carrots) and are a good antioxidant with other known health benefits.
So hens don't usually have to be force-fed. Some of that color can come from having a diverse source of proteins--like the bugs and insects that pasture-raised hens get access to--but farmers "in the know" will also add paprika and marigold to the usual soy-and-grain supplemental feed, to try to encourage it to come out a bit more.
A few years back I briefly thought that a rich yolk color was a quality signal, until I found that additives could produce that color cheaply. The color comes from dietary carotenoids [1]. Companies like BASF sell carotenoid feed additives that producers can employ to get a yolk color as rich as desired:
My city has 30k people, although we are part of a larger metro. Store brand eggs are $9.50/dozen. Alternatively Costco is still selling 60 packs for $20, although they have had per customer limits recently and don't alway have stock. Works out to $4 per dozen. But thats a lot of eggs.
yep. been a long time coming. it's unfortunate that when it favors them this is a talking point for the maga folks... but when it hurts them they are nowhere to be found.
Bandwidth is a part, but that’s an easy hurdle. But running a CDN at that scale is gonna require experience and truck load of money. The juice really has to be worth the squeeze.
That's why companies doing streaming at less than Google's scale can pay Aakami or a company like them to do that, caching copies at datacenters around the world close to the people doing the watching.
> But running a CDN at that scale is gonna require experience and truck load of money
Take Netflix for example. Their CDN at scale is pretty good for VOD type of delivery, but they continue to get it wrong for live event streaming. Even Twit..er, X falls down with their large event live streaming.
Adding the "live" component makes everything just that much harder
Live streaming with HLS is equal to distributing static files and can be very low latency.
If you need to go below 3s of latency, yes it becomes harder, but everything else is thankfully solved.
The bigger issue with live streaming are the peaks: 0 views in one second and millions in the next. Even with static content delivery that leads to all kinds of issues.
> they continue to get it wrong for live event streaming
And truly live (which means probably under 10 seconds from lens to viewer - i.e. the time it takes for the "X win" notification to pop up on your phone) is even harder than traditional "live" in the 40-60 second window.
Ideally you want all viewer to view it at the same time (so when next-door are cheering on a feed 3 seconds ahead of you it's not spoilt).
That's a vague slogan, not a meaningful strategy to accomplish anything of consequence. Money is just a tool. The resources and incentives that the money is being spent on already exist, and it's being used to further ambitions and goals that were always present. Getting "money out of politics" in a formalistic way will just lead to corrupt ambitions being facilitated via some other means.
Bernie's ideas are very dangerous, because he offers simplistic, pat solutions to risks that are fundamental to politics itself (at the expense of the much more nuanced safeguards we've developed over the ages) while proposing to make the political state far more central to people's immediate lives and livelihoods than it has ever been before.
Getting politics out of civil society is much more important than getting money out of politics.
>That's a vague slogan, not a meaningful strategy to accomplish anything of consequence.
Of course. The vast majority of America needs "sound bites" of info. Wish this wasn't the case. But it's worked for decades.
>Money is just a tool. The resources and incentives that the money is being spent on already exist, and it's being used to further ambitions and goals that were always present. Getting "money out of politics" in a formalistic way will just lead to corrupt ambitions being facilitated via some other means.
You're not wrong. But there is a happy medium. Super PACs/Citizens United....this is what he's targeting. Those are dangerous. They are not in the interest of all American people. They benefit the few.
And we cannot have hypocrites at every level. The insider trading that occurs due to politician privilege is insane. But not Bernie, his actions match his words. He lives by his principles. That cannot be said for many politicians.
>Bernie's ideas are very dangerous, because he offers simplistic, pat solutions to risks that are fundamental to politics itself (at the expense of the much more nuanced safeguards we've developed over the ages)
Is that's how things have played our for the folks in Vermont? I grew up in that area. I've watched his policies shape the landscape for decades. But his policies aren't why he's a great candidate.
While his policies are a big part of his platform, what really resonates with a lot of people is his unwavering commitment to first principles values like fairness, equality, social justice, and democracy. These principles drive his entire political career, and they shape his policy proposals, but they also make him stand out in a political landscape where many politicians change their stance based on what's politically expedient or donor-friendly.
Bernie's character and consistency are arguably just as important as his policies in defining who he is as a politician.
>while proposing to make the political state far more central to people's immediate lives and livelihoods than it has ever been before.
This is a concern of mine as well. It's the ultimate balancing act. Provide just enough support for folks that they still hold agency in their life. As Fred Rogers put it, "There's a world of difference between insisting on someone's doing something and establishing an atmosphere in which that person can grow into wanting to do it."
> Super PACs/Citizens United....this is what he's targeting.
And this is part of the problem. Citizens United was a bog standard first amendment ruling that has been targeted by an aggressive misinformation campaign by a faction that wants the unprecedented power to censor political discourse, and people are eating up the misinformation.
> While his policies are a big part of his platform, what really resonates with a lot of people is his unwavering commitment to first principles values like fairness, equality, social justice, and democracy.
But again, his "commitment" is in the form of talk. The reality of the policy positions he does advance is to set us up for the exact opposite of all of those things. I don't know whether he's a well-intentioned fool or a deceptive manipulator, but either way, the consequences are the same. He's just a mirror image of Trump, using vague emotional appeals to win power, then horribly misusing that power.
> Provide just enough support for folks that they still hold agency in their life. As Fred Rogers put it, "There's a world of difference between insisting on someone's doing something and establishing an atmosphere in which that person can grow into wanting to do it."
Absolutely correct. And the problem here is that "insisting on someone's doing something" is the fundamental nature of the political state, while "establishing an atmosphere in which that person can grow into wanting to do it" is the task of a dynamic and pluralistic civil society, in all its forms.
The more we allow the assertion of political power to solve problems that ought rightly be solved by bottom-up activity in civil society, the more we set ourselves up to be the victims of abuse (especially as the well-intentioned people who created the system of political dependence are superseded first by indifferent functionaries, and then by corrupt powermongers).
I want to thank you for the discourse. This is a refreshing conversation on a very nuanced topic. I don't often encounter folks that can hold these opposing thoughts. Understanding how grey the world is.
>But again, his "commitment" is in the form of talk. The reality of the policy positions he does advance is to set us up for the exact opposite of all of those things. I don't know whether he's a well-intentioned fool or a deceptive manipulator, but either way, the consequences are the same. He's just a mirror image of Trump, using vague emotional appeals to win power, then horribly misusing that power.
I hear what you are saying. But again, his policies have had measurable benefits to his constituents in Vermont. With a track record going back decades. I understand you might not have first hand experience with this as I did. But to discredit years of his work saying it's all talk is a little tongue in cheek.
At the end of the day I think we both know it'll always be an attempt to pick the "least evil."
> Citizens United was a bog standard first amendment ruling that has been targeted by an aggressive misinformation campaign by a faction that wants the unprecedented power to censor political discourse, and people are eating up the misinformation.
Everyone who disagrees with me is gullible and misinformed.
Yep. The number of people rallying behind superficial nonsense without any substantive policy positions backing them up has never been higher. Trump and Sanders are two sides of the same coin.
If there's any evidence of a decline, it's definitely found in the extent to which people are both (a) looking to federal politics to solve their local and personal problems for them, and (b) supporting incompetent sloganeers as the people they want managing federal politics.
I think the only way to do this is to pay members of Congress extremely generous salaries and then have a large agency whose only job is to monitor their finances like a swarm of starving animals with zero tolerance for outside influence. If any one of these motherfuckers or their neighbor or third cousin accepts so much as a fucking cup of coffee from a lobbyist they can forfeit it all, go to prison for ten years, and pay their salary back.
Pay them each a million bucks a year, for fuck's sake. That's $535 million dollars -- but remember we immediately get a lot of that back in taxes. Fuck, round it up to a billion dollars to include the cost of the agency to watch them. A whole team for each congress-critter. Half of the salaries go into escrow and the escrow money gets paid out after they leave office. And they can't work for 5 years after they leave office -- none of that indirect bribery where "cooperative" congresspeople get cushy jobs at the companies they helped during their tenure on capitol hill.
That's still only like a tenth of a percent of the total US Government budget.
Anybody who thinks that this won't improve the functioning of our government by at least 0.14% is welcome to tell me why.
Considering how NEW citizens United United is...and how every other democracy seems to be able to handle this somewhat sanely... Why is it so hard to imagine? It wasn't like this even in 1995...
Well, 1995 was seven years before Congress passed the statute that the FEC was misinterpreting in the Citizens United case.
The Citizens United ruling had essentially noting to do with "money
in politics" and was just a bog standard first amendment ruling against a federal agency attempting to read the power to regulate political speech into a statute that had been passed a mere eight years earlier.
Contrary to the misinformation spread through the media, the court did not rule that "money is speech", but ruled almost exactly the opposite: it was the FEC that was attempting to argue that "speech is money" -- that using resources to speak in a way that might persuade voters was equivalent to donating those resources directly to a candidate -- and therefore they had the right to restrict the publication of "electioneering communications". The court ruled that no, speech is not money, and is protected by the first amendment under all circumstances.
So the ruling put things back the way they were in 1995, before the FEC had ever gotten the idea that they had the power to censor speech.
This is just lying by ommision or gaslighting.... Yes citizens United opened the floodgates to money in us politics overturning nearly A CENTURY old precedent and allowing something unlike anything that had happened in that previous century.... And to downplay it as just going back to status quo is absurd .
This is a good point. No matter the intent, we must also focus on the real world outcomes of said policy.
The Citizens United ruling didn’t just clarify the FEC’s authority, it fundamentally reshaped the landscape of American politics by allowing unlimited corporate and union spending on elections, which critics argue disproportionately amplifies the influence of wealth. While the Court didn’t explicitly equate money with speech, its decision enabled the flow of money into the political system in a way that is effectively treated as free speech under the First Amendment. Far from "restoring the status quo," Citizens United created a system where the wealthy can now spend unlimited amounts of money to sway elections, a shift that has drastically altered democratic representation.
> While the Court didn’t explicitly equate money with speech
The court did the exact opposite, and repudiated the attempt by the FEC to equate money with speech.
The FEC were effectively arguing that "speech is money" and that their authority to regulate campaign donations allowed them to censor the direct expression of political opinions by organizations that weren't associated with candidates in any way, under the theory that the expenditure of resources in a way that might influence voters' opinions is equivalent to directly donating the monetary value of those resources to whichever candidates might benefit from shifts in opinion.
Prior to the FEC's attempted enforcement of the 2002 BCRA, this wasn't even an issue at question -- the right of individuals and organizations alike to express their own opinions with their own resources was never in doubt.
No, it didn't. There's gaslighting going on, but I'm afraid you've been gaslit by the media here. CU was not about campaign donations, despite the frenzied attempts by various factions to pretend otherwise. No donations of money to political candidates were involved in the facts of the case or in the ruling in any way whatsoever.
There was no century old precedent at stake at all. The case, and the ruling, was about the FEC attempting to use a 2002 statute to censor the release of a movie in 2008, invoking a concept ("electioneering communication") that did not exist at all prior to the 21st century.
Regulation doesn't work. It's usually co-opted by the very parties it's intended to regulate, and used as a means to entrench rather than limit their power. In the worst case, it actually makes things far worse by allowing established interests to manipulate regulation to create barriers to entry for competition, produce collusive outcomes that would otherwise be illegal, and replace common-law liability for the actual consequences of their behavior with prescriptive rules that they can comply with performatively.
Regulation works fine - you can observe it working fine in every other first world country directly mitigating and resolving many of the problems still present in the US.
I'm afraid I can't observe any of that. All I can see is superficial appearances -- I can't see behind-the-scenes corruption or measure superior alternatives that were suppressed in favor of locking in a marginally mitigated version of the status quo ante.
I can, however, see the some of the unintended consequences of regulatory interventions in other countries. For example, Germany's ban on nuclear power made them dependent on Russian oil imports, inadvertently propping up Putin's regime.
> I'm afraid I can't observe any of that. All I can see is superficial appearances
This sounds like you are observing much of that, and then dismissing the results as superficial appearances.
Dismissing regulation here would be like dismissing a comparison of a correlation between laws against murder and a low murder rate and a correlation between no laws against murder and a high murder rate.
>Dismissing regulation here would be like dismissing a comparison of a correlation between laws against murder and a low murder rate and a correlation between no laws against murder and a high murder rate.
The reality is there is a hint of truth in everything. We must be careful to assign cause where correlation exists.
Let's use Vermont's gun laws for example. Over the last 40 years, the state's approach to firearms has been quite permissive, with relatively few restrictions, but it still maintains a reputation for having one of the lowest gun violence rates in the country. Vermont is one of the few states in the U.S. where people can carry a concealed weapon without a permit. So is it regulation that prevents the gun violence, as many would lead you to believe, or is it a combination of factors. Factors like social stability, cultural attitudes toward guns, and the state's strong focus on community engagement. Those all contribute to the relative lack of gun violence, rather than simply the laws themselves.
But speaking from experience, when we are deep into ego development years (think teens), I would have absolutely killed someone if it wasn't for murder laws. But today, what holds me back is empathy, and not the law.
> Vermont is one of the few states in the U.S. where people can carry a concealed weapon without a permit
That was true for decades, but over the past 15 years, 28 more states have adopted Vermont-style permitless concealed carry laws, so it's now a majority of states that allow this.
"Capitalist society" can have many different meanings. Pure 100% capitalism does not exist and has never existed, and no serious capitalist thinker has ever argued for it.
I'd argue that what critics of "capitalism" use the term to describe is essentially a straw man that has never accurately represented any real-life economy.
Not really. Right/Left labeling is silly in general so it's hard to explain in those terms, but Turkish military is and has been anything but Left. You could maybe call them reformist, secular authoritarians, in opposition of religious, populist authoritarians.
Interestingly after 50 years and 2.5 coups, the kind of people they pushed out are the ones running the country for the past 20 years and they're stronger than ever. I take it as a signal that the problem wasn't specific individuals and parties, but they were merely symptoms of deeper problems with the Turkish people.
There was a momentous coup in 1980 that clamped down on the left and nurtured the religious right, to counter communist influence. It was a Carter administration project. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Belt_Theory
The left will throw them down even faster. I'm honestly baffled as to why any police bothered stopping January 6th - it predictably got them hated by the right, but they never got any thanks or appreciation from the left either, so it looks like a complete losing move to me.
They got the Congressional Gold Medal award, and every time I heard Nancy Pelosi speaking of them, she sounded personally grateful.
Also, it was their job to keep Congress safe, and there are a lot of people that take their job and their honor seriously. Maybe they don't make the podcasts, but they are out there keeping our society safe.
When someone's in a highly politicised position where it's not obvious what the right call is, I'm baffled that they wouldn't take the route that aligns so heavily with their interests, yes. Much as I'm a fan of personal integrity, there's only so much shitting on my whole profession that I could take.
You're not usually meant to use force to prevent trespass outside of some very narrow circumstances. And whether someone is trespassing or is somewhere they have every right to be is very often unclear.
America as 70s/80s Turkey, just have the military coup the civilian government every time it gets out of line. Not a super stable way to run a country!
This sounds very ignorant. The members of the military very much understand and remember their oath to the constitution and they are acting accordingly currently.
Yeah, I wonder if it might help to create a little newsletter for politicians and regulators. Send emails telling them exactly where they are, what apps they use, and so on. And send them the same information about their children.
Eh, California protects politicians from having their real estate holdings posted online by government, and afaik, most county recorders have decided it's easier to not let any of it be online than to figure out who is a politician and only restrict their information.
Of course, much of it is public information so businesses can go in person, get all the info and then list it.
To use a line sometimes attributed to Beria, “give me the man and I will give you the case against him”. By which I mean that I’m sure they will find some means of making you sorry.
It's quite alarming. And it seems departments are complicit. Which is further alarming. We need Governors, AGs, and mayors to refuse to comply with unlawful federal directives. If everyone just falls in line, what levers can we pull? Feels like at that point, civil war might be upon us.
I wish. I'm currently looking into where long range gun rifle ranges are. About to start purchasing armor penetrating rounds. Basically try to form local "municipal militia" style groups. I'm fully expecting violence within a decade.
Incredibly respectable. And get on it ASAP because imo its likely they'll be harder to get in the very short term. But the sad thing is I just don't see there being enough organization.
Nazi Germany didn't end because of internal militias.
One of the problems of outright refusal is that you'll end up being fired, and likely replaced by a Trumpdroid. Staying in your position and cooperating the "least amount" you can get away with is better. Very thin rope to walk though, and seems like a nigh-impossible position to be in.
>One of the problems of outright refusal is that you'll end up being fired, and likely replaced by a Trumpdroid
We need resistance at all levels. Fire me? We sit in and chain the doors? Call the police? Police stand down and need to support the people. Police need to recognize they will also be on the chopping block.
It's all about who can enforce what. We are literally in a power battle. And it'll take every single one of us to ACT. Otherwise, we are fucked. Get comfortable with being uncomfortable.
That's easy to say from the sidelines, but it's people's jobs we're talking about: they need to eat, and have mortgages and children in college and whatnot. There's a lot at stake for people in very direct and tangible ways. And at this point it's unclear if any of this will even be effective, or if any of Trump's action will stick. "Put your livelihood on the line to perhaps maybe prevent some form of authoritarianism of unclear severity".
I mean, I don't think we really disagree on matters as such, but I do think you're underestimating the extremely difficult position these workers are in.
It does sound like that, doesn't it. I think it speaks to how dire I see this situation. Because you're right, people are being put in a very difficult situations. And the government likely is aware of that too. They understand the power imbalance that exists.
We need to find a way to support these people. People that sacrifice for the whole of our community must be supported by said community.
You're not wrong. We've lost the plot on what value government provides. It should be about community. People having agency and coming together because we see our selves in our neighbors.
Yes, we also lost the plot on what government should be. It should be a tool for positive some collaboration, on projects that most people can agree on. It should not be a club for beating each other over the head.
I can't get an Obamacare protest poster out of my mind that sums up how democracy fails. It raid "If you shove this down our throat, We will shove it up your asses".
This isn't to say democrats started it, but emblematic of the failure mode.
>Yes, we also lost the plot on what government should be. It should be a tool for positive some collaboration, on projects that most people can agree on. It should not be a club for beating each other over the head.
And how we get there is through empathy for one another. Like full on Mr Rodger's love your neighbor.
Absolutely! It requires all of us to have agency and reach this on our own time.
A direct quote from Fred Rogers "There's a world of difference between insisting on someone's doing something and establishing an atmosphere in which that person can grow into wanting to do it."
While societal structures and corporate practices shape behavior, you're right, individuals still retain agency. But progress lies in fostering environments that support healthy choices while encouraging self-reflection and responsibility. Dismissing either side of the equation undermines effective problem-solving. ie, food deserts are real
For the home user, MLO has potential. For my enterprise deployment, it's sadly a no-go due to how it's implemented and how that implementation affects the user experience.
I don't unfortunately. Best I can offer is WiFi 7 in-depth. But that's about a 400 page read. I'm speaking from deploying/managing WiFI for the last 20 years.
The "boiled ocean" version is this. Wireless connectivity is a dance between client and AP. Client holds the decision making and AP can at best influence those decisions. MLO is gonna require a new SSID just for MLO capable devices. But you still must maintain separate SSID for non-MLO devices. This is a show stopper for services like eduroam.
Multiple SSIDs is also a PITA because the second a user experiences an issue, they will try to connect to whatever SSID they can. Now that profile is saved. Now every time the client connects it might hear multiple SSIDs that are saved as auto-join. Now you have an unpredictable client experience.
I'm looking at a WiFi 7 deployment. But not because of the feature set. The true win was extra spectrum with 6E. But considering where most vendors are with their 6E product life cycle, 7 will provide more ROI.
reply