> I think nobody in my country would say going out to eat is better than eating at home.
You haven't eaten at a 2 or 3 star restaurant then. They use ingredients you don't have access too, using techniques you can't use at home and pair them with wines or juices you haven't heard about.
However good you think your home cooking is (I think I'm a fairly good cook), you don't come to the knees of a chef with such a restaurant.
Yes, they are not cheap. But neither is buying a bigger house.
And if it's about getting together, who cooked the food doesn't matter. Or even get together without food, that works too.
... I've eaten at enough Michelin-starred restaurants in my life that if you summed them it'd be well over 200. I'm not a stranger to fine dining.
... and I still want to host people at my house and cook for them?
Fine dining for you may be a strictly superior replacement to home cooking (or alternatively: home cooking is what you do when you cannot have fine dining instead) - but many of us don't see it that way. They are complementary.
Yeah, my cooking isn't Thomas Keller... but that's not actually what it's about? In the same way I'm not Chris Nolan but yet I want to take video at family events?
And if I can say so: seeing fine dining as a strictly superior replacement of home cooking is a regretful way to view the world.
It is very curious for me that in a lot of comments there is no allowance for even a possibility that there is more than a single metric of “betterness” for different people and different occasions.
What these “unnecessary extras” or in the contrary “smaller footprint” give is the increased freedom of choice for that particular individual’s situation.
There is no free lunch - every benefit comes with its set of drawbacks. Extra rooms need furnishing and taking care of, cars need maintenance and parking etc.
Different people put different multipliers for each of them.
And this is fine, by the standards of a modern western society.
Living in NYC I used to think this way. Why would anyone want to live anywhere else, from street food in Queens, Le Bernardin, Omakase only menus ...etc.
The 3 star restaurants get old very fast. too expensive, way too long to eat. Very pretentious. As I got older I came to value home cooking many times higher than any restaurant that NYC can offer.
I highly suggest people try these places to understand what is possible with food, but don't value them any higher.
I never said that you should prefer 3 star restaurant. I was responding to the specific claim that home cooked meals are always better than eating out.
I am 46yo. And I was in a reading slump for most of my fourties. I used to be an avid reader until I became a father and my 3 children began taking up more of my time. And I got a shorter attention span too.
I signed up for TT because my eldest child wanted an account and I wanted to see what he was sharing and seeing. He abandoned his account quite quickly, but I found fantasy booktok. And the Tiktokers' youthful enthusiasm was a big part of what got me out of my years-long reading slump.
I doubt if this happens often enough to be industry changing, but it does happen, even for someone very much outside the Tiktok demographic.
As an aside: where it does seem to have an influence is more people in the Dutch language zone reading books in English. I have been reading in English since I was 12 and at the time many people thought that was crazy. But nowadays every bookshop has a wall full of English Fantasy en YA books.
It only targets big "platform providers" not startups. It even levels the playing field for those startups. People get so ideologically tangled that they just knee jerk.
I wish people being even that principled... I think the reactionaries in this debate are just the current generation of Apple "fanbois" who, for whatever reason, feel some need to "protect" a trillion-dollar company, or just good ol' fashioned elitism?
My pet theory is that the frothy bile in posts wanting to keep iMessage private is probably grounded in psychology/sociology: People with a quite genuine fondness for Apple's products and services, combined with their higher barriers to entry (monetary cost), forms the basis for their in-group identity, and they don't want an out-group seen as inferior (Android users, etc) from getting to join-in their, private, shared-experience. It's the same as with kids fighting over PlayStation vs Xbox.
Heh, it reminds me of when I was like that: I was a very visibly-on-the-spectrum kid who knew Photoshop, before anyone else at my school even knew what it was; when MSN Messenger 6.0 came out with support for custom user avatars/profile-pics: I thought this would lead to "normal" people learning Photoshop/digital-art and airbrushing and all getting their own Wacom tablets to make their own avatar-art and I'd lose my... special status as that one weird kid who knows Photoshop. Nah, turns out in the end everyone at school just used photos of themselves or the logos of rock bands (Radiohead's was popular) or sportswear brands. And in 2023, most people still don't know Photoshop.
So being an Apple user tends to makes someone protective of whatever they feel makes Apple... Apple. Fortunately those people aren't MEPs who get to vote on legislation with a demonstrable public benefit.
Not just that, it's removing barriers for competition. Which is what good regulations is all about. (and, technically it more than just bubble color, it's also including everyone in group chats)
I think what the (grand)parent would argue is that this isn't removing barriers to competition, it's removing competition itself. That is, iMessage is a feature provided by Apple that makes their products more compelling as compared to their competitors. By requiring Apple to provide this feature to their competitors, they lose one of the key differentiators that make their products "better" than their competitors.
> [...] want to implement something "different" [...]
The slippery-slope argument we're seeing here is that eventually, regulations would require all products and services to be exactly the same for inter-compatibility, which in turn induces a cooling effect on any innovation or novel developments (at least for existing product verticals under regulatory capture).
You're saying Apple's iMessage is a response to competition as a feature to compete.
It is, in actuality, anti-competitive as there is no way to a competitor to participate other than creating a separate platform or App for messaging. Because iMessage comes with and is supported by both all iPhones and Apple it is an uneven playing field; it is impossible to compete & is therefore anti-competitive.
The same thing would happen with TMSC, at the moment Apple buys out a large chunk if not all of their production capacity for a node - this is fine, it's just business. If Apple said to TMSC, "we'll buy out all your capacity for this node but only if you contractually refuse to sell this node to any other company while we're using it" this is anti-competitive behaviour.
That's pretty funny considering the European Commission's original complaint against Apple was for anti-competitive behavior.
Maybe things would have turned out differently if Apple hadn't embraced, extended and extinguished SMS. Maybe regulators would be a little more lenient if the App Store was ruled with anything other than an iron fist. But now they have to take action, not because Apple is unique, but because their business practices are interfering with the progress of the rest of the industry. Competitive agency is a weak excuse when they're a noted tyrant on their own platform.
Yes, but users choose to visit sites like they choose to visit a park. They would know the risks before going.
The lawlessness described here isn't harm on a third party against their consent. It's fully known by both parties at the time of the voluntary transaction.
If your were in charge when the telephone network was designed, poor people would not even be able to make a phonecall to their middleclass neighbour or senator, they'd have to buy a special Rich People phone
Your hypothetical would make sense if iPhones didn't support regular phone calls, SMS, and every other messaging app out there. All people without iPhones can't do is send blue bubble messages to iPhone users. That's literally it.
No, it was earlier. I was subscribed to this Dogbert newsletter and it was increasingly obvious that he was not as logical as he thought he was. Like really believing in positive affirmations because he did a good exam after doing them.
I think his point is the names have changed but the quality is still there. 1960s Disneyland is more similar to a modern Six Flags, while modern Disneyland has no equivalent in the 60s.
This is also true of places! I was shocked to learn that the 1,100 square foot 1950s house I grew up in is at $850,000 on Redfin. But in the 1990s, my town was a boring faceless suburb near a dangerous city (DC). It didn’t have a Whole Foods, nor did it have whatever the the equivalent of Whole Foods was in the 1990s. The town itself moved dramatically upmarket in the last 30 years.
Much of Silicon Valley also fits the bill of places that were drab faceless suburbs in the 1980s when people’s parents bought houses there. But it’s not like there wasn’t expensive suburbs in the 1980s. It’s just that Mountain View today occupies the same market position Scarsdale NY or Greenwich CY occupied in the 1980s.
How the quality of Disneyland has evolved is... tricky to evaluate. The rides are almost certainly safer and probably a bit more impressive on a technical front, but the experience itself? I'm not sure and, given that I'm a middle-aged man, I have no desire to go to Disneyland ever. Still, I imagine it was a better experience in the 1960s because it was less crowded. That's not Disneyland's fault, of course. It has gone from a place where a few devoted fans went a few times in their lives to a place where a much larger number of people go only once in their life (because it's just not worth it, in terms of headache, to go more than once, especially if you don't have kids under 12).
The general problem is overpopulation--but the good news is that there's a countervailing force built in: the more people there are, the more stuff of value there can be. New York's too congested to live in? Go to Chicago. Chicago becomes full? Live in Minneapolis, or Madison, or some up-and-coming artsy small town most of us have never heard of. So, the problem we actually experience is not overpopulation itself but, rather, the weighted overpopulation that is created by extreme inequality (i.e., by some people having 1,000,000 times more votes and more choices than the rest of us). When some rich douchebag can play the high school bully and buy hotel rooms for $1000 per night (or even buy out the whole hotel) it means everyone who can't pay $1000 per night for lodging suffers. We don't actually need to depopulate the world (although, and I hate to say this, I think traumatic and unplanned depopulation is a high likelihood in the next 50 years) so much as we need to do something about the astronomical footprint of the rich; we could support the global population that exists now if only the world were run by better people and the resources better organized.
Significant percentage of Disney rides are ... identical to when they opened. They've added some new ones, and removed some, but many things remain (and are probably "stuck" now - I see no way they could remove "It's a small world" even though they keep redoing the art.
At some point app A needs to know how to decrypt messages received on app B and/or vice-versa
Nicely designed apps will do so on your device, shady apps will do so on servers, as a consumer you'll have to decide which companies behave and design their apps in a way that is satisfactory to you
But you have to do that to use any app in the first place. If you're using a messaging app it means you trust its developers and how much data they collect and how they handle it. Adding a "how do they handle interoperation" checkbox does not significantly change that calculus imo
(as to how E2E can work with interoperability, with an open API app A will just ping app B's servers in addition to its own and will have its own E2E key as well as B's key. Groups could be more complicated but group encryption is a pretty hard problem anyway and you might just give up and warn your users that cross-platform groups won't be E2EE)
If an app is decrypting on a server instead of your device, it's not E2EE period. It's false advertising to call it E2EE. People can have bridges and such, but you know if you're controlling it or not, or it can just be local.
A simplistic way of achieving this is that you have to download an app called something like "Signal support for iMessage" which is basically a headless version of the Signal app, which makes a local connection to the iMessage app.
Apple would just need to publish an API for connecting to iMessage like that, and Signal would potentially need to allow users to add friends via their iMessage ID rather than their phone number.
> The source is mostly cattle. Which doesn't make up for Ukrainian grain.
I would expect that the more food shortages become severe, the more different types of food become fungible.
You might think this happens only in extreme cases, but as a "poor" Uni student I don't remember eating expensive food very often. And I was living in one of the richest countries on earth.
Single parents, people in disadvantaged communities etc., even in first-world countries, have the problem of putting food on the plate, and they don't really have the luxury to think about what type of food that is.
Beef prices have been extremely high for a while now, having over doubled since the pandemic started, and going up 5x since 2010. The people suffering from food insecurity haven't been eating beef as a staple. It's a luxury.
Industrial beef is fed grains that could be instead used to feed humans (or, at least the land used to produce these grains can instead produce human food). This is a far more efficient use of calories. People worried about food insecurity should be looking at reducing meat production for this very reason.
My argument is that if all beef in the world magically disappeared this minute due to an evil curse, food prices would go up across the board, regardless of food categories. I may be wrong.
> It's a luxury.
IMHO it's not a luxury in the same way that caviar and champagne are, it's a luxury in the same way that fresh greens are a luxury compared to frozen peas.
Medium or long term though, practically all other domesticated animals are more efficient than beef on a per-calorie basis. Chickens in particular, are substantially more efficient. Best case, replacing beef with chicken could increase meat yields by 10x, worst case, by 3x.
> practically all other domesticated animals are more efficient than beef on a per-calorie basis
yes, this is true, although some of those, like chickens which you mentioned, or pigs that are mentioned in the link you shared, are dependent on grains - unlike beef, which can be grass-fed.
But there are more animals besides beef that can be grass-fed, and they might be more efficient than beef.
It would be interesting to know the feed conversion ratios of goats and sheep for example.
The problem of goats and sheep is that, in a regenerative faming context, their manure is not perceived to be as effective as cow manure.
For this reason, would be interesting to measure both feed conversion ratios AND manure production ratio.
Knowing the effectiveness of manure in a regenerative farming context is very important, unless we want to continue depending on fertilisers made from petroleum which is just as bad as burning gasoline in terms of global warming.
Many are wondering if this is by design. Generate a crisis and then solve the problem with an approach that gives you what you want. Force the little people to eat bugs and only fly on planes rarely. Tie your wallet and passport to what you buy, where you go etc and fence them in.
So if these farmers would switch to agriculture it would be a solution right? Although fertilizers come with their own set of problems if I remember correctly.
About 45% of these emissions come from farms, 12% from cars. The national speed limit was lowered from 130 to 100 km/hr to deal with this issue (happened a few years ago)
Plants turn CO2 into proteins and sugars. One of two things happens. Either the cattle eat the plants and process them
or the plants rot and produce CO2 and Methane which quickly becomes CO2.
Animals eat the plant some of the CO2 is stored as fat and protein. The remainder is exuded in the form of cowshit and farts. The cowshit goes back to the soil and into plants. The Methane produced quickly becomes CO2 which is, AGAIN, used by the plants to produce plant growth. How is a single atom of carbon actually created in any of this? Sure ,if animal numbers suddenly expand rapidly, you get a very very minute increase in Methane levels. The effect is indiscernible in reality.
You haven't eaten at a 2 or 3 star restaurant then. They use ingredients you don't have access too, using techniques you can't use at home and pair them with wines or juices you haven't heard about.
However good you think your home cooking is (I think I'm a fairly good cook), you don't come to the knees of a chef with such a restaurant.
Yes, they are not cheap. But neither is buying a bigger house.
And if it's about getting together, who cooked the food doesn't matter. Or even get together without food, that works too.