Except we have zoos now and we treat animals very poorly, consider the billions upon billions of animals we slaughter every single year who’ve been forced to live in torturous conditions — zoos haven’t saved them.
Perhaps zoos aren’t the solution, maybe if we stopped the wholesale destruction of animals in our every day lives that compassion would spread to wild animals and we wouldn’t need zoos to remind people that animals aren’t just tools for us to abuse.
> Except we have zoos now and we treat animals very poorly, consider the billions upon billions of animals we slaughter every single year who’ve been forced to live in torturous conditions — zoos haven’t saved them.
There's a false equivalence here. Zoos--and other tools like them which grant exposure--bring awareness to a challenge or a problem. Without them, awareness would be fleeting if not entirely absent from the western world as a direct consequence of the fact that far too many species housed in zoos just do not exist in the same regions of the world as developed economies right now.
In other word, zoos beget awareness, which drive people like yourself to protect and care for the many forms of life with which we share this planet.
I suspect there would be a much harder time convincing people in the developed world to pay e.g. Africa or the Pacific Islands a visit without an initial exposure to their simulated wilds in a well-maintained zoo.
Zoos have nothing to do with my beliefs around animal welfare and that assumption shows your blinkered view of this problem.
The fundamental problem is that humans view animals as tools, torture and murder for our benefit is normalised from birth and zoos are just an extension of that.
You can argue that zoos play a part in giving some humans some compassion towards some animals but what use is that when their next stop after the lion enclosure is the hotdog cart.
We shouldn’t need zoos. There’s lots of non-invasive ways to learn about animals, and if our shared fundamental belief was that we should do everything we can to show animals compassion and respect, then at no point would anyone need to say “unless these kids see a caged tiger they’re not going to consider the consequences of deforestation”.
> Zoos have nothing to do with my beliefs around animal welfare and that assumption shows your blinkered view of this problem.
I apologize for making you feel that way.
> The fundamental problem is that humans view animals as tools, torture and murder for our benefit is normalised from birth and zoos are just an extension of that.
I'd encourage you to visit the Smithsonian National Zoo (a choice local to me, admittedly) to shift the perspective that led you to draw this generalization.
> You can argue that zoos play a part in giving some humans some compassion towards some animals but what use is that when their next stop after the lion enclosure is the hotdog cart.
I can argue it quite successfully given the number of conservation and anti-endangerment efforts well-maintained zoos seek to fund and manage. See e.g. the Smithsonian's efforts with Giant Panda breeding.
> We shouldn’t need zoos. There’s lots of non-invasive ways to learn about animals, and if our shared fundamental belief was that we should do everything we can to show animals compassion and respect, then at no point would anyone need to say “unless these kids see a caged tiger they’re not going to consider the consequences of deforestation”.
Regarding non-invasive ways, there really aren't. Life is driven to experience the world through sensation. As best as we know, humanity is the first species to substantially experience the world through reading, writing, speaking (well, others likely have a claim to this), and general indirect exposure. Billions of years of evolution went into honing the senses, whereas only a few hundred thousand went into honing our capacity to perceive and imagine in any amount of detail.
If you want people to care, you've got to stimulate the senses. We can't bring everyone to the wilds, so the closest we can do to achieve this is to bring the wilds to them.
---
All of that aside, I'll acknowledge that there are tons of poorly maintained zoos, but the ones driven by academia or through public funding are the ones with this public interest at heart and likewise the ones I'd prefer to keep.
You’re ignoring my point. Every single day the average person will actively benefit from the direct, quantifiable harm of individuals animals — your lunch, your dinner, there’s probably at least one animal’s suffering associated with it. Every year tens of billions of animals are slaughtered after spending their lives in inhumane conditions.
How many whales are there on earth? How many lions? 50,000 at most. You could put a bullet in the head of every lion on earth tomorrow and it would be a drop in the ocean compared to the hundreds of millions of farm animals that would be killed _on that same day_. And the lions at least wouldn’t have spent their lives packed 10 to a square foot in a barn dying to sickness.
There are some incredible, highly regarded documentaries (planet earth, blue planet) that do far more for educating people about animals than viewing that animal in a cage ever can. If zoos actually created any sort of compassion in visitors for animals then we wouldn’t be having this argument — all they create is fascination in a select few species we’ve deemed to be interesting enough, and what use is that to the animals being tortured on a scale millions of times greater.
Exotic animals are just a tool used to support an entire species cognitive dissonance.
> How many whales are there on earth? How many lions? 50,000 at most. You could put a bullet in the head of every lion on earth tomorrow and it would be a drop in the ocean compared to the hundreds of millions of farm animals that would be killed _on that same day_. And the lions at least wouldn’t have spent their lives packed 10 to a square foot in a barn dying to sickness.
I can't really keep repeatedly refuting generalizations like this. Please re-read the emphasis I've been placing on the sorts of facilities I'm defending.
> There are some incredible, highly regarded documentaries (planet earth, blue planet) that do far more for educating people about animals than viewing that animal in a cage ever can. If zoos actually created any sort of compassion in visitors for animals then we wouldn’t be having this argument — all they create is fascination in a select few species we’ve deemed to be interesting enough, and what use is that to the animals being tortured on a scale millions of times greater.
They've done much more than what you've described. Please re-read my post.
Here's a great start since I'm principally focusing on one facility which can be a model for others, in case you need a particular reference: https://nationalzoo.si.edu/conservation
If you can, I'd encourage you to read it with an open mind.
> Please re-read the emphasis I've been placing on the sorts of facilities I'm defending.
Please reread my comment, I am talking about farms (specifically chicken farms where 10% of chickens will die before they reach 1 month old because they are often packed 50,000 to a barn and not cared for), not zoos. I am not arguing that some zoos don’t do fantastic conservation work, I am arguing that it’s comparatively meaningless when you look at the wholescale abuse of animals perpetrated by the absolute majority of humans on this planet.
> I am arguing that it’s comparatively meaningless when you look at the wholescale abuse of animals perpetrated by the absolute majority of humans on this planet.
At no point was there an assertion that zoos are a cure-all, just that without them, the abuse you're highlighting would be worse, and that there's an opportunity to further heal and reduce those abuses by building and curating more well-maintained zoos.
It seems we've departed from the original premise which drew me to the conversation. I'm not equipped to solve general animal cruelty; I'm only equipped to defend the little corner which zoos seek to aid.
> ...I am arguing that it’s comparatively meaningless when you look at the wholescale abuse of animals perpetrated by the absolute majority of humans on this planet.
Well, technically, the abuse is perpetrated for the absolute majority of humans on this planet.
My landlord would probably have an issue if I were to pack a few thousand chickens in my spare bedroom yet I like me some chicken nuggets every now and then. And don't even get me started on Whataburger's Buffalo Ranch Chicken Strip Sandwich...pure tasty goodness that is.
Consider how much money had to enter the market for the price to reach $1000.
Consider how much money had to enter the market for the price to reach $20,000.
Now consider how much money will have to enter the market, after everyday “normal” people from outside of tech have lost hundreds or thousands, for the price to reach $250,000.
The price is the last price paid for the coin. So by definition, if nobody sold any coin, it would only take 250000-6000 dollars for the price to reach 250k.
Its not so much about how much money enters the market, but supply/demand for the underlying asset.
Spend any time on the crypto currency subreddits and you’ll find dozens of people who took out >$20k loans to buy cryptocurrency. There are people still doing it. My co-working office space was filled with people in December talking non-stop about buying crypto currency, although all the crypto currency traders are long gone now.
I don’t think people losing tens of thousands are the norm but absolutely there is a never ending list of people who’ve lost most of what they put in, whether that was hundreds or low thousands.
Authy specifically stores your account in the cloud and can be recovered using SMS. They have a 24 hour warning period during which the email address on file receives multiple notifications that a recovery is being attempted with the option to cancel but if someone has control over your phone number for an extended period of time they can absolutely take over your Authy account. I found this out when my Authy account was corrupted somehow and support said, hey no worries just go through the recovery process.
Google Authenticator is offline only and is not vulnerable.
Yes but your backup is encrypted by a password. So even if someone steals your number for long enough to go through recovery, they still need to be able to decrypt the backup.
>this password is not stored anywhere on Authy's servers! If you forget the password and none of your devices are synched, your tokens are lost and you will need to delete them and start over
I mentioned this because I know multiple people who've had authy / other authenticators compromised down the line from social engineering attacks. Even if you can be alerted, usually it's too late by the time you realize what's happened to your creds.
Yes but MDMA specifically will mangle your brain after very little recreational usage relative to almost all other drugs. Recreational use of MDMA a few times a week is _very bad_ on the long term health of your brain, very few other drugs are on that level — certainly none of the drugs you’ve listed.
"a few times a week" is considered pretty insane for even heavy users. I don't think that just about anybody is advocating that frequency of use. Regardless of long term effects I think most people would be feeling pretty messed up by the end of that week.
Once a week is sustainable in the short term but I am not recommending that and make no claims as to its safety in the long term. I would have no way of knowing other than googling studies.
That being said I'd still like a source for the claim:
"Yes but MDMA specifically will mangle your brain after very little recreational usage relative to almost all other drugs."
like the other poster said, a few times a week is not recreational at that point. Recreational use tends to be at most every other month, but for many more folks is going to be much less than that - 1 to 3 times a year.
I've known a person or two that simply didn't know how to space out their use, and did wind up with depression as a result. But this is the sort of thing that you can teach so long as you are honest about the rest of your drug education. It is something you can teach when you sell it to people. You can limit what folks can buy and keep a record of when people buy it - we already do this with some decongestants, after all. It isn't that there is not risks, but your comment is misguided on what constitutes more common recreational use of this particular drug and the things we can do to avoid this situation.
Sorry but few times a week is not recreational anymore.
your brain needs rest for some months to rebuild/rest the receptors.
truly these substances are controlled because they need little to get an overdose (at least in developed countries).
It is a risk prevention measure because not everybody has the iq of 100
Recreational usage is not relative to the substance, it’s dependent on behaviour. If you’re dependent on a substance (whether that’s physically dependent or mentally) you’re no longer a recreational user but if you’re using something frequently or infrequently for enjoyment then you are a recreational user — regardless of whether or not that substance is safe to use at your chosen frequency.
Another vegan chiming in to say I assumed these weren’t suitable for me based on the name because buttermilk is an ingredient I see and think, “damn :(“. Veganism is very much about identifying red flags that make something unsuitable, so any reference to a non-vegan product is going to immediately turn off a non-zero portion of vegans because they won’t search out the ingredients to discover it is vegan.
A key part of a manageable vegan life is building a database of what you can consume that you enjoy and using that to drive choices, so if you can get vegan customers buying your food and enjoying it then they’re going to be stickier customers. I am a very loyal customer to my favourite food brands out of necessity, as are my vegan friends.
That said there’s certainly a double edged sword here in that there are some non-vegans who see “vegan” and are turned off but given Indian food is so often vegan I don’t think this would be a concern in your market. Although the name is cute, it’s definitely misrepresenting your product to a growing portion of your potential customers. If you stick with the name, regardless of marketing, you’re going to lose vegans, because many won’t look beyond the name because that’s a necessity for getting by.
There’s a few companies in the U.K. doing intentionally vegan ready meals (e.g https://allplants.com) and there’s a growing market for vegan ready meals (we are as busy/lazy as everybody else), so I think it’s worthwhile to reconsider the name, but also it’s a great name so maybe you can be the company to get vegans to look beyond red flags. Your product seems absolutely great for my needs and would, assuming they’re enjoyable to eat, integrate into my life well. Good luck!
> Veganism is very much about identifying red flags that make something unsuitable,
Yeah, I've become very quick at glancing at an ingredient list and noticing "whey" or "gelatin" and then putting the product back. So indeed, the brand name itself would trigger a similar reaction for me if the founder hadn't happened to specifically mention that it was vegan.
> That said there’s certainly a double edged sword here in that there are some non-vegans who see “vegan” and are turned off but given Indian food is so often vegan I don’t think this would be a concern in your market.
There might be some knowledgeable customers who expect a particular dish to contain ghee and feel like it's not likely to be that great without the ghee.
This is absolutely untrue. There are many very profitable dating sites and apps. Tinder is a fantastic example of a dating app making money hand over fist since they began monetising, their revenue is in the hundreds of millions per quarter. Tinder is projected to be half of all Match groups revenue this year.
The question to ask is where will the money come from? The last bubble was all over TV, it was a constant part of the news cycle and everybody knows somebody who bought at least some crypto currency based on promises of wild riches. Most of those people have lost at least some (or even most) of the money they “invested”. When the layman has already been burned, where can money come from?
People often make the mistakes more than once so perhaps there’s room for “this time it’s different!” but I’m not convinced. I don’t see the crypto market ever exceeding the previous all time high.
There’s certainly room for individual cryptocurrency projects to succeed from their own merit as projects that happen to be crypto currencies so I don’t think all crypto currencies are dead forever but crypto as a growth market almost certainly is.
I agree, I think the last bubble was when everyone was talking about it. Everyone wanted a piece and people were buying bitcoin hearing about the massive gains. I guess that's when the whales took profit.
The focus now by the whales to broaden the ~~sucker~~ buyer base via the ETF's.
The blockchain buzz has also been correlated to the bitcoin price. Both seem to have gone done.
Wall Street wants to trust it's money to miners in China? The whole mining concept is ridiculous, but they have probably done stupider things so it could happen.
The latest Trace Mayer podcast is worth a listen: "Wall Street veteran Caitlin Long discusses the sixth network effect of financialization with Wall Street and institutional investors." https://www.bitcoin.kn/
It could be a little of both additional supplies of late-to-the-party money have finally found their way to this market, amplified by the ongoing process of coin concentration into fewer and fewer hands. Both factors (with a little help from breakage and block reward subsidy tail-off schedules) constrain liquidity and thus drive up the price. But it makes for a very distorted "market cap." Fiction, leavened by just enough fact, feeds an eager fantasy, which feeds back into more fiction. Last one out the door gets to hold the very real bags.
Out of the blue. I am very careful about what I sign up for, I don’t have a car nor can I find any previous emails from the person involved (going back ten years). There’s no chance I signed up to a mailing list for a car accessory — and just in case I had somehow subscribed (maybe through another product they offer) I asked how they got my email address and they didn’t respond which is a tell tale sign of a spammer. My email address was included in a database leak from Kickstarter in 2014, so I am almost certain they have been spamming everybody from the Kickstarter database leak.
OK, that thing with the Kickstarter is cleared out in another reply, but I feel like fake it till ... has some truth to it. Some cheap rhetorics to my taste:
"Ordering from China, I’d see my product in 90 days. Now that it’s made in the USA, lead time is only 3 weeks!"
Err, 3 weeks = 24 days. "If you don't treat the flu with our drug you are seek for 14 days, if you do - only 2 weeks." Haha.
"They are producing them at the same price as the Chinese were quoting me! You can imagine the amount that I am saving on shipping car trash cans with producing them here."
- Not sure why Chinese quote an experienced procurer same as in US, he should be able to get a discount at least for the shipping costs, shouldn't he?
- And anyway, no, I can not imagine shipping costs, must be low, shouldn't they?
What’s the connection between reading books and the internet, aside from literacy? They’re such different things, I’m not clear on the connection between reading and the internet.
> I’m not clear on the connection between reading and the internet.
Prior to the internet, books were the only way humans consumed large amounts of textual information. Now, we have web pages, which 89% of people use, whereas books, which have never been more accessible, still linger at 76% usage.
One assumes of the 89% of people who use the Internet, 100% of them use web browsers, web sites, and thus read lots of textual information. That's as close to 100% penetration for a technology as you're gonna get, in my view. I wonder what percentage of Americans use toothbrushes!
I suppose there might be some subset of Internet users who exclusively use YouTube/Netflix (children, maybe?) That would be the only wrinkle in the comparison, IMO.
I don't think that follows. If you use Instagram, YouTube, Imgur, 9GAG, and such, you barely need to read any text. Same for Facebook, depending on the people you follow.
Perhaps zoos aren’t the solution, maybe if we stopped the wholesale destruction of animals in our every day lives that compassion would spread to wild animals and we wouldn’t need zoos to remind people that animals aren’t just tools for us to abuse.