Born to lose, live to win.
The first CD I ever bought was The Matrix soundtrack.
These days I’ve been listening to Tycho a lot. I like all their albums. Awake may be my favorite.
Daft Punk - Interstella 5555 is magical, especially the anime.
Orbital makes some wonderful albums as well.
Autocorrect issues?
Surely you meant Modeselektor.
Music, the brain, and ecstasy - how music captures our imagination by Robert Jourdain.
It’s extremely well written and starts from a scientific perspective of how our ears evolved over hundreds of millions of years to appreciate music.
Around 20% of the Israelis are Palestinians.
If you flatten this subject anymore you might as well just steamroll it. Oh wait you already did!
I’m being facetious, though. You’re quite sincere. We’re not the same. I’m mocking you.
John 13:34-35
I read a book about this subject. The author argued it was a new commandment, not an additional one. Because if you love one another then you would never break the prior ten commandments. Makes sense.
Oh look it’s the Spider-Man meme and they’re all Nazis!
But Jesus loved hanging out with whores.
What would you do if surrounded with jihadist Nazi collaborators?
Just some of the largest man-made disasters in human history…
I can explain things to you. But I can’t understand them for you.
Take LNG leaks. Just leaks. That’s over 20 Tg(teragram) of methane into the wind every year. A teragram is 1 million metric tons. It takes 400 million cattle an entire year to produce that much methane (while feeding billions of people.)
Fossil fuels make up over 35 percent of methane emissions. Livestock are around 12 percent, and it’s mostly cattle (ruminants.)
There’s around 1.5 billion cattle and they produce about 75 million metric tons of CH4. Fossil fuels emit around 3x that much.
Eliminating fossil fuels would result in methane and CO2 concentrations dropping across the world. Climate change solved (at least as far as greenhouse gases.) While eliminating livestock production just slows down the rate of increase slightly, so it solves nothing except leaving you vulnerable to crop failures(which climate change will exacerbate) leading to famine and likely billions dead. Womp womp.
Ultimately, livestock are an excellent hedge. I do not understand why people want to make our food system less secure than it already is. To me, you are completely batshit fucking insane.
The world can sustain our present agriculture system without fossil fuels. It’s as simple as that. We absolutely need to stop burning fossil fuels. It’s as simple as that.
There’s really no tug of war. Reducing livestock doesn’t meaningfully change anything. It’s like letting up slightly off the accelerator but you’re still going 900 mph instead of a 1000 miles an hour directly into a brick wall. Eliminating fossil fuel combustion? That’s like slamming on the brakes and shifting into reverse and then slamming on the accelerator…
It works if you read it in the voice of Steve Harvey.
Animal husbandry doesn’t require fossil fuels. We’ve only been doing it for tens of thousands of years before fossil fuels were ever extracted or used. Separation achieved and it was easy.
Livestock is typically kept on marginal land that’s unsuitable for most crops. If you manage livestock correctly you don’t need to feed them anything, they’ll go find their own food. If you’re really smart you put them to work for you. This is something they call permaculture. Or regenerative farming.
No, again. If you know what you’re doing then you are not going to be poisoning the groundwater.
Global warming is almost entirely due to fossil fuel usage. Again we were raising animals tens of thousands of years without any global warming. When did global warming start happening? When we started burning fossil fuels. Do you not understand this? Do you disagree?
And again tens of thousands of years we raised animals and (excessive) greenhouse gas emissions were not a problem. That started happening when we started burning fossil fuels. You seriously don’t get this? Do you work for big oil or something? You can’t be serious…?
I’m not sure what you don’t understand? Is it the water cycle? Nitrogen cycles? Carbon cycles? Methane cycles? The difference between extracting things that were sequestered for hundreds of millions of years? Versus not doing that?!
Again, for tens of thousands of years all animals on Earth ate only what was on the surface of Earth. Fertilized with what’s only on surface of the Earth. Whatever gases they burped out or farted or whatever… They went into the atmosphere for a short while. Methane will react with hydroxyl radicals and turn into CO2 and water vapor over time(within a decade.) Which is plant food! Thus completing the cycle! Plants don’t want Brawndo. They want to dig their roots into organic matter that’s been broken down into rich soil, and they want some water and they want to inhale CO2 and exhale oxygen while enjoying a sun bath. Thus photosynthesis. Surely you follow?
Their pees and poops didn’t accumulate because we didn’t concentrate them in feed lots. Instead they’d walk around and they would spread that wonderful fertilizer without the human having to do any of that work themselves(and it is hard work). That’s because we were good shepherds. We aren’t good shepherds anymore… And for some of us I guess we forgot or we never knew any better. But that’s a pretty shitty excuse because we have libraries and the internet and ultimately humanity does know better. It’s just not as easy. It’s not as convenient. It’s not as exploitable in terms of capitaHELLism.
That’s the problem with the world these days. You can’t beat mother nature at her own game. But somehow you think you can?
So what’s your solution to deal with all the livestock? Eating them is not the problem. Them existing would be the problem. So I guess your solution is to kill them all? Should they go fully extinct or do you want to keep a few around to put in a zoo?
When you dig up the sequestered remains of plants and animals that have died and accumulated over hundreds of millions of years and then we take that and then we burn about 100 million barrels of oil every single God damn day… That was previously sequestered deep in mother Earth for hundreds of millions of years… That’s a ‘cycle’ that’s going to take hundreds of millions of years to correct, potentially. That’s a really really really really big problem… Conservation of matter and energy, and all.
That looks like aluminum…
Don’t smoke out of aluminum.
Good things come to those who wait.
You can be anything you want.
And Molotov cocktails
Phase-Order Candy Prism.
Picture a small edible prism made of ultra-thin layers of sugar glass and gelatinized starch, but the trick is in the internal structure of each layer contains flavor “micro-reservoirs” embedded in lipid membranes tuned to dissolve at different osmotic thresholds, not time.
Novideo? :(
Find equally awkward friends.
Wow… That’s… Delusional.
Fossil fuels dominate. It’s not even remotely close. Especially if you think about what leaded gas did to the boomers and the silent generation and gen X. And lead poisoning is something that tends to rub off on the next generation.
“Most toxic” depends on who’s annoyed this week, but there are a few recurring mental habits that reliably rot discourse without even trying.
My biggest pet peeve is probably moral absolutism, often disguised as clarity. That’s the mindset where everything gets forced into clean categories of pure good vs pure evil, with zero tolerance for the rainbow of nuance.
Next up is identity-as-proof. If someone is in Group X, then they must believe Y, and any counterexample is treated as an anomaly or betrayal. It saves effort because you don’t have to think, just sort people into bins and react accordingly.
Then there’s algorithmic certainty syndrome, which is more modern and a bit more subtle. People get used to feeds that reinforce their priors so efficiently that disagreement starts to feel like statistical noise. So instead of updating beliefs, they just escalate confidence. Nothing says “epistemic humility” like being completely wrong with confidence.
Another one is transactional morality: “If I’m right, I’m allowed to be as harsh as I want.” Which turns every disagreement into a license for cruelty, as if correctness automatically comes with behavioral immunity.
And underneath a lot of it is something simpler and more disconcerting: comfort with not understanding things before judging them. People are so eager to tell others what they are by labeling them and defining them rather than simply talking about themselves (you… vs. I…)