Sharks fan, that’s rough. It can get better.

Signed,

– A Detroit Lions fan of 40 years

I’m a little skeptical about gas stoves causing or contributing to all these deaths, but I believe in science so if well written papers like the one OP linked are peer reviewed and published then I’m willing to accept their conclusions.

That being said, I’m a very avid home cook (with years of experience in commercial kitchens) and I’ve made many good faith attempts to find a way to cook on the stove top that doesn’t use gas, and unfortunately none of them come even close to what I can do with gas.

Regular electric elements are garbage, and it doesn’t matter what kind of cooking vessel you use, but I think almost everyone agrees here.

Induction is very interesting, and can heat a ferrous vessel quicker than a normal stove burner (but not nearly as fast as my outdoor wok equipment can). Unfortunately it is pulsed heating, and uses a rather course gradient, so techniques which require very fine tuned and consistent heat aren’t easily replicated.

I’ll admit that have a lot of money invested in non-ferrous cooking vessels (copper, not a copper plate in the bottom, legit 3mm thick copper walled pans) and they are incompatible with induction, so any switch to induction will require buying new cookware. I’m in a tiny niche, so I also admit my trouble with induction shouldn’t discourage others from switching.

Gas is wonderful for getting precisely the results I need with sauces, when you turn it down it follows a smooth and predictable gradient, and works perfectly with high quality copper cookware which is superior to anything else on the market (unless of course you use induction, or care about price).

Yes, I have some cast iron and carbon steel, which work with induction, but they don’t lose heat as fast as other materials, which is required for some techniques. They’re great for some things, but terrible at others, so they don’t solve my problem.

I run a hefty hood that exhausts outside, and I don’t have kids in the house, so in the near term I’m not really worried about people in my home getting sick from whatever combusting natural gas throws off.

But like the meat alternative (or lab grown meat) effort, I’m genuinely interested in an alternative to what I already use, but only if it performs at least as well as my current solution. And unfortunately nothing currently on the market comes even close.

They pay the business who owns the ad space, who in turns pays the website or app for their space. You pay for the app or website content by watching the ad.

It’s a terrible model, but you are being paid (in content) for watching ads.

This actually happens very frequently in the US. When hunters harvest a bird they report their kills in compliance with hunting regulations. If any of your birds have leg or neck bands you report that information as well. The bands have a tracking number on them, and scientists use them to monitor populations and migration patterns. It’s literally part of their plan.

You get to keep the bands as well (I only have experience with banded geese and ducks). They’re a neat memento.

You must have me confused with someone else?

Nowhere in this thread did I suggest people find cheaper housing by leaving cities.

How do I plan for job instability? By interviewing at many places continuously. By keeping my job skills and interviewing skills sharp, while interviewing continuously. By keeping my eye on the market and my value, by interviewing continuously, and evaluating the incoming offers.

It’s not easy, but it’s pretty straightforward. I picked a job sector with lots of opportunities and upward mobility, but also tons of instability. I picked a place to live which gives me physical proximity to those opportunities. I work smart and stay agile. All of that without a college degree.

Stuff is expensive and we don’t always have everything we want, but we’re secure enough to have everything we need, with a healthy risk management plan.

I do live in a major city in the US, so I have more local opportunities than someone in a small town. But I’d argue that my decision to live near where there are job opportunities was part of my planning process.

I mean, yeah, I plan for that. If you’re a wage earner like me, you should know you’re employed at the will of some company, and they don’t give a shit about you.

I plan for this by interviewing for other jobs at least once a month. I turn down offers every few months. I keep my skills sharp and my eyes open, and change employment when it makes sense.

The longest I’ve been at one company is 7 years, but it’s not unusual for me to change companies after 18-24 months.

I don’t plan to get laid off, but it happens a lot in my industry, and I roll with it. It is planned out, risk management, or whatever you want to call it.

So the economy made it so people who were planning ahead suddenly woke up one day with an unplanned 2 year old?

Sure, money and housing are tougher than they used to be, but don’t pretend like an embarrassing number of people just don’t care to plan ahead, and when they get into deep shit they look to blame everyone else.

Huh, it’s like planning ahead isn’t even a thing.

Once the kid situation hits then yeah, it’s harder to make planning decisions, people’s options are limited at that point. I agree we should help people in those circumstances, but I also think we should help people make plans which avoid painting themselves into a corner.

I see a lot of references to Ubuntu being filled with ads or scaring people into buying their services, but I’ve been daily driving it for over 15 years on personal desktops and servers and never noticed that. What have I missed?

I never saw the Amazon ad stuff, I hear it was a referral link?

Last I checked Ubuntu Pro is free for personal use on up to 5 machines.

I use apt to manage all my packages and upgrades, including dist-upgrade, maybe that’s why I’ve never noticed snap? Why does snap suck?

6’3" 200lbs is about right for a fit male. I imagine her muscularity plus future stuff like diet and augmentation would make that realistic for a female.

I’m not saying it’s a safe idea, getting caught is expensive.

What’re your chances of getting caught if you fly out in the middle of a national forest, hours from the nearest highway? Honest question, I’m not aware of how this is enforced.

A counterpoint would be hunting without a proper tag (poaching) I hunt in the middle of nowhere fairly regularly, but I encounter game wardens at least once a season, so enforcement in my area is pretty good.

Noncompliance is also a way to go, just a thought.

You cannot introduce a human structure to manage water more efficiently than nature

If you actually believe this then there’s nothing anyone can say to help you.

If a naturally occuring spring runs directly into a wide flat area in the middle of the Mojave desert, then it doesn’t naturally reabsorb into the ground as the hard pack just makes it sit on the surface. Since the water is shallow and sitting on the surface, it evaporates instead of being used to water native plants or support native animals.

The golf course in question is not a dam, it’s putting the already available water to use more efficiently. Growing non-native grass, but also native plant species, and providing native insects and animals a way to utilize that water before it would have otherwise evaporated.

Dams destroy native ecosystems by flooding and displacing them, or removing available water downstream. The golf course in question does none of those things.

“Nature is perfect and humans are capable of nothing but destroying it” is a great take BTW. You could have saved a few people some time by leading with that.

You must be trolling.

Birds, insects, and reptiles are common even in the desert. A species can be native to an ecosystem or region, without naturally occuring in an small locality.

If humans manage water more efficiently than nature would have in this locality, it stands to reason that the resulting local ecosystem would be able to attract and support more native wildlife.

This is observable and provable for golf courses which manage their resources with a focus on limiting their natural resource use and increasing local biodiversity.

You just hate golf courses, which is fine, but you sound pretty uninformed.

waspy

President Biden is Catholic, not Protestant

Golf courses aren’t just grass, they plant all sorts of other vegetation, much of it native. This supports native wildlife that wouldn’t otherwise be there.

Have you ever actually been to a responsibly managed golf course? Many in the southwest US are run this way, and tons more are moving in that direction to reduce water use.

If you’re visiting a country that doesn’t have enough grass to sustain pissing on a tree, you’re going to the wrong places for golf.

I’m not sure I understand? Did you mean county?

It sounds like this course is located at a natural oasis fed by a natural spring. If the course wasn’t there the water would probably feed some plant life and a bit of wildlife. With proper management it’s likely that their water use is more efficient than it would have been naturally. It isn’t unusual for resource aware golf courses to actually improve biodiversity in a region while being water consumption neutral.

I’m going to get all kinds of negative votes for speaking up here. I’m not attempting to defend the various positions I outline below, just to explain why the gun folks see the current situation as the least bad alternative. If gun people in the US actually had their way the laws would be MUCH more permissive than they already are.

Again, I’m not attempting to defend the various positions, only to lend some context (and in the case of domestic abuse, to correct) the talking points above.

If the second amendment is explicitly designed to allow normal citizens to defend themselves against a tyrannical government, then allowing that same government to compile a registry of gun ownership makes no sense. Registration inevitably leads to confiscation, see Australia and New Zealand for recent examples.

(Note; It’s highly suspect that non-military ownership of small arms could effectively fight the US military. Years of attrition in Afghanistan might be the counterpoint here.)

The CDC was examining gun violence statistics in the past, but then ventured outside of the realm of science and into political speech. Most gun people are ok with making science based recommendations determined by facts. But they’re worried that a government entity funded for the purpose of science but controlled by unelected anti-gun bureaucrats will push policy based on politics.

(Note: Any gun policy has some base in science, the question is whether the policy controls the science, or whether science leads the way. Counterpoint: national COVID policy was marginally effective at great cost, both in lives lost and economically)

There are measures to keep “known” domestic abusers from purchasing or possessing firearms. If “known” means “convicted” or under indictment, then those folks are legally prohibited from firearm ownership or possession. This was recently confirmed by a notoriously pro-gun Supreme Court in United States v. Rahimi, by an overwhelming 8-1 majority. Even a restraining order for domestic violence is enough to prohibit purchase or possession.

(Note: enforcement of gun confiscation from prohibited persons is spotty at best, but it’s arguable that this is a problem with policing as the laws are already on the books. The counterpoint here would be the ability in many states to conduct private party transfers without the involvement of a licenced firearms dealer or the requisite background check)

I’m talking about millions of occurrences of this edge case a day.

I’m not sure what you’re trying to fight. I said multiple times that we should continue to encourage and expand our use of electric vehicles. But to blindly fanboy electric cars without being able to honestly admit that we have some improvements to make just makes you stupid and smug.