|
That's fair, but if the voters turned out for it, and the other ones didn't, it doesn't strike me as bacon tyranny, and certainly no small powerful cabal. No, it's just some voters voted for a thing. People that if your theory holds - didn't even vote - don't like it.
I'm failing to see how anything is untoward here.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
With all due respect,* it doesn't fit their agenda.
It's easier to say there's some small elite that somehow rigged these votes than to accept the fact that a majority of people does not share their beliefs 
Also, Californians didn't vote against bacon, they probably love bacon.
They voted for better treatment for animals.
I also don't believe 96% of pig farmers in California will simply stop existing or go bankrupt because they currently don't comply with future regulations.
Regulations for the meat industry are constantly changing and this one isn't new.
That said, it does seem to be true that the media is, in general, more left than "the people".
Probably because it takes a certain character to work in that field.
Also, their statement may hold true for other events or regulations, just not this one, as far as I can see.
This simple, yet effective, spell protects me from all personal grievances that my following statement may induce.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with most of this, although in the United States, when polled on an issue by issue basis, absent any political affiliation being attached to the issues, Americans are rather more "progressive" than they even give themselves credit for. ([^])
Also the media in the US is bought. It doesn't reflect the audience, only the base artifacts of what can be sold to or taken from the audience. On one hand you have traditional "news" media, which is anti person, and pro corporate, and then you have the right wing media, which acts as the propaganda arm of one of major parties, and an outlet for propaganda from hostile foreign countries. That's what we get for news. It doesn't reflect us. In terms of how it represents us, that's not accurate either. It represents us in ways that enable it to trick us or to use us and keep us servile and consumery, not in a way that is accurate.
Real programmers use butterflies
modified 2-Aug-21 8:46am.
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: the bit I bolded before I'm having trouble reconciling that with your statement about a small cabal being actually responsible for this.
Because all the voters voted for was "treat pigs fairly." None of them actually read the bill and understood how many square feet would now be required under the new law and what the other provisions were and even if they would have, they wouldn't have know what the current provisions were nor what it would cost or take for a farmer to meet the new provisions.
|
|
|
|
|
So we're just going to assume a bunch of people are hopelessly short sighted. I mean, not only is that depressing to consider, but it's really bad form to be wrong about that, as in danger- hubris will rogers - danger. Furthermore, it's just not likely.
But you know what? If you're right, there will be an initiative soon to undo it. I just don't think you're right.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: So we're just going to assume a bunch of people are hopelessly short sighted.
It's not clear if you understood what I meant to mean. But from your response, it would appear that you think most of the voters understood exactly what they were voting for. Surely you do not believe that, do you?
|
|
|
|
|
I think most people that bother to vote on an issue like making pig farming more humane realize that it makes it more expensive.
I refuse to believe that people around me are cartoon parodies of people. They can understand cause and effect.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: most people that bother to vote on an issue like making pig farming more humane realize that it makes it more expensive.
That wasn't quite the argument, but we'll have to agree to disagree.
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: So we're just going to assume a bunch of people are hopelessly short sighted. I mean, not only is that depressing to consider, but it's really bad form to be wrong about that, as in danger- hubris will rogers - danger. Furthermore, it's just not likely.
I suppose you aren't following what has happened in other countries with some big referendums... if you did, that question would be a rethoric one.
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote:
2. The election was stolen
Oh my! With that option you all but gave him a wet-dream way to explain away what he doesn't like.
On the other hand, it's trendy: to all-too-many, the road to reality is that anything they don't like must be a lie.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
W∴ Balboos, GHB wrote: it's trendy: to all-too-many, the road to reality is that anything they don't like must be a lie.
Lots of people in my country are soft these days - maybe they always were and I didn't notice. Don't like reality? Just cry fake news! Don't like the outcomes in your life? Pretend they didn't happen. Don't like a raging pandemic? Ignore it and die from it! It's ridiculous.
And I wonder if at some point there's something to Douglas Adams' notion (expressed by way of Wonko the Sane) that civilization started to collapse when we put instructions on boxes of toothpicks.
Like, is it too easy to get by now? Should we stop putting warning labels on things? What? Because I wonder about a world where you can grow up in utter denial of reality and manage to survive that.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
I can fully agree with the majority of Californians 
Seeing how animals are treated for a bit earth-destroying food just breaks my heart.
|
|
|
|
|
It isn't as bad as you think.
You have been eating facon and this is facon news.
During my life I have seen food quality being rapidly degraded.
Mostly this has happened via;
1. Genetics. Breeding animals that grow faster and put on the most bulk. No attention to quality or flavour.
2. Developing Cheap production methods and growing factory's like feed lots and battery hen systems.
3. Using food technology to process foods for consumption.
In general the better life that an animal has then the better it tastes.
It is a simple if clause really.
Compare pasture bred Chicken, Beef or Lamb with battery or feed lot produced product.
Let alone the health risks with feed lot and battery, the pasture bred product is so superior in taste.
Like wise the best bacon comes from the happiest pigs, with regards to the actual baconator.
I had a job a few years ago which was to plan and organise software driven systems to protect the assets of a large chicken farm that was really many chicken farms. They had issues with their battery hens where disease could wipe out generations. So when the laws changed to allow what was called free range as well as battery production they became really interested. Of course they always had a genetic pool of chooks ( Chickens) who lived a long distance away from the farms. This was the genetic bank of insurance.
When I went to look at their free range facilitys I was shocked.
It complied to the laws.
But it was just a really large shed. Really bloody large.
With thousands of them in there.
It got so hot with all of them in there that they had to have an enormous evaporation cooling system else they would all perish in minutes.
If the power failed then that was it.
Also these free range chickens were neurotic and if there was a huge clap of thunder, then hundreds would drop dead at the shock.
This is not normal chicken behaviour.
Pasture bred chickens lay eggs that are heaps better than the "Ruled" free range ones or the battery ones.
They taste like a game fowl and the stock that you can make is amazing.
So don't despair.
With these small changes, the bacon should taste better.
.....and if they did it all better than those new laws, then it will taste even more amazing.
Have you ever had bacon from a slow growing Pig that was prepared by an old fashioned bacon smoker?
It costs more but OMG.
Also that Company also had piggeries.
They were like Covid-19 wards.
If you wanted to go inside every one in had to wash up and dip their feet into disinfectant and put on the little booties.
The good bacon porkers in the past never required such rules.
And their bacon was the best.
I do love my bacon.
I am often disappointed with what is on offer now.
But if you look, there is superior product available now.
So It probably less sh*t bacon.
But there are still a lot of people that can't afford less sh*t bacon and that is an issue.
It will even out though.
Lets eat.
"Rock journalism is people who can't write interviewing people who can't talk for people who can't read." Frank Zappa 1980
|
|
|
|
|
Pig farming is amongst the most disgusting of all - aside from the mass killings - the filth, pollution, and stench are almost indescribable.
It should be required by law that bacon (and other pork eaters) live in areas surrounded by the pig farms, with sample outposts sown amongst their little estates to keep it "fresh" in their thoughts.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm here for lab grown/3d printed bacon. I'd eat that if they could make it not taste like band aids (*sideeyes* "turkey bacon")
I don't mind eating meat - I didn't claw my way to the top of the food chain to be a vegetarian, but...
1. I do understand in the face of 8+ billion people that this is a very real problem.
2. I don't like eating things that aren't stupid. Stupid is food with legs. Chickens. Pigs on the other hand, are smart - I think they can contemplate future suffering, for example. I wonder what ever possessed an animal so intelligent to be so tasty. It's a tragedy.
3. As long as I can get bacon I probably will as my lack of impulse control where bacon is concerned is legendary.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
And those who use products that contain steel, aluminum, or copper should live beside open-pit mines.
|
|
|
|
|
Such a clever response!
Pig farms are legendary for their filth - visit one[^].
Better still - go to a real one.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
The earthquakes and drought and wildfires are enough reason for me.
To quote Nikita Khrushchev, "It's a nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there." 
|
|
|
|
|
Time to start squatting on all domain names like:
mailorderbacon.com
|
|
|
|
|
In Kotlin you have a not-null assertion operator: !! For example:
val length = username!!.length
From the excellent book: Android Studio 4.2 Development Essentials:
The above code will crash if username is null. Huh? Also:
Use of the not-null assertion is generally discouraged and should only be used in situations where you are certain that the value will not be null! Huh?!
What then is the purpose of the !! operator? If you are certain the value is not null, why use the operator at all? If it is null the code will crash the same way with or without the operator!
I must be missing something here! 
Get me coffee and no one gets hurt!
modified 1-Aug-21 10:26am.
|
|
|
|
|
It makes no sense to me. Maybe it's like an assert, in which case it should read "should only be used in situations where you are certain that the value should not be null".
|
|
|
|
|
Presumably it's to make it absolutely obvious that you wanted the app to crash when it was null!
"Nope, this wasn't no accident. I hate my users." 
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Shouldn't it be?
val length = username!!.length
"The only place where Success comes before Work is in the dictionary." Vidal Sassoon, 1928 - 2012
|
|
|
|
|
Yes!! It's fixed. Thanks for pointing it out.
Get me coffee and no one gets hurt!
|
|
|
|
|
It says in the Kotlin docs that it is used to test for and throw NullPointerException. So, I guess as a null safety mechanism, it's there if you want it.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
