|
MikeCrotch posted:Wouldn't doing what your family does on a society-wide scale necessitate huge amounts of people going back into agricultural labour since the yields are not as good per person? As in, reversing the trend of how less and less people are being farmers every year because agricultural work is pretty lovely? As has been pointed out already labor is a resource as well, alternatively if you are organic farming on the same scale (if not the same methods) as industrial farming then you are still going to be using as much fuel etc. to cover the area and get a lower yield at the end of it. Ag labor is, in great part, lovely dangerous work that doesn't pay all that well. I live out in the middle of flyover country, just corn and soybeans far as the eye can see, and every farmer I know is constantly bitching about how much debt they have to take on just to stay in business, and that's with relying on family labor for everything humanly possible. It's why the family farm is a thing of the past, they just can't compete with the yields that the big operators get driving down food prices. Which is, I note, good for pretty much everyone else in society.
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 13:06 |
|
|
I am a layman, but in reading about the scandals surrounding American pork farms, I read that much of the cost savings of industrial hog farming over decentralized, smaller farms was simply because the company had the leverage to avoid proper waste disposal and the true cost of pollution. Which is how we wound up with rolling clouds of pig poo poo vapour that literally knock people unconscious. I don't know to what extent that's true.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
cheese posted:I think you are also ignoring the massive numbers of urban poor for whom a plot of farmable land is a pipe dream (because they live in a lovely apartment in an ocean of asphalt). Finally, a use for all that suburban sprawl garden space! Halloween Jack posted:I am a layman, but in reading about the scandals surrounding American pork farms, I read that much of the cost savings of industrial hog farming over decentralized, smaller farms was simply because the company had the leverage to avoid proper waste disposal and the true cost of pollution. Which is how we wound up with rolling clouds of pig poo poo vapour that literally knock people unconscious. I don't know to what extent that's true. You forgot to mention all the people who fall into giant cesspits of liquid pigshit and drown
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
Tuxedo Gin posted:Yeah, and maybe using the dollar as the metric for measuring that is dumb. It doesn't factor in environmental damage or food waste. Using the dollar as a metric helps us understand motivations of the businesses responsible for the bulk of agriculture. We all know sustainable agriculture is better, but the question is how to make it more accessible to everyone, and a preferable option to large scale operations. If we want to talk about increasing food efficiency and making sustainable agriculture the easier option for every large-scale op, I think the obvious answer is that we have to drastically reduce our consumption of land animals. I don't know how, though. I started cooking shrimp as my meat staple instead of chicken, but I'm single and exceed the median household income in America so I can afford it. I mean, my local Food 4 Less has some pretty cheap frozen shrimp, but the chicken is still cheaper. It is not clear to me how to make it easy to rely on less meat, as it hits on cultural identity for a lot of people. And the other thing is that if everyone switches to shrimp overnight, there'd be a huge strain on those populations, so a veg-heavy diet is going to be key. I don't know. Tuxedo Gin posted:Higher food prices would not destroy the average consumer - they would learn to waste less. You just said that poor people can't afford food at current prices. How much waste can they cut? I mean, we definitely need this going on in the States, but there's a lot more that's needed besides for full-organic to be a standard option for poor and even moderate-income families.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 17:17
|
|
|
Industrial organic farming, especially thanks to the efforts of industrial farmers, is better than actual industrial farming... but not by such a large margin. It is good that they're avoiding a lot of the worst excesses and techniques of standard industrial farming, but they follow a similar paradigm, and many large-scale organic farmers follow the requirements and regulations for organic certification (which is often not as stringent as it could be) to the letter and none beyond that. Nationwide and, often, international shipping also undoes a lot of the non-nutritionally-focused good that organic farming ostensibly accomplishes. How much better is it for the planet if, even if your carrots are grown without pesticides or petroleum-based fertilizer, the carrots end up being shipped a couple thousands miles away using fossil fuels? The discussion should be about minimizing reliant on the international system as much as possible in favor of localized and specialized farming, but lol if you think most people are going to see that as a good thing instead of something that makes them less rich because they have that much fewer things to extract value out of. I can see that this is a hot topic (as food-related topics tend to be). Should I or someone else make a thread for discussion? MikeCrotch posted:Wouldn't doing what your family does on a society-wide scale necessitate huge amounts of people going back into agricultural labour since the yields are not as good per person? As in, reversing the trend of how less and less people are being farmers every year because agricultural work is pretty lovely? As has been pointed out already labor is a resource as well, alternatively if you are organic farming on the same scale (if not the same methods) as industrial farming then you are still going to be using as much fuel etc. to cover the area and get a lower yield at the end of it. There's this cultural idea that agricultural work is necessarily and inherently lovely so we've been pushing more and more people into cities. Who exactly is this benefiting? It's certainly not the poor who end up destitute and without work. Living in the country is not really any less lovely or less cultured than having access to the latest One Direction concert or nanobrewery -- especially nowadays with ubiquitous Internet access and international shipping. Do people need to be surrounded by millions of other people and to work in cubicle farms for their lives to be culturally fulfilling? Liquid Communism posted:Ag labor is, in great part, lovely dangerous work that doesn't pay all that well. I live out in the middle of flyover country, just corn and soybeans far as the eye can see, and every farmer I know is constantly bitching about how much debt they have to take on just to stay in business, and that's with relying on family labor for everything humanly possible. It's why the family farm is a thing of the past, they just can't compete with the yields that the big operators get driving down food prices. Good in what way? Why is cheaper better? Why sprint as fast as possible towards the bottom? For a century we went for As Cheap and As Many As Possible and it got us a planet of over seven billion people and a looming civilization-destroying ecological crisis. Why not As Quality As Possible? Your farmers are bitching about not being able to keep up with the factory farms because, unless you left out some details, they're growing the exact same things as the factory farms using similar methods and practices. Of course they can't compete with the mega-operators who have huge resources at their fingertips to force compliance from the land and to soak short-term turbulence. It's a losing proposition either way. The more they grow the cheaper their food they get, so the more they have to grow to just be able to keep up, and they get mired further and further in debt. Government subsidies help with this but it doesn't prevent the problem from growing and ensnaring these people. These massive yields of corn and soybeans, by the way I should point out, are a huge reason why American food sucks and a huge contributor to the extreme obesity crisis we're facing. I shudder to think of what it's doing to the soil, especially with the huge amounts of external input necessary to keep the soil fertile. We urgently need better variety in our agriculture.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Ag labor is, in great part, lovely dangerous work that doesn't pay all that well. I live out in the middle of flyover country, just corn and soybeans far as the eye can see, and every farmer I know is constantly bitching about how much debt they have to take on just to stay in business, and that's with relying on family labor for everything humanly possible. It's why the family farm is a thing of the past, they just can't compete with the yields that the big operators get driving down food prices. yeah. i've worked construction, i've worked foodservice, i once spent a summer doing research that involved me hanging out at truck stops all day in the southern heat. my first job ever was washing poo poo stained sheets in a hospice, people's literal death shits by far the worst jobs i've ever had are ag labor. working on farms loving sucks Brannock posted:Good in what way? Why is cheaper better? Why sprint as fast as possible towards the bottom? For a century we went for As Cheap and As Many As Possible and it got us a planet of over seven billion people and a looming civilization-destroying ecological crisis. Why not As Quality As Possible? unless we give away this High Quality Food for free, people being able to afford food is a good thing
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
There's enough discussion going on that I started a new thread. Let this thread return to the topic of that 21st century innovation, breaking laws for profit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
Tuxedo Gin posted:To bring this derail back onto the tracks of the thread, with all our outsourcing, automation, and industry disruption, people are going to need to supplement their independent contractor incomes with something - might as well become a little more self sufficient. Since they can't afford to live in the city or suburbs, might as well leverage the land in the exurbs where they live to grow a bit of food. Yes, that's certainly the solution. (Note: I garden, in the soil that came with my house. I do my best to use organic-sourced fertilizer and, if necessary, fungicides. I'm just under no illusions that it's cost-effective or low-impact.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
unknown posted:Another startup dealing with licencing and then funding issues trying to disrupt the industry. Wait.. So they simply resell tickets from a certain company? What's stopping people from buying directly from Flair? Do they get a discount for pre-buying large amounts of tickets or something? They are basically a travel agency with only one airline available.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:10
|
|
|
Gawker just declared bankruptcy and put itself up for auction.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
ReidRansom posted:So they've come up with the ultra revolutionary idea of being a travel agency. Brilliant. Mr. Nemo posted:Wait.. Not really. Flair is a charter operator, not an airline you can buy individual tickets for, so basically this company is chartering aircraft and then selling the tickets for those flights as if it's an actual airline instead of a business that's chartering jets from a third party. If it sounds like a retarded idea that's doomed to fail, it's because it is! There's no reason to use a more expensive version of wet-leasing and avoid becoming an "airline" except to specifically dodge regulations designed to protect passengers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
Stinky_Pete posted:I think the obvious answer is that we have to drastically reduce our consumption of land animals. ...Or any animals, really
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
Hulkamania runs wild on Gawker, while NewLeaf isn't fair to Flair.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
I have content, ironically found on Gawker! http://gawker.com/new-startup-that-sends-dossiers-on-your-private-social-1781576586 quote:A new startup wants to take a “deep dive” into the private social media activity of prospective tenants—their chats, check-ins, how many times they’ve posted words like “pregnant” or “loan”—and score their “personality” for their potential landlord. Why would anyone let this happen? Because “people will give up their privacy to get something they want,” Steve Thornhill, co-founder of the British startup Score Assured tells The Washington Post. They're disrupting credit checks by going way beyond their scope and scouring social media to create a "Personality Score!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:I have content, ironically found on Gawker! Haven't they stolen that idea from the Chinese Government and their "Internet Loyalty Rating" or whatever it was?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:Haven't they stolen that idea from the Chinese Government and their "Internet Loyalty Rating" or whatever it was?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:I have content, ironically found on Gawker! NEW COMPANY IDEA: NotHomm - Disrupt the home invasion marketplace by scanning social media for posts where a person is GPS tagged on vacation in Mexico and make their mailing address data available to anyone convicted of a felony for only 19.95 a month! Its not MY fault if someone uses it to commit a robbery!
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:I have content, ironically found on Gawker! Wow, spurious correlations are a business model now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
MickeyFinn posted:Wow, spurious correlations are a business model now. Spurious correlations are built into every single job application and rental application.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
Tuxedo Gin posted:Spurious correlations are built into every single job application and rental application.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
Logical progression of a broken and oppressive system.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
Tuxedo Gin posted:Spurious correlations are built into every single job application and rental application. No kidding, but at least currently you have an opportunity to sample a large space of those spurious correlations by applying at different companies and rental buildings. In this case, whatever dumb poo poo gets baked in becomes the coin of the realm instead of just the quirks of a few landlords. Tuxedo Gin posted:Logical progression of a broken and oppressive system. No argument here on that front.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
Brannock posted:Industrial organic farming, especially thanks to the efforts of industrial farmers, is better than actual industrial farming Actually, you're full of poo poo (organic fertilizer???)
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:I have content, ironically found on Gawker! That has to be a huge violation of the TOS for your social media accounts. I'm willing to bet the big hitters like Facebook will lobby to have this poo poo made illegal somehow. Either that, or they lose their users.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:That has to be a huge violation of the TOS for your social media accounts. I'm willing to bet the big hitters like Facebook will lobby to have this poo poo made illegal somehow. Either that, or they lose their users. No, the big hitters will just charge for access to the data since their entire existence is gathering and selling data about their users.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
so what happens if i never use twitter or facebook? does my prospective landlord call bs on the accounts i gave him and refuse to rent to me? what about if i don't have a facebook or twitter account anymore?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
Condiv posted:so what happens if i never use twitter or facebook? does my prospective landlord call bs on the accounts i gave him and refuse to rent to me? what about if i don't have a facebook or twitter account anymore? Yep. Same thing that happens if your credit check comes back with no credit. They won't rent to you. No credit is the same as bad credit. No "citizenship score" is the same as being a degenerate undesirable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
cheese posted:NEW COMPANY IDEA: NotHomm - Disrupt the home invasion marketplace by scanning social media for posts where a person is GPS tagged on vacation in Mexico and make their mailing address data available to anyone convicted of a felony for only 19.95 a month! Its not MY fault if someone uses it to commit a robbery! I'm struggling to come up with how this actually would be illegal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:So... they're like a limited form of Expedia? I'm seeing neither the disruption nor the innovation here. Like Expedia, but for Canadians. Solkanar512 posted:That has to be a huge violation of the TOS for your social media accounts. I'm willing to bet the big hitters like Facebook will lobby to have this poo poo made illegal somehow. Either that, or they lose their users. Nah, they're not saying "literally give your landlord your account password and let them share your account" it's a plugin, just like those fun and wacky "Click here to allow us to view your friends and generate a list of what you and 6 friends would do in a horror movie!" ones you see folks using, that are all about data gathering. It violates Facebook's TOS no more than any other app/plugin that requires facebook permissions to see your friend and post history. The only thing that might happen is FB or LinkedIn or whatever may want their cut. Coolness Averted fucked around with this message at 23:45 on Jun 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:I'm struggling to come up with how this actually would be illegal. "Conspiracy" Or "aiding and abetting a felony" or whatever that charge is where you help someone commit a major crime.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:"Conspiracy" But no, I'm simply a humble entrepreneur who help concerned friends and family members know when their loved ones are out of town. I'm only facilitating information that the individuals themselves have already published on social media so that it can be made more accessible in the interest of freedom. I distance myself from these vile and unlawful acts. As I can't predict user intent I can't account for and therefore hold no accountability for how the information is used. Information doesn't rob houses. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 22:41
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:I'm struggling to come up with how this actually would be illegal. OwlFancier posted:"Conspiracy" A significant portion of tech depends upon the concept of acting as a middleman between two parties, making profit facilitating some kind of exchange or service without being actually held responsible for most aspects of that interaction (aka take 20% without any risk or effort beyond running an app). This is just a more intense next step in that thought process. cheese fucked around with this message at 22:50 on Jun 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 22:44
|
|
|
Tuxedo Gin posted:No, the big hitters will just charge for access to the data since their entire existence is gathering and selling data about their users. The big hitters won't like the fact that their users are either reducing their use of social networks to whatever they think is "responsible" or cleaning them out all together. Beyond that, it makes them look bad for no benefit. I'm not saying this to be dismissive, this poo poo is loving terrible. I'm just pointing out that these folks have done it before - there used to be a site that would record deleted tweet of politicians and Twitter revoked their API key because they felt users wouldn't like that. I see this in a similar light.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
Coolness Averted posted:Like Expedia, but for Canadians. No, as I explained, it's not that. It's a company that's chartering planes from an airline that charters full aircraft, and then selling the seats individually like a normal airline. You can't purchase individual seats from the airline they're using, just like you can't buy a seat on an aircraft that's chartered by a corporation. The Canadian Transportation Agency has now ruled that, pursuant to several conditions, they are not actually an air carrier and do not need a certificate. It should also be noted that the CTA is a separate agency from Transport Canada, which actually covers the operation of (among other things) aircraft and air services -- the CTA specifically regulations the provision of transportation services to paying customers, as far as I can tell. The disruption seems to be that they think they can offer flights for less if they use a third party to actually operate and maintain the aircraft, which seems asinine to me, but potentially possible if they keep load factors high. Flair Airlines benefits by selling their services (the whole aircraft) more consistently and thus having a higher fleet utilization rate, but NewLeaf (the ticket seller) is going to hemorrhage money very quickly if they can't keep those planes full, because they will have bought all the tickets from Flair. I don't know how they're going to be Ultra-Low-Cost when they're actively adding another layer of abstraction and expense that most airlines don't have to deal with, but I'm sure they've considered this all very thoroughly and won't go tits up like all but one other airline that tried to enter the low-cost market in Canada (the one success being WestJet, which is solidly on its way to being a "normal" airline, complete with pseudo-business-class, long haul flights, and a regional subsidiary).
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
I realise that it may not be set in legal stone but I think a company that caused a major spike in violent crime and burglary would probably attract the ire of the coppers and the public rather faster than companies that just exploit workers and ignore regulations. And having the coppers annoyed at you makes a lot of stuff suddenly way more illegal than it normally is.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 23:53
|
|
|
http://www.antipodesmap.com/ Finally Silicon Valley produces something useful.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 11:40
|
|
|
Jumpingmanjim posted:http://www.antipodesmap.com/ Doesn't work in a mobile browser, disruption status, in flux.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 13:11
|
|
|
Condiv posted:so what happens if i never use twitter or facebook? does my prospective landlord call bs on the accounts i gave him and refuse to rent to me? what about if i don't have a facebook or twitter account anymore? Tuxedo Gin posted:Yep. Actually, people not having accounts suffering negative impact is why this idea (which keeps coming up in various forms) keeps getting dogpiled by lawsuits as soon as it goes live. You see older people are significantly less likely to have a social media account, making this effectively age discrimination which is both illegal and has powerful legal advocacy groups watching for it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 13:55
|
|
|
PT6A posted:No, as I explained, it's not that. It's a company that's chartering planes from an airline that charters full aircraft, and then selling the seats individually like a normal airline. You can't purchase individual seats from the airline they're using, just like you can't buy a seat on an aircraft that's chartered by a corporation. This actually seems pretty useful - I've often wanted to travel between a couple of small Michigan airports, but charter flights for just me would be insane. If there were a small-plane rideshare for getting from Detroit to Traverse City, I'd use it (I hate highway driving).
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 14:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 13:06 |
|
|
a foolish pianist posted:This actually seems pretty useful - I've often wanted to travel between a couple of small Michigan airports, but charter flights for just me would be insane. If there were a small-plane rideshare for getting from Detroit to Traverse City, I'd use it (I hate highway driving). Unless you have 156 friends who want to fly to traverse city with you you're probably not going to get companies like this to bother And even flying something like a King Air up there with 12 people would cost several hundred dollars apiece because flying airplanes is really really loving expensive
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 16:18
|
|
