|
Oatmilk tastes like horse cum and is still half as expensive. Almond milk is delicious but still pretty horrible for the environment.
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2021 05:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 01:11 |
|
|
DildenAnders posted:Oatmilk tastes like horse cum and is still half as expensive. Almond milk is delicious but still pretty horrible for the environment. You get 4$/litre horse cum where you live? That is quite affordable!
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2021 08:19
|
|
|
tuyop posted:A way this might be viable is if you get a cpu with an integrated GPU. Say you have a 2080 and an AMD 3400g. You should be able to passthrough the iGPU to one VM and GPU to another VM. That would be good if possible with software, yeah the idea would be to have the main pc playing one game and an old crappy laptop connected to the VM for the second game. Its not important enough to install ESXi over the top so would be nice if vmware or something allowed it. Chubby Henparty fucked around with this message at 11:42 on Jun 23, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2021 09:48
|
|
|
I definitely prefer oat milk to the other plant based milk. I live in a rural area so I sometimes buy cow milk from a small dairy. It’s not completely calf at foot but the calves are put onto one mom so they aren’t alone or unmothered. It’s a bit of an annoyance to pasteurize it myself and it’s expensive, $11/gallon, but it makes my conscience feel a little better.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2021 12:38
|
|
|
I don't understand how plant milks are still more expensive than cow milk. Like almonds or whatever sure, but aren't soy and oats dirt cheap?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2021 15:18
|
|
|
Trapick posted:I don't understand how plant milks are still more expensive than cow milk. Like almonds or whatever sure, but aren't soy and oats dirt cheap? If people are willing to pay more, why charge less?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2021 15:23
|
|
|
Trapick posted:I don't understand how plant milks are still more expensive than cow milk. Like almonds or whatever sure, but aren't soy and oats dirt cheap? As stated, people will pay for it so why not charge the max you can get away with? Also, the raw ingredients are cheap, but there is processing required to turn them into milk. You have to charge for crushing, straining, bottling etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2021 18:32
|
|
|
All about the Free Market baby. Also dairy milk is heavily subsidized so that probably doesn't hurt either.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2021 19:12
|
|
|
Milk and dairy products are also generally regionally produced and distributed, whereas I’m guessing the vast majority of oats, almonds, cashews, etc grown for milk production are grown in California. So there’s a significant increase in logistics cost there, as well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2021 20:27
|
|
|
Lawnie posted:Milk and dairy products are also generally regionally produced and distributed, whereas I’m guessing the vast majority of oats, almonds, cashews, etc grown for milk production are grown in California. So there’s a significant increase in logistics cost there, as well. That's definitely not true of oats, they are grains and they are grown widely.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2021 20:38
|
|
|
alnilam posted:That's definitely not true of oats, they are grains and they are grown widely. The production is highly centralized though. Briefly googling makes it look like there are only two or three plants in North America: New Jersey, another one in Saskatchewan, and one that is being built in 2022 apparently.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2021 20:51
|
|
|
alnilam posted:That's definitely not true of oats, they are grains and they are grown widely. Not necessarily for milk production, though. I just looked up Oatly’s source for oats for their barista variety. Reportedly they are grown in Sweden and Finland. What I was trying to get at is that the oats are likely grown and processed nearby to each other before being shipped to retailers, and the market isn’t such that there are oat milk processing facilities in every US state like there are dairy processing facilities. In this case it sounds like the oats for this particular variety are probably both grown and processed in Scandinavia.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2021 21:17
|
|
|
Lawnie posted:Not necessarily for milk production, though. I just looked up Oatly’s source for oats for their barista variety. Reportedly they are grown in Sweden and Finland. What I was trying to get at is that the oats are likely grown and processed nearby to each other before being shipped to retailers, and the market isn’t such that there are oat milk processing facilities in every US state like there are dairy processing facilities. In this case it sounds like the oats for this particular variety are probably both grown and processed in Scandinavia. Oatmilk is too expensive because Sweden and Finland have excessive labour rights, laws, unions QED
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2021 21:39
|
|
|
I have not tried it but there are simple recipes for making oatmilk at home.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2021 22:13
|
|
|
Such Fun posted:I was curious about the pronunciation of ‘Juan’, and other Spanish words starting with a J. A US friend of mine, linguist, who speaks perfect Mexican Spanish and hangs out with me, a paragon of Spanish from Spain (and a linguist), assures me a Mexican and a Spaniards pronounce Juan the same. Pronunciation indistinguishable across variants of spanish, in our opinion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2021 23:00
|
|
|
Scarodactyl posted:I like most of them but oatmilk is maybe my favorite. Tastes like milk with oat. Some people in Georgia do not share your enthusiam. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2021 23:38
|
|
|
Soymilk isn't as tasty as cowmilk but it's the only nut milk I can tolerate, and it prevents my nose stuffing up with gunk forever so it owns.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2021 02:04
|
|
|
StrixNebulosa posted:Soymilk isn't as tasty as cowmilk but it's the only nut milk I can tolerate, and it prevents my nose stuffing up with gunk forever so it owns. You're supposed to drink it with your mouth
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2021 03:18
|
|
|
I want to create an image file, and then have 3 copies of it made with variations on the name. So if I put "HomeGroanBoba.png" I'd like for it to automatically copy and make "HomeGroanBoba1.png" and "HomeGroanBoba2.png" originally I tried to do this in the image program, but it just makes you go through all the settings and re-save it over and over under the different names. Is there a program that copies / automatically changes titles based on parameters I passed to it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2021 08:56
|
|
|
Boba Pearl posted:I want to create an image file, and then have 3 copies of it made with variations on the name. So if I put "HomeGroanBoba.png" I'd like for it to automatically copy and make "HomeGroanBoba1.png" and "HomeGroanBoba2.png" originally I tried to do this in the image program, but it just makes you go through all the settings and re-save it over and over under the different names. Is there a program that copies / automatically changes titles based on parameters I passed to it? If you have a Mac, and depending on what you want to do to the file, Automator can do this. I'm sure equivalents exist for other OS but I guess they aren't going to be bundled with the default software.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2021 09:18
|
|
|
StrixNebulosa posted:Soymilk isn't as tasty as cowmilk but it's the only nut milk I can tolerate, and it prevents my nose stuffing up with gunk forever so it owns.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2021 10:10
|
|
|
Is it generally accepted that dinosaurs were driven extinct by a meteor impact? It doesn't make any sense to me. Wouldn't there be a massive impact crater somewhere on the planet? And wouldn't a sudden wipeout have cut their evolutionary lines short? We have birds and things clearly descended from prehistoric animals. I always figured climate change and the oncoming ice age just made it impossible to support that kind of life, but I keep seeing people talk about a meteor extinction event like it's more-or-less a proven thing. Did I miss something?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2021 10:46
|
|
|
magikid posted:Is it generally accepted that dinosaurs were driven extinct by a meteor impact? It doesn't make any sense to me. Wouldn't there be a massive impact crater somewhere on the planet? And wouldn't a sudden wipeout have cut their evolutionary lines short? We have birds and things clearly descended from prehistoric animals. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicxulub_crater
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2021 10:51
|
|
|
Huh. So apparently avian dinosaurs survived, and that's where we got our birds. Also the impact itself is what caused the climate change in the first place. All right, that's definitely what I was looking for.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2021 11:09
|
|
|
magikid posted:Huh. So apparently avian dinosaurs survived, and that's where we got our birds. Also the impact itself is what caused the climate change in the first place. All right, that's definitely what I was looking for. Sooo where did you go to school? Just, out of curiosity? Because this to me at least is like someone coming here and going "is it generally accepted that rainbows are caused by water droplets in the sky?"
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2021 12:08
|
|
|
GAS? I bought one of those cheep tankless gas water heaters a while a go. I fired it up for a few seconds with a small tank of butane when it first arrived, and it worked (surprisingly) brilliantly. But I then stuffed it in the shed ever since. I've just gone to get a new bottle for it to give it another go, and was checking the instructions on whether it 'prefers' butane or propane.....as I'm looking at the amazon listing I see I actually bought the 'natural gas' version. A tiny and somewhat loose sticker on the side, which looks like an after thought, does indeed say methane. It's never going to get used with natural gas. Do I chalk it off as a loss and recycle/sell it, or is there some cross compatibility? I've seen some other models listed with both NG and LPG. OR would that first try with the butane have exploded, had I left it on a bit longer? https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B091T6V4GY/ Is there a more appropriate thread I should post this in somewhere?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2021 12:14
|
|
|
I remember reading an article that pointed out that genetic evolution also happens at a faster pace than we think- there are small mutations happening every generation but since many of them don’t make a meaningful difference in terms of procreation, they get averaged out once one zooms out. This combined with sudden new external pressures making new genetic combinations more viable could have resulted in faster evolution. It’s plausible that some of the species that survived the initial impact and climate change could have evolved significantly on a scale of hundreds of thousands of years or even tens of thousands instead of the millions of years we normally assume. Evolution taking place in (relatively) short bursts catalyzed by external stimuli could also go some way towards explaining why there are often weird missing links in the fossil record. This is all based on stuff I read a couple years ago so feel free to correct me!
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2021 12:15
|
|
|
magikid posted:Is it generally accepted that dinosaurs were driven extinct by a meteor impact? It doesn't make any sense to me. Wouldn't there be a massive impact crater somewhere on the planet? And wouldn't a sudden wipeout have cut their evolutionary lines short? We have birds and things clearly descended from prehistoric animals. Thanks to erosion impact craters don't last very long on Earth, and 63 million years is a lot of erosion. Like the wiki about Chicxulub says, we only noticed it after geologic explorations found warped and fractured rocks caused by the impact; the crater itself, as a visual hole in the ground, has long since eroded away. A lot of things survived the cataclysm, it's just that big dinos were particularly vulnerable to the climate change. Organza Quiz posted:Sooo where did you go to school? Just, out of curiosity? Because this to me at least is like someone coming here and going "is it generally accepted that rainbows are caused by water droplets in the sky?" I wouldn't go too hard, this is still pretty new as a settled matter. I was a dinosaur fiend in school in the 90s and almost none of the dinosaur revelations we now generally accept were on my radar.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2021 13:54
|
|
|
magikid posted:Is it generally accepted that dinosaurs were driven extinct by a meteor impact? Here's a neat video on the topic (although I don't think it answers your specific question, other people have already done that): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFCbJmgeHmA
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2021 14:02
|
|
|
MeKeV posted:GAS? https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3944478
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2021 14:04
|
|
|
Organza Quiz posted:Sooo where did you go to school? Just, out of curiosity? Because this to me at least is like someone coming here and going "is it generally accepted that rainbows are caused by water droplets in the sky?" This is a bit harsh. When I was in school (90s), exactly how the dinosaurs died was still very much a mystery. The leading theory was an asteroid impact, but it was far from a settled matter. Now we can track, down to the minute, the asteroid that killed them (as in the video Tiggum linked), which is absolutely wild to me! EDIT: actually I'll do one better! Here's an extremely well done video that shows how the impact would have looked like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZDmTBqLkLI Silver Falcon fucked around with this message at 14:17 on Jun 24, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2021 14:14
|
|
|
Kaiser Schnitzel posted:I'd ask here: Thanks, I found the Plumbing thread too have put it in there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2021 14:16
|
|
|
Man maybe I just remember wrong but I was also in school in the 90s and I remember being taught that an asteroid killed the dinosaurs as an absolute known fact. ETA: Ok having spent some time on this Wikipedia page I see this was still controversial until I was well out of primary school. So either I remember wrong or it is me who went to the weird school, my apologies. Organza Quiz fucked around with this message at 14:42 on Jun 24, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2021 14:28
|
|
|
I went to school in the early 80s and this theory was definitely well established. We had a big red poster on the wall close to me and I often stared at the (comically oversized) asteroid smashing into the earth. Out of interest I read about the theory a bit and it was first seriously pushed in the early 50s based on geological evidence. In the 80s geologists were joined by chemists and physicists who did testing on sites around the world and confirmed the original studies. Poor raptors.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2021 14:45
|
|
|
Organza Quiz posted:Man maybe I just remember wrong but I was also in school in the 90s and I remember being taught that an asteroid killed the dinosaurs as an absolute known fact. I might have been too strong in my wording; "Killed by asteroid" has been popular for awhile if not widely scientifically accepted, and acceptance of Chicxulub as the location is even newer. But with how long it takes primary education to change course...
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2021 14:52
|
|
|
The KT boundary has been known about for more than a century. There are a few things that could potentially cause that, but the most likely is some sort of celestial body colliding with the Earth.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2021 15:01
|
|
|
Fruits of the sea posted:I remember reading an article that pointed out that genetic evolution also happens at a faster pace than we think- there are small mutations happening every generation but since many of them don’t make a meaningful difference in terms of procreation, they get averaged out once one zooms out. That being said, there are a few central tenents that I think would help you understand things better. First is that evolution is occuring at all times. While DNA copying enzymes make errors at astonishingly low rates, the sheer magnitude of DNA replication that occurs in an organism means that mutations are constant. Most of these mutations are in non-coding/non-regulatory areas and therefore have no effect on the cells they occur in, but mutations in relevant coding/regulatory sequences do add up, to the point where your genome is measurably different at the end of your life compared to when you were first born. This is relevant because genetic variation is being generated at all times, at a fairly constant rate, whether conditions are good or bad. It is the selection that varies according to time and circumstances. When 50% of individuals are able to reproduce, a single individual that has an advantage is going to have much less of an effect on the total genetic makeup of the group than when only 3% of individuals are able to reproduce. It's not extraordinary when dire circumstances lead to rapid selection, it's how evolution has always worked at the species level, and mass-extinction events have always driven periods of dramatic change in the species that survived. Another important thing I should mention is that there is no direct correlation between the amount of mutations and the type of change you see. Most mutations have no functional impact on genes, the vast majority that do are strictly detrimental, and the few that are in some way beneficial often have negative consequences in other areas (the sickle cell/malaria dichotomy is the textbook example of it, if you're interested there's a ton of stuff online about it). Even then, all genes are not created equally. A single point mutation can lead to dramatic changes in the phenotype of an organism, especially if it occurs in a regulatory region. A good example of this is the cave fish that lost its eyes. The generalized way we're taught about evolution makes it seem like there would be a gradual degeneration of the eye, like the reverse of how it developed, but in truth a small mutation in the gene that directs eye development was enough to "delete" the entire structure. Scientists have been able to verify that by restoring function in that single gene, and having fully functional eyes present in a fish that has been eyeless for hundreds of generations before it. This is how multicellular genomes are organized, and because of this, seemingly implausibly dramatic changes can occur on incredibly short time scales if specific types of genes are involved. Meanwhile, thousands of mutations can accumulate in non-coding regions and unnecessary synthesis pathways leading to no discernible change from one generation to the other. I'd also like to add that the processes that lead to fossilization are incredibly rare and inconsistent. While we can learn a lot from fossils, it is far from an exhaustive or comprehensive way to track the evolution of large species. Instead, fossilization provides intense but inconsistent insight into brief snapshots of evolutionary history. The "missing links" are the norm, and the complicated process of speciation could never be fully tracked by continuous fossilization. Another interesting part of evolution I'd just like to add is that it occurs on levels smaller than the individual. It's why cancer is so common despite it's obviously negative impact on fitness for the individual. It's why on average 90% of sperm are non-viable. There are even self-perpetuating segments of DNA that copy and move themselves around, often to the detriment of the organism. We tend to assume evolution stops at the organism level because that's what we are, but any system that has heritability is going to have evolution. It's easy for us to view evolution in a very species-oriented way but it is in fact the unifying operating principle for all of biology. Didn't mean to type out such a novel, but I hope you found at least some of it interesting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2021 15:13
|
|
|
Early on in Jurassic Park (1993), young Tim is rambling to Alan Grant about how this OTHER guy says a meteor killed all the dinosaurs, but that Dr Grant wrote that they all turned into birds. That always gave me the impression that it was not 100% settled at the time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2021 15:17
|
|
|
What's the actual in practice de minimis for online purchases in the US? All the government websites say $800, but others say you won't get duties/taxes up to $2500.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2021 15:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 01:11 |
|
|
An example on how fossil records can be incomplete because fossilization is a specific process can be found in squid. We have basically no squid fossils at all despite having other cephalopod fossils. Recently it was discovered that this is caused by an increase in ammonia in the squid bodies to support buoyancy. Octopuses, do not have this additional ammonia because they are mostly bottom dwellers. Squid, on the other hand, do not live on the floor of the ocean. Fossilization happens because of certain acidic buildups that cause parts of an animal to calcify. Because of the additional ammonia, squid are internally basic rather than acidic, and simply do not breakdown in a way that would leave fossils.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2021 15:53
|
|