Gastronomicus t1_jbhwen9 wrote

>A homeowner is allowed to change his own electrical panel.

I didn't say otherwise. I said a certified electrician needs to sign off on it and that you will need to pay a professional here. Both are true, though I guess it's a professional certified electrician from the ESA who will fulfill the task.


Gastronomicus t1_jbhlmtu wrote

You legally need a certified electrician in Ontario to sign off on the work. AFAIK the ESA doesn't fulfill that function and is primarily involved in approving professional work. No matter how you slice it you will need to pay a professional here.


Gastronomicus t1_j41fnn6 wrote

Great video!

It looks like you're comparing dry mass of grains to wet mass of meat in the video. I assume masses are based on wet weight for both vegetables and meat? I think it's important to consider that while the cost per 100 g might be lower for vegan sources, the sheer amount of the product you'd need to consume to obtain the same amount of protein as meat sources is much higher.

For example, eating 1000 g of spinach for 20 g of protein makes it an incredibly inefficient and effectively impossible source of protein. Aiming for 100 g of protein per day, you'd need to eat 5 kg of spinach, which would be both unpleasant and difficult for most! That one doesn't work out as a great value either, as this would cost you 5.45€.

In comparison, wheat flour is very cheap, but since it comes as a dry good you'd need to add at least 50% of the mass of flour as water to make it consumable (e.g. as bread). That effectively reduces the amount of protein (and calories) consumed by 33%. Still a good value, but you'd need to consume 1363 g of bread to meet that need. Reasonable. However, that would amount to 3420 kCal of calories to consume 100 g of protein, far above the average daily caloric need for most. Additionally, that would mean you'd be missing out on many nutrients necessary from other foods.

Split peas certainly come out better. Most recipes seem to call for a 1.5:1 ratio of water to peas by volume, which works out to 2.8:1 ratio by mass. Assuming some loss to evaporation, let's say maybe 2:1. For 100 g of protein, you'd then need to eat ~1000 g of wet peas. Doable, though that's a lot of peas! Better be prepared for that much fibre. That adds up to 1955 kCal, which is roughly the daily caloric need for the average person. Doesn't leave a lot of room for additional stuff. If you reduce the amount of peas to accommodate other things, you will need to lower your protein intake. Which is fine for most people, where 60-80 g of protein is around the target intake amount.

Sounds like peas are a real winner for the balance of protein and calories. I suppose that's why they're such a popular food item globally, especially since they can be grown in quantity and are easy to dry, store, and prepare.


Gastronomicus t1_j2fjt6b wrote

For the same reason I gave here:

>But the 100 kg person is larger and almost certainly requires more of the same drug to achieve the same blood concentration.

More mass = higher necessary dosage. A greater volume of blood/body fluids means a more diluted product in the bloodstream. Beyond a certain dosage the effect might be similar because you've saturated the receptors. Not sure that applies here or not, probably not since higher dosages are linked to more intense experiences.


Gastronomicus t1_j2fjdhd wrote

>While body weight-adjusted dosing is widely used, this imposes a practical and financial strain on the scalability of psychedelic therapy

That just doesn't make sense. I don't see how they can claim that since the effect does not scale with BMI this somehow mitigates the need to dose according to body mass, for which dosage almost certainly scales.


Gastronomicus t1_j2ew7fz wrote

I see two issues here. Firstly, why BMI and not mass? BMI is a ratio that scales with mass, so a 50 kg 1.45 m tall person could has the same BMI (25) as a 100 kg 2.0 m tall person. But the 100 kg person is larger and almost certainly requires more of the same drug to achieve the same blood concentration.

Secondly, only one dosage was tested (25 mg). It might just be that at that dosage a biochemical process is initiated that is similar for all. It is likely that the minimum dose to achieve this effect varies by mass.


Gastronomicus t1_j1q8tqb wrote

You're missing the point. "Reduces" isn't the same as "eliminates". Regardless of benefits and challenges, roads are problematic and that is their point.


Gastronomicus t1_j1q8p6n wrote

This is harm reduction, not harm elimination. Their comment was very clear that roads are a problem irrespective of what measures are taken to protect the landscape.


Gastronomicus t1_j1q0bxr wrote

> I thought no old growth forests were left, like, anywhere

There are large-swaths of primary growth in many tropical regions and parts of the boreal/taiga forests. There are small pockets of primary forest in temperate forest regions, but since these have been the main areas of human expansion over the past 10000 years they have been the most disturbed.


Gastronomicus t1_j1pzjct wrote

> Clear cutting is actually a good method of logging

You're right - it's a fantastic method of logging. It's not however an ideal method of forest management for diversity and ecosystem services. It mimics large scale disturbance events (e.g. fire, major windthrows) in some ways (large scale tree removal).

However, it is also significantly different than those events in that it removes more of the larger biomass from the landscape (fires tend to burn off only fine fuels), reducing the organic materials left on site. It also removes local seed sources, forcing replanting as the only option for regrowth in the short-term.

Additionally, clear cutting involves the use of machinery that can compact and damage the soil, often by design. Remaining biomass is moved into piles and the soil surface is scrapped into windrows to facilitate growth of new seedlings. This continued removal of organic materials and soil damage can lead to longer-term depletion of organic matter and nutrients from soils and compaction, affecting its hydraulic properties and capacity for carbon storage and long-term productivity.

These areas are then replanted as a monoculture and typically sprayed with herbicides to reduce competition. While it's often the case that these forests tend to regenerate in even-aged patches dominated by one species, this only exacerbates this effect and reduces understorey diversity as well.

Clear-cutting isn't all bad, but it certainly isn't a "good" method of silviculture from an ecological perspective. Many countries having been shifting to a model that is closer to a partial-harvest, with the intent of increasing diversity on the landscape, which is demonstrated to improve forest ecosystem resilience to disturbance and climate change.


Gastronomicus t1_j1py8yw wrote

> Except for mud trails, any paved road eventually divides the forest and somehow irreversibly damages the ecosystem.

Not sure what you mean by "mud trails", but depending on use and location, unpaved roads can experience significant problems with erosion and soil compaction.


Gastronomicus t1_j1pxzbb wrote

> Isn’t it kind of well known that breaks in tree cover/tree fall increases diversity?

This is the case in boreal and temperate forests. I'm not sure if it is as relevant for tropical forests that already display high diversity (though likely to some extent). Article is behind a paywall so I couldn't read it any further.


Gastronomicus t1_j0sec3v wrote

> Some people are sharing anecdotes that they feel much colder in more humid weather - I think that's more to do with moisture on your body than moisture in the air.

It's not as straight-foward as this. Moisture in the air isn't just present as a dissolved gas. It's dynamic and often shifting back and forth between gaseous and water phases, forming microscopic droplets that can remain aloft and form an important component of energy flux in the atmosphere.

Furthermore, warmer air can become super-saturated with moisture if it cools rapidly, like the kind of inversions that frequently occur near maritime regions in the winter when warmer air from the ocean comes inland and cools off. This can form fogs or various less opaque mists as it precipitates.

Combine both situations with winds and the synergy between moisture and wind can leave you feeling much colder than a dry windy area alone.


Gastronomicus t1_iu7nm5f wrote

Reply to comment by Preesi in [Homemade] Heavy Cream Yogurt by Preesi

Why not? It's not as if things are automatically spoiled beyond that date. It's a guideline. Things can spoil well before then if opened long before that date and can last well beyond it if opened close to it or even afterwards.

Dairy tend to be pretty easy to tell when its going off.


Gastronomicus t1_irys9gg wrote

> The article does not mention people’s weight or level of food consumption as a factor at all.

Holy crap, read the damn article. It's literally about the effects of intermittent exercise on controlling skeletal muscle uptake of amino acids from food and discussion of how it influences blood sugar levels and insulin response with respect to diet. The entire basis of this field of study is on how prolonged sitting causes metabolic disruptions, exacerbated by excessive food intake.


Gastronomicus t1_irygtmq wrote

Snack refers specifically to food, not just a small portion of anything. The activities are meant to offset the effects of excessive food by exacerbated by persistent sitting. Therefore, it's confusing to refer to it as a "snack".

>and imo not misleading at all.

I never said misleading. I said confusing. Those two things are not necessarily synonymous.