ISBN39393242

ISBN39393242 t1_j81eroi wrote

i agree, which is also why this label is confusing. why just “north of mexico?” are the plantations in caribbean countries not included, even though they are not at all “north of mexico”? i would imagine they contribute significantly to sugar cane output, possibly even more than mexico or the US.

i only mentioned canada and the US because they are the parts of N.A. north of mexico, but it adds to further confusion about the other regions of N.A

−2

ISBN39393242 t1_j813zlu wrote

that’s a vague and arbitrary term. why couldn’t it just be interpreted as meaning canada, since north america means canada, us, and mexico, and canada is northernmost of all 3?

imo it’s not an intuitively understood or previously defined term, so it’s a poor label. it would be better to say “US and canada,” or smth. does canada even grow any? if not, why not just say US?

−2

ISBN39393242 t1_j66ill2 wrote

>People think science is magic too often.

you can say that again.

peoples’ expectations of science and medicine are so wild. and the more uninformed, the more they expect. when you’re an actual scientist you realize it’s a mix of working banging your head against the wall for the most tiny incremental gain in knowledge (this is the vast majority of science) + the rare landmark finding, which usually gets milked for its every potential application across all fields of science.

but people really sit back and think scientists could just do whatever they wanted if they felt like it (and therefore the reason e.g. aids has no cure is because they don’t care enough, as opposed to the fact that it’s actually not possible).

3

ISBN39393242 t1_ir51udk wrote

where is kering in all this? they have Balenciaga, Bottega Veneta, Gucci, Alexander McQueen and Yves Saint Laurent.

i can’t believe they are negligible compared to these groups, particularly when you list “other” as 68%

10