I know it's common but I flat out don't understand how someone can be a fan of lyrical music without caring about the lyrics or the music. I hear "I don't listen to the lyrics" so often and I can't even comprehend how that could be. How do you listen to and like music without noticing and caring about what they're saying?

You're allowed to talk about products. Would be pretty impossible to make art otherwise.

Well, that is what the word "may" means. Not saying it will always be impossible. It is plausible that it will never be possible.

It's not the flashy things people want, but drones and robots. There is so very much more we can do. What we've done on Mars is amazing. Do more of that.

I know people want manned travel but that is not only impractical, it may always be impractical.

We're literally in a thread about how she didn't get away with it.

> When you have an environment stressed by too many people, (which is, in fact, a thing)

No. This is untrue. Not only is it not true, it is a billion miles from being true.

It is true that current consumption habits are grossly unsustainable. But it's the consumption habits that are the problem, not people's desire to exist. We are absolutely capable of ensuring the prosperity of all people on Earth and many many many many more while being fully sustainable.

For real though. No one with relevant expertise disagrees with those statements. The idea that we just can't support everyone is capitalist garbage. It blames those with the least capital and offers them up as sacrifice so that we all get our own cars.

>People are starving for fucks sake.

Not because we can't make enough food. Because we can't extract sufficient wealth from them to justify giving them food. There is more than enough food in the world to feed everyone. It is fundamentally not an issue of production. It's an issue of economic exploitation.

>’m talking about family planning and birth control.

You're taking about removing people's right to control their own reproduction. That's powerfully wrong. It's also completely unnecessary and won't in any way achieve the goal you want, but regardless it's very, very wrong. It's just fundamentally untrue that we have an overpopulation problem, and pretty much every qualified expert agrees that there will never come a time when overpopulation becomes an issue.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2023/02/09/key-facts-as-india-surpasses-china-as-the-worlds-most-populous-country/#:~:text=Under%20the%20UN%27s%20%E2%80%9Cmedium%20variant,peak%20at%201.7%20billion%20people.

Median estimate is peaking at 1.7 billion by the mid 2060s. High estimate is 2 billion. Low estimate is that it falls to 1 billion.

The facts do not support this position. The facts demonstrate that the population in India is plateauing. Were they to take steps to limit growth they would likely go into decline (and also that's evil).

Well, not "no one." That's impossible. The speaker has definitely heard it.

Tangential but fun fact: something like 20% of the world's languages come from Papua New Guinea. The geography is such there that it's largely made up of isolated valleys which has allowed the languages to remain distinct.

Madison Bumgartner used to date a girl named Madison Bumgartner. Sadly it didn't work out though.

Should check out Einstürzende Neubauten. I think it's all analog and not electronic, but they're an early pioneer in the noise genre. Blixa Bargeld of the Bad Seeds is the lead. Deep and unsettling is their thing though.

>I'm not aware that sesame-allergic people were having allergic reactions to these products in the past

They were. That's the point. Previously there could be sufficient sesame present due to contamination that wasn't listed on an ingredients statement. That's a big ol problem for those with sesame allergies. They're unable to tell from a label whether a product is safe. Now there is a way to tell. That's better.

Contamination is a very real and substantial threat to people with allergies. This isn't hypothetical. People died before we had these regs.

For someone with a serious sesame allergy this change opens up more options they can reliably safely consume. They no longer have to seek out niche producers who controlled for sesame. Now they can reliably read a label and know if there is a sesame risk or not.

This is not a cobra situation at all. Producers putting sesame in products to meet the new standard was an expected outcome, and an acceptable cost. The goal of better communication of allergens is achieved.

Worth noting that these changes take a million years to happen and there's a very long comment period. This isn't something that folks just decided. It's been in the works for like a decade and a half.

That is the idea. The point is to discourage those who have the greatest risk. If you can stop people with allergies from eating your products in the first place any cross contamination will never be relevant.

>I don't remember seeing "may contain" in the EU, i remember seeing "may contain traces of" which is information rich, it lets you know that there was that allergen in the factory for some other product so if you have that allergy don't eat it

Those are essentially the same statements. Just very slight variations of syntax.

The important thing though is that these statements do not mean the producer doesn't have to control for allergens. In both the US and the EU they do. It's a hedge to reduce risk.

You would be. It's a slam dunk even. Producers have legal obligations. When they don't meat those legal obligations it makes litigation extremely easy. In the eyes of the law they were not duly warned.

This is my actual industry. This isn't some hypothetical. It's one of the main ways that enforcement happens. There's inspection, which is more or less significant depending on what it is, but for most foods they rely on consumer action for enforcement. This scenario is actually super clear cut. Just need to have damages so you can have standing.

And it has to be this way too. Otherwise all food would contain a "may contain" statement and all the relevant regs about labeling and controlling contaminants would be irrelevant. You can't magic words your way our of not having to follow regulations.

If you add sesame it's listed in the ingredients. "May contain" doesn't add anything. It's a nominally true statement so it's permitted, but it is not an ingredient listing. If it says "may contain" but the ingredient is not listed then that means there's a cross contamination risk. Communicating that risk does not get them out of controlling for it.

Say you have a soy allergy. You eat a food that does not have soy listed as an ingredient, but does say that it may contain soy. As it turns out it does, you suffer health consequences, and you successfully sue the manufacturer. The presence or lack of a "may contain" statement makes no difference.

Not sure where you're talking about. Has no legal value in the US, the EU, or the UK. I'm unaware of anywhere that's different, and would be a small sum of money that no modern nation is different in this regard.

Also fun fact: the US is not especially litigious, instead being about par for the course.

They're really not. They're the norm. Most production facilities only do a few things anyway. The large majority never used sesame in the first place.

Bakery products without sesame are not niche. It's hardly rare for a baked product to have sesame, but nor is it anywhere remotely ubiquitous.

There is no prohibition here.

It also seems to me to unquestionably be the right move. That some bakeries move towards using sesame in everything is a completely acceptable consequence. Worth noting that the products made by such a bakery would have been unnaceptable for someone with a sesame allergy before it got added to the list, because of very real cross contamination risk. The difference is now people have a way of knowing that. Very definitely a good thing. Also very literally no prohibition whatsoever.

The problem was "how are people to know if there's a sesame risk?" Curious how you would solve that problem without resorting to regulation.

Just to add on, the alternative is to not use sesame products at all. No doubt some have chosen that route.

To be clear, that's normal for the top allergens and the way it's been for decades. The difference here is that bakeries really didn't have to deal with it. They had wheat and soy which is in everything, and then they just avoid the rest of the top eight (now nine). Sesame is different because it's used for some baking but by no means ubiquitous. So previously bakeries didn't need full wash downs to control for allergens because each was either in everything anyway, or in nothing.

Just saying though. Full wash down between allergens is the industry norm and has been for decades.

Doesn't actually mean anything legally. It's a hedge. Basically discourage the at risk population from consuming your product just in case you fuck up. Provides no legal protection whatsoever.

Lol. That's Fleetwood Mac? I'm a pretty big Camper fan but had no idea. Mostly because I dismissed the album as their least interesting. Not a Fleetwood Mac fan but I'll have to try approaching it again.

Bettie Serveert did a Velvet Underground album. Though that said, even though I like the band it's pretty lackluster. Can't even remember if it was the eponymous album or the banana album. But it exists.

I think you need to consider the feelings mama had for Kevin from the start. She never had that normal attachment mother's feel for children. And we know it isn't just about her because she does have that attachment for her daughter.

I don't recall the name, but there's a known disorder where for reasons unknown occasionally a mother will just not have the normal feelings for their child. These children have enormously increased chances of being a sociopath or other major disorder. Gotta think this is what Shriver was writing about.

And just as in real life, it's difficult to lay the blame. Was she uncaring for her son because he was a little baby sociopath, or was it the lack of caring that made him develop into a sociopath? I don't think Shriver answers this question. Though do note at the end how much Kevin still wants his mother's love.