I grew up with homogenized milk, and the mere smell of unhomogenized milk makes me want to vomit. Even boiled milk is awful. Unhomogenized cow milk was slightly more tolerable than unhomogenized ox milk.
Incredibly confused by this comment. Does homogenization alter the smell?
>Even boiled milk is awful
What does this have to do with homogenization? I wouldn't want boiled milk either unless it was to be used in a soup or something.
Are you confusing homogenization with pasteurization?
I thought slightly less of the casting for Fifth Element after I learned about the "Born Sexy Yesterday" thing in conjunction with Luc Besson's personal life. Same with Leon.
Hmm, I mean that "thing" appears to be the opinion of one guy on YouTube. Which he is entitled to of course, but I don't necessarily agree.
Especially considering he's using Leeloo as "the most quintessential example" but then also "emphasizes that the Born Sexy Yesterday trope intensifies the dynamic by positioning women as submissive rather than equal partners", which is clearly not really the case here.
Or for example a scene early on where Korben tries to kiss her, to which she reacts with a gun to his head and says "never without my permission". Doesn't really sound very innocent or without agency to me.
I get the point of the analysis and it's certainly not completely wrong, but it seems to be a bit far-fetched and incoherent to be honest.
That's a pretty wild take, but ok. I think you really have to be digging deep and "looking for trouble" to take issue with a fun and relatively wholesome movie like Fifth Element.
The government employees who approve or deny the utility’s priced have an incentive to not approve higher prices. Their bosses are usually elected, and higher utility prices are very unpopular.
I was told by a former southern company exec that the McKinsey did a study for them and their largest competitive advantage was regulatory capture in the states in which they operate - unfortunately I think the politicians are more beholden to the utilities than their constituents..
I am under the impression that for most of human history, the ability and willingness to inflict violence was what determined the social hierarchy. Would that not be the reason that almost all tribes were patriarchal?
It seems to be a very, very recent phenomenon that simply selling goods and services can elevate one in the hierarchy, due to the advent of legal systems and policing (e.g. women’s rights).
The social Darwinists that ran with nature red in tooth and claw and took survival of the best fitted to mean the physically fittest and most aggressively dominant win are the ones responsible for your impressions.
>As most things people today believe, this is not really true, at least not in such universal way as usually implied.
Might makes right is a rule of nature, is it not? Native Americans didn't choose to be moved onto reservations, enslaved people didn't choose to be enslaved, and colonized cultures did not choose to be colonized. And the ones making those choices always had the upper hand.
>There is no data to assert that.
What data could there be? It's not like the male leaders are going to write governing documents that state women will have fewer rights than men because we believe they will not be able to put up a sufficient fight. But you put the facts together that it was nearly ubiquitous around the world, and women are physically weaker than men, and women would not choose to have fewer rights, then what other conclusion can be had?
> Might makes right is a rule of nature, is it not?
Of nature, maybe. Of human social arrangements, not really - otherwise elites would never feel the need of justifying themselves, yet they always do.
> Native Americans didn't choose to be moved onto reservations, enslaved people didn't choose to be enslaved, and colonized cultures did not choose to be colonized. And the ones making those choices always had the upper hand.
You went from social hierarchy to interaction between societies and cultures. Slaves were almost always sourced from outside the group, and by nature of slavery they were not part of social.
> But you put the facts together that it was nearly ubiquitous around the world
This is exactly the data we don't have. We simply don't know social arrangements of most tribes or cultures in human history.
Moreover, there is a huge gap between assertion that most societies in history had male leaders and rulers, and assertion that lack of merit always led to being left behind.
> what other conclusion can be had?
Using your spectacular reasoning one can similarly argue that it has to be necessary that males in all cultures live in polygamous relationships, because nature made sperm cheap, and optimal breeding strategy is to breed with as many females as possible.
And yet, for some reason, monogamy exists in patriarchal societies.
>You went from social hierarchy to interaction between societies and cultures. Slaves were almost always sourced from outside the group, and by nature of slavery they were not part of social.
I thought "social Darwinism" might have also implied survival of the fittest on the society level. From the first paragraph of the wikipedia link above:
>Social Darwinism is a body of pseudoscientific theories and societal practices that claim to apply biological concepts of natural selection and survival of the fittest to sociology, economics and politics.[1][2] Social Darwinists believe that the strong should see their wealth and power increase, while the weak should see their wealth and power decrease.
>This is exactly the data we don't have. We simply don't know social arrangements of most tribes or cultures in human history. Moreover, there is a huge gap between assertion that most societies in history had male leaders and rulers, and assertion that lack of merit always led to being left behind.
I guess that would be true for all of human history, but I would have thought the data from the recent previous couple thousand years would suffice (from whenever there are written records). Also, to be clear, in this case, I would assume "merit" means might, right?
>Using your spectacular reasoning one can similarly argue that it has to be necessary that males in all cultures live in polygamous relationships, because nature made sperm cheap, and optimal breeding strategy is to breed with as many females as possible. And yet, for some reason, monogamy exists in patriarchal societies.
I am also under the impression that men being expected/able to "cheat" without much consequence was a common thing until recent history where women gained the right to assets in divorce.
Also, the sperm/breeding strategy does not necessarily imply a polygamous future, because humans could have been intelligent enough to understand that the long term benefits of stability from at least the veneer of monogamy far outweighs the benefits of out right polygamy (due to stability achieved by not having significant numbers of single men competing for women).
Going back to your original claim:
>It didn't arise until rise of capitalism and bourgeoise (lack of) morality. For most of human history, and among countless cultures, social Darwinism wasn't the case.
My understanding of "Darwinism" is that there exists a need for animals (all living things) to compete for resources, and hence whomever wins the competition wins the resources and hence can procreate and further the genetic line. So I would think competition between and amongst members of society would be the natural state, because we are living things, and while humans might have understood the folly of physically competing for resources (most of the time), that does not mean humans would not desire to compete for resources in other ways (especially to attract the opposite sex).
The "news" warns people about impending recessions every single day. You can open up the Stocks app right now and there will be multiple conflicting "articles" on the SP500 having reached its top or bottom.
Other than news about mortgage rates dropping and trends in payrates for various careers, I see almost nothing actionable in the news for 99% of people.
The benefit of media literacy is being able to tell apart issues of import vs false alarms. That career ladders could be changing due to AI; food and oil could spike / be unavailable due to Hormuz so stock up ahead of time; financial risks of BNPL, meme stocks, and crypto; and potential recession due to hiring patterns, AI bubble, private credit - those are not actionable?
I would separate out current events from "breaking news", the latter of which I think is pretty useless for 99% of people living in a developed and safe country.
Trends are important to learn about, but the regular person would be well advised to prepare for emergencies in advance of the emergency.
Most of the stuff you listed is probably covered under general financial education like not going into debt for frivolous purchases or not gambling on investments you know nothing about.
Inclement weather is probably the most pressing thing to know about, but again, you should probably be prepared at home anyway so you're not affected by people clearing out the grocery stores.
I'm looking at nytimes.com right now, and it's pretty much all meaningless in terms of what I am going to do today, tomorrow, next week, or next month. It's entertainment at best, which is fine, if you can mentally handle it. But if it's getting you down, then I see no negative consequence from skipping most of it. Obviously, come time to vote, it's important to be informed, but day to day, spending one's brain cycles thinking about stuff that will not affect them and they will not be able to affect does not seem like a good use of time.
Options have some minor value in signalling that you're a true believer. You should in fact care only about base salary, but not telling the people doing the hiring that can be quite useful. Doing a fake come-down on base in exchange for options shows you are invested and surely worth hiring.
Tesla's highest market cap in 2010 was $3.3B. Tesla has more net income, sometimes multiples more, per year, from 2021 to 2025.
For comparison, it is routine to see sale prices of 3x to 5x revenue for many, many kinds of everyday businesses that have much less potential than Tesla.
There are very, very few businesses whose shares one could have purchased in 2010 that performed better over the subsequent 15 years. That is about as objective as one can get about determining whether or not something was under or over valued (in 2010).
Oracle/TSMC/SpaceX isn’t in consumer products/services, but they are heard about.
IBM was declining for 10 years while the rest of the tech related businesses were blowing up, plus IBM does not pay well, so other than it being a business in decline, there wasn’t much to talk about. No one expects anything new from IBM.
Also, they had quite a few big boondoggles where they were the bad guys helping swindle taxpayers due to the goodwill from their brand’s legacy, so being a dying rent seeking business as opposed to a growing innovative business was the assumption I had.
reply