Peanut butter and hummus are the same thing.
Kiernian @ Kiernian @lemmy.world Posts 0Comments 195Joined 2 yr. ago
Kiernian @ Kiernian @lemmy.world
Posts
0
Comments
195
Joined
2 yr. ago
I was under the impression that, by definition, blended chickpeas were only one ingredient in hummus.
I thought in order to qualify as hummus it had to have blended chickpeas, tahini ( which is just blended sesame seeds, IIRC), oil, and lemon juice.
I literally never bought pb that isn’t 100% peanuts. Sometimes with a bit of salt. Stop buying junk.
It's not automatically "junk", it's flavored.
It just happens to be the most popular flavor in the U.S.
I like my spicy red pepper hummus, other people like their extra-oil-and-sugar smooth consistency non-separating peanut butter.
It's like the difference between corn flakes and frosted flakes.
IT Sysadmin from the non-profit circle checking in. It's actually unseasonably warm right now.
I can't speak for the pharmaceutical IT, Medical IT, metal fabrication IT, bakery IT, education IT, or embedded systems IT circles, though. Might be getting nippy over thereabouts.
the Laundry Files
Sweet, Thanks.
I just checked The Atrocity Archives (first book in the series) out of my local library's e-book program.
I'm looking forward to reading this.
corwin does both...
Is it really, though?
Unfortunately, historically speaking, in the U.S. it both is and has been.
It is virtually impossible to get into any discussion involving menthol cigarettes in america without also getting into a discussion about the black community they were specifically marketed towards.
Literally:
Tobacco companies offered grants to HBCUs, sponsored hip-hop and jazz music festivals, and supported civil rights institutions including the NAACP. In the 1980s, industry-sponsored vans distributed free cigarette samples in the streets of Houston’s Black neighborhoods. The program would later expand to 50 cities.
“A total of 1.9M samples will be distributed to targeted smokers in 1983,” industry officials wrote in a Kool Market Development Program document. “Sample distribution will be targeted to: housing projects, clubs, community organizations and events where Kool’s Black young adult target congregate.”
An R.J. Reynolds executive actually said: "We don’t smoke that s—t. We just sell it. We reserve the right to smoke for the young, the poor, the Black and stupid."
The reason a targeted menthol/flavored ban is problematic is that since something like 85% of black smokers choose menthols...
...that means this ban gives police ANOTHER free ticket to harass just about any black man, woman, or child/teen they see smoking. They'd likely get away with calling it "probable cause" which is twelve kinds of fucked up.
If they cared about public health they would do one of two things:
1: Ban all cigarettes
2: Use awareness campaigns (THESE ARE PROVEN TO WORK, LOOK AT THE DECLINE OF THE YOUTH SMOKING RATE)
Given the other viable options it is really, really hard to see this as anything other than a racially targeted decision.
Like every time this comes up, this is straight up racism.
If they actually cared about protecting children, they'd put quality control restrictions on the fluids used in vape pens to prevent popcorn lung and the like BECAUSE KIDS DON'T REALLY SMOKE CIGARETTES ANYMORE.
You know who disproportionately smokes menthols and flavored cigarellos?
Black people.
If they actually had something against smoking, they'd ban ALL CIGARETTES.
If they were actually trying to protect kids, they'd go after what kids are using.
They're going after the smoke of choice for large portions of the black community.
What does that tell you?
It's interesting because I didn't really like Janeway a ton until her first interaction with Q. Like, there was nothing outright bad about Mulgrew's portrayal, I just wasn't completely and totally sold on the character yet from a writing perspective.
Something about a captain interacting with an omnipotent being really seals something for me personally, because Sisko's interaction with Q was what sold me on him right away, too.
I enjoyed Gibney as Benteen, so I'm sure it would have worked out, it just would have been...different.
I'm currently in the middle of A Fire Upon the Deep by Vernor Vinge and it's truly enjoyable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Fire_Upon_the_Deep?useskin=vector
I don't know how I missed this one prior to now, given that it won a Hugo.
Ahh. the terror of walking into a cave and seeing nothing but inky black darkness and four lines of text pop up all at once
Corp Por
Corp Por
Corp Por
Corp Por
Always reminds me of this little ditty --
...on regs and runes I drift in the night
any place it gates is right
gate far
gate near
by a dungeon I reappear
well
you don't know
what
we can find
why don't you die for me little newb
on a magic Corp Por ride...
Credit where credit is due -- http://www.digiphobia.com/ultimasongs/html/magic.html
you’re framing it as if I am against all the things you are calling for
No, and if it came off that way, I apologize. I'm just saying I can see why some people would think this isn't going to be particularly effective in the short term. It's hard to show enthusiasm for a move like this when setting it up in the first place saw things getting repealed and left us where we are now.
Good is absolutely a step in the right direction and we should be taking it in the hopes of getting closer to perfect.
I’m not sure why you’re upset about restoring net neutrality but go off I guess
Because there's a non-zero chance that the service providers will pull the same kinds of stunts that some police departments did in the wake of all of the post-George-Floyd ideas we had about "reform".
The providers will most likely throw a tantrum at the increased regulation and we will get everything from "weaponized incompetence" to "malicious compliance" along with a petulant toddler level of foot-dragging. They will then probably claim that everything that's going wrong with their services is now due to these new choking, stifling, innovation-killing regulations that are none of those things in actuality and then they'll do their level best to lobby things back to their current state at the very least and more likely an even worse state for the consumer.
I'm not saying we SHOULDN'T restore net neutrality to the state it was in, I'm just saying that the providers are probably going to be big babies about it and pass the pain on to the customer.
AT&T, Comcast, Charter, Cox, Verizon, CenturyLink, and T-Mobile have basically invisibly colluded themselves into one big ma bell lookalike by one or more of them setting "market pricing" and waiting for the others to follow suit because "profits".
Why be competitive when you too can rake in record profits by silently agreeing to the rip-off?
The least we can do is limit their ability to pull stunts like marginalizing content they don't get make extra money off of prioritizing.
I can get why someone might not be excited about this because it's going to suck for consumers in the short run and it's really not going to solve the problem at hand, it's just going to do a tiny bit to keep it from progressing even farther into "enshittification" territory as the providers keep moving the pot towards boiling.
Until we remove the ability for corporations to buy legislation, though, the problem will continue.
Yeah, but phrasing it that way makes it sound more like a "People's Republic of" kind of reference, which I thought was weird.
That explains why I wasn't able to find the verdict. Thank you for this explanation!
I heard the Elderly Man's words in the voice of Kris Kristofferson's Whistler character from the Blade movies.
Is anyone else weirded out by the phrasing "the People's House"? It seems strangely out of place and it's worded like it's some kind of official title.
Why are they quoting people with smaller social media followings than my grandma?
Maybe if your grandma is the moderately famous octogenarian who plays skyrim on camera.
Like, I heard multiple different versions of what this test was going to do yesterday from multiple different people at work.
All of them absurd.
Hell, the LEAST absurd one was "the government will take over our phones and be able to see our cameras, hear everything we do around our phones, and go through all of our apps and files." to which I said: "If they could do that by sending you a text message, the FBI would never bitch about not being able to get into the iPhone of a suspected criminal ever again."
That worked for about as long as it took someone to say "Coventry".
sigh
It drives me bonkers that the idiocy has THIS much reach.
Idiocy having SOME reach has been the case for as long as I've been alive (I mean, c'mon, what group of friends didn't have one member whose crazy uncle had a room full of blacklight posters, bongs, and hookahs who went on constantly about how the mayans invented cordless phones?) but social media sure takes the reach to a new and ridiculous level.
I made the mistake of googling "ted cruz tonsil stone" and the still images alone were enough to send me packing. I'm not easily grossed out but, like, fair warning - click links at your own risk.
One day the headline will actually explain something instead of being a vague proclamation of doom
Yeah, wouldn't that be great?
Ugh. I hate yellow journalism.
One of the cases involving "more of our rights being targeted" is this one:
The arguments in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America set for Tuesday...
...That's October 3rd of this year, based on what I'm reading...
...so, like, two days ago. I'll have to go see if anything has come of it yet a bit later on.
...will focus on whether the CFPB’s funding through the Federal Reserve violates the Constitution’s appropriations clause.
The blockbuster case threatens to subject the agency to Congress’s annual spending fights, which could in turn upend the funding process for the Federal Reserve and other key financial regulators. Created in the Dodd-Frank Act following the 2008 financial crisis, the CFPB regulates larger banks, mortgage and student loan companies, and payday lenders, among others, and has been a frequent target of challenges from Republicans and industry trade groups.
So...this one is going to be the supreme court saying banks, lenders for student loans, and the for-profit shitholes that prey on the poor known as payday lenders can do whatever they want so long as the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and no federal regulatory board or agency should be (edit for clarity -- ) able to stop them, in this case due to lack of funding if this passes.
Just your typical "deregulate everything because all regulations that are bad for us rich folks are 'government over-reach', obvs" claptrap.
Then there's:
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. The outcome could overturn the landmark 1984 Chevron vs. National Resources Defense Council, which compels federal courts to defer to a federal agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous or unclear statute.
The goal of Loper is to severely limit or strip the authority of federal agencies like the EPA, Securities and Exchange Commission, and Federal Elections Commission to issue regulations in areas ranging from the environment, labor, and consumer protection and transfer their authority to the courts.
and let's not forget:
Moore vs. U.S. -- This case centers on the 16th Amendment and the right of the federal government to tax foreign earnings that corporations don’t distribute to U.S. investors but instead reinvest into the foreign company.
Both Roberts and Alito have investments in companies that stand to benefit from a ruling. Corporate and judicial financial disclosures show Roberts and Alito own individual shares in 19 corporations that could see combined tax relief of $30 billion
There's a whole bunch more reeaaallly interesting information in the article about who benefits from which cases and why a bunch of the supreme court justices should be recusing themselves from these things.
Good find, OP.
(edit again -- All in all an EXCELLENT article. Very well written, informative, and engaging. I'm just not a fan of the headline. Not sure I could do better though, so my apologies to the journalist who wrote it for critiquing a vague headline with a vague stance.)
Better hope your dump stat wasn't charisma, then!