This would have come from a time when ancient Judaism was evolving out of its polytheistic roots. The early sections of the Hebrew scriptures tended to treat other gods as existing, but you're only supposed to worship YHWH.
Likely, there was some specific ritual that had been used in local polytheistic practices, and it's specifically telling you not to do that.
This is an issue for the sort of fundamentalists who insist that absolutely everything in the bible is useful for modern times. You say that, but then what's this goat milk thing about? How about all the idolatry prohibitions when many modern Christians won't regularly encounter religions that use idols? Why is there a whole book devoted to Solomon's horny poetry?
You can kinda come up with answers to those, but they will invariably involve some kind of "reading between the lines". That is, reading assumptions into the text that aren't explicitly stated. Which fundamentalists also say you're not supposed to do.
It's a technicality. Jesus didn't require any of the old law to be followed unless expressly said otherwise. The only two things that were expressly said otherwise was "love God" and "love your neighbor". Therefore, baby goat milk boiling is fine.
Those are good shows to hate watch in a hotel when you don't have anything else to do.
Except for this one time. It was an African American family where a single working mom had to use the dinner table to get work done after hours, her mom lived with them and had to sleep in the same bed as the younger daughter, and the teenage boy had outgrown the length of his bed.
I can't make fun of that. This family needs a new house.
Next episode had a white family. Their biggest problems were that the kids didn't each have their own bathroom, and they didn't live close enough to the golf course. Now that's more like it.
That was a right-wing talking point in the years following 2008. After Bush had flooded the banks with money, Obama took office and suddenly Republicans decided they were fiscal conservatives again.
The paper that said a debt/gdp ratio over 100% created a death spiral (I believe it was more like 125%) had a problem: nobody else could reproduce their results. Didn't matter, Republicans had to remind people that Obama was a spend and tax liberal.
Then an econ student asked the authors for their Excel spreadsheet (econ does everything in Excel; everything). He found a coding error in one of the formulas. Once corrected, the whole conclusion evaporated.
This is a good analysis, but it's slightly different from OP's statement.
Median real wages actually are up since 1979. It became something of a meme post-2008 to say that median wages have been flat since that time. That was true for a few years following the Great Recession, but they caught up and went quite a bit higher. It's possible the numbers will cycle around to that again, but it's not where we're at right now.
What the graphs in the article are arguing is that wages over that time are much lower than they should be given productivity increases.
Let's say you work for one hour making a widget, and you get $1 for that time. Your boss sells the widget for $5 and pockets the difference. Now there's an increase in productivity, and you can make two widgets in the same hour. You still get paid $1 for that hour, but your boss is selling those two widgets for $10 total now. You're not getting a raise just because of that productivity increase.
You might get a raise due to inflation. With 4% inflation, you get to make $1.04/hour, but your boss is now selling those widgets for $5.20 each. This is more or less the story since 1979.
That difference between productivity and real wages is what's charted out above. It tells you exactly who the real moochers are in society.
This all tracks very neatly with a decline in union membership.
Might not need anything except economies of scale. But getting that is the problem.
Tablet sized eink displays found a niche that couldn't quite be displaced by smartphones and regular tablets. That let them have a market for getting costs down.
There would need to be a similarly wide use case to get the price down on larger eink displays.
Have experiences and respect other life. That's really it.
The Earth created lifeforms that can understand the universe. Even if there are other conditions out there that can create life like that, it's not common. There is unfathomable empty space between planets and their moons. To say nothing of between planets or stars or galaxies.
Good news! You're one of these rare combinations of matter that can understand the universe. In a real way, we are the universe trying to understand itself. Scientists explore it in a deep way, and should be respected for that, but you don't need a PhD to participate. A single celled organism who figured out better ways to swim in its little pool helped the universe understand itself. The first human to taste a strawberry helped the universe understand itself. Have experiences.
There's a lot of other life also participating in this, and they should be respected, too.
But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I require extraordinary evidence to believe that--checks thread again--a five year old had a tantrum about a dress in Target.
The Free Market (holy be thy name) gives you the choice between $1/bottle for milk with chalk and bleach, or $10/bottle for one with less chalk and bleach. If you want one without chalk and bleach, you'll need to find your own cow.
Also, the cows all have birth defects and need uranium-powered antibiotics to stay alive.
Now, let us open our song books to number 34: "Praise Hayek and His Perfect Mustache".
I knew people that were using disinfecting wipes on their groceries because of contact tracing. Eg, they couldn’t know what or who made contact with their products prior to having them, so they did the right thing in the context of contact tracing and sanitized the items to the best of their ability.
No, they wasted cleaning product. As I outlined some replies ago, this did have real consequences.
Let me give you some background. When lockdowns went into effect, I was on the board of a local makerspace with around 400 members and 20k sq ft of space at the time. On that same board was a registered nurse (who has since become a nurse practitioner) and someone in local government who is involved in the administrative part of healthcare policy. When the lockdowns hit, we had the same assumptions about covid being passed through contact, and our landlord also wanted us to have a plan to clean everything before anything opened up again. We figured there might be shortages of cleaning products, so we preordered tubs of industrial strength cleaners in those early days.
Fast forward to summer 2020 as lockdowns start to be lifted (too soon or not). We hesitated to open up fully, but did some limited things. One thing we didn't do was deep clean the whole shop. By then, the research had already shown that covid spread through contact was mostly a nothingburger. I don't remember what we did with the tubs of cleaner (might have donated them to a place with a specific need). We did this at the urging of the nurse and the local gov healthcare person, who both pointed to specific research that was already showing breath being the key transmission method, not contact.
Frankly, I'm going to take the word of a nurse and a local gov worker than you. Both of whom I still consider friends.
One thing we did do in summer 2020 was hold some outdoor drive-in movie nights. People could only go inside to use the bathroom. We did have some hand sanitizer around. By that time, there were already recalls on some hand sanitizer that companies had been putting methanol in them, which can make people go blind, or can be lethal. I went through the area and found about half our bottles were on the recall list.
This is a good example of why "if we only save one life, it's worth it" is a phrase that should be eliminated from the English language. There are always tradeoffs. Always. This tradeoff was not worth it at all. The phrase only serves to stop people from thinking those tradeoffs through.
There are certain types of cops who take the job because they get to do stuff like this. I personally don't understand the mindset at all and I'm not going to try to explain it. It's just very clear that they relish the opportunity to do it.
ICE wanted to do this. Plenty of other agencies have resisted Trump's orders in court. In contrast, ICE was given permission to be the version of themselves they always wanted to be, and this is what it is.
Normally, I do give the benefit of a doubt for the first year or so of economic news under a new President no matter which party. Policies do not usually have time to have that kind of effect so quickly. It's great when you can point to a President you don't like and say "see, the economy went down", but it usually doesn't work that way.
Not this time. Trump moved so fast to break so much that he gets to own the whole thing. Doubly so when the Fed's predictions had been pointing downward when they had been pointing upward before Trump took office.
This would have come from a time when ancient Judaism was evolving out of its polytheistic roots. The early sections of the Hebrew scriptures tended to treat other gods as existing, but you're only supposed to worship YHWH.
Likely, there was some specific ritual that had been used in local polytheistic practices, and it's specifically telling you not to do that.
This is an issue for the sort of fundamentalists who insist that absolutely everything in the bible is useful for modern times. You say that, but then what's this goat milk thing about? How about all the idolatry prohibitions when many modern Christians won't regularly encounter religions that use idols? Why is there a whole book devoted to Solomon's horny poetry?
You can kinda come up with answers to those, but they will invariably involve some kind of "reading between the lines". That is, reading assumptions into the text that aren't explicitly stated. Which fundamentalists also say you're not supposed to do.