• Snapz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    4 hours ago

    So who is going to put out the fires, libertarian?

    Well, everyone will just regularly pay a little to the person that has a fire truck and they’ll put out the fires when needed.

    • Kichae@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      35 minutes ago

      I can’t wait for the future where we’re paying subscription fees for a thousand separate essential services and the libertarians start suggestinf thet there should just be a service that provides a single source for paying and managing all of tjose subscriptions.

  • niktemadur@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    55
    ·
    20 hours ago

    Rediscovering well-established shit from first principles and a science-illiterate, history-ignorant stance.
    I’m betting the raw milk thing re-entered society via the crystals and essential oils crowd?

    The same type of people that said back in the 70s - or maybe even before - that television screens emitted cancer-causing radiation.
    In the 90s they were saying that about the magnetic fields in digital alarm clock radios, too. Completely oblivious to the night lamps by the bed, those also conduct electricity. But noooo… it was the tiny LED screen that suddenly made the difference… I guess?
    Also completely oblivious to the Earth’s titanic magnetic field dwarfing and drowning whatever they had with their little gizmos in their normal-sized bedrooms in the 90s.

    • smeenz@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      22 minutes ago

      The earth’s magnetic field is much weaker than a simple coil in a transformer, as can be easily demonstrated by holding a compass near said device and watching the needle align with that instead of the earth.

    • Snapz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 hours ago

      If you’re betting on that crowd, you’re just choosing to overlook the fluoride in the water, gay chem trails, 5G tower and microchips in the COVID vaccine crowd. There is some overlap with the crystal people sure, but much more Alex Jones/QAnon, full on violent basement demon crowd.

    • octopus_ink
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      8 hours ago

      IME you are pegging entirely the wrong group of people.

      For at least 10 years the only people I’ve heard making a stink about being able to get raw milk are the same folks complaining about fluoride in drinking water.

      That’s not so much the crystals and oils crowd as it is the fuck your feelings crowd.

    • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 hours ago

      Rediscovering well-established shit from first principles and a science-illiterate, history-ignorant stance

      This is basically the entire process Libertarians go through before realizing they’re idiots… They have to re-learn all of the things we’ve already collectively learned as a society, generations ago. But I guess they just can’t believe that we need taxes to fund roads and water infrastructure, until they experience it first hand.

      Not even just Libertarians, just conservatives in general these days. Look at Elon Musk and how quick he re-learned why Twitter would “censor” shit.

      It’s like these people think everything we do is just empty tradition, and until they experience it first hand, they will never believe we need a regulation. When the reality is that many of our regulations are written in blood, and it’s idiotic and indefensible to want to go back to those times and do it all again. Simply because the richest dude in the world can’t be bothered to read a goddamn book.

  • KazuchijouNo@lemy.lol
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    55
    ·
    22 hours ago

    Sometimes I’m appalled by humanity forgetting how to make cool stuff that they could do in antiquity and then had to re-discover it, like roman glass, concrete, etc. And then I come across stuff like this and it all makes perfect sense.

    • lennivelkant@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Much of Roman technology was lost because the collapse of state capacity and according administrative capacity rendered the balance of agrarian to non-agrarian workers unsustainable.

      A high equilibrium, where the products of population centers supports and enhances the productivity of the agrarian surroundings while administrative pressure (like taxes) encourage the trade between the two: If the farmers need to pay taxes in coin, they need to sell surplus to merchants who ship it to cities to sell it. Conversely, the craftsmen producing iron plows, pottery and so on need coin too, so they sell tools, which the farmers buy to improve their yield. The state also buys services (like construction) and the elite buys luxuries, further creating jobs and fostering more technological development.

      (Obviously, the elite skim a lot off the value produced by others - just because they did some good for others with it doesn’t mean they didn’t primarily do a lot of good for themselves.)

      But when internal strife, plague, worsening climate, desperate invaders and identity politics all start breaking that machine, it’s hard to keep it from falling apart. And once the rural argarian production can no longer sustain the cities, the skills and crafts of the urbanites get lost.

      • TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        6 hours ago

        The loss of Roman concrete happened before the collapse of the Western Roman empire. This is one exception to your insightful comment. Major public works were halted in the last century before the collapse. The last major project in Western Europe was the Temple of Minerva around 325 CE.

        In Constantinople, a small church, tha Hagia Irene, has concrete walls. Larger works, like the famous city walls, don’t have any concrete. It honestly may not have been an appropriate material choice, but other projects didn’t use Roman concrete either. I think this might be because volcanic ash wasn’t readily available.

        • lennivelkant@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          5 hours ago

          Actually, it’s not entirely disconnected.

          Concrete was mostly used in large building projects. These were expensive and thus usually sponsored by those wealthy enough to invest in such projects, particularly if they were vanity projects. In Rome, that would be the Emperors. Outside, it would typically take multiple sponsors.

          The decline in economic stability around the Third Century, the reduction in profitable conquest due to military power being invested in civil wars of succession and the increasingly expensive bribes for the Praetorian Guard all contributed to Emperors having less money to spend on such projects, with predictable results: Less projects were built.

          This is vaguely recited from an AskHistorians post, all errors are on me.

          • KazuchijouNo@lemy.lol
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            29 minutes ago

            What started out as a half assed comment with only 2 braincells, sparked a very interesting conversation about economics and antropology. It’s been really insightful and it’s captured my curiosity. Now I want to learn more.

            Thank you nerds! Keep up the nerding, you guys are the best <3

    • Peppycito@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      21 hours ago

      I’ve always been intrigued how scurvy has been “cured” several times but only really got figured out in the 20’s after Shackleton’s expedition. And then even still, scurvy is back in the news with people being too poor to afford food.

  • Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    81
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    Also, I really feel the need to point out: pasteurizing isn’t what makes the milk less tasty. Homogenization is what skims the fat and makes it into bland watery (and profitable) Supermarket milk.

    But ironically, boiling milk is FAR worse for all the vitamins than pasteurizing it. Boiled raw milk is less nutritious for you than Supermarket milk, especially since supermarket milk is often fortified back to its original levels or beyond. It IS tastier though, but pasteurized unhomogenized milk does exist, which is great because it tastes like a desert, AND won’t kill you.

    • evasive_chimpanzee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      5 hours ago

      The term that people should look out for is “creamline” or “cream-top” milk. It’s whole milk that is unhomogenized. It basically separates in the bottle, so there’s a layer of cream floating on top of skim.

      I couldn’t say for sure, but I’ve heard it’s better for making cheese/yogurt/etc.

      Personally, I wouldn’t buy it just for drinking cause I don’t think it lasts as long.

    • Cornelius_Wangenheim@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      18 hours ago

      Homogenization doesn’t skim the fat. It breaks the fat globules up into very small particles that form a stable emulsion that doesn’t separate. All they do is pass it through a high pressure nozzle.

          • Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            7 hours ago

            “whole milk” is often skimmed, or occasionally, added to to make it fit in a certain legally defined bandwidth of fat content. It’s not unmodified.

            Also, homogenization absolutely changes the texture of the milk. That is in fact part of the point, making sure nobody gets the crappy milk. Some people prefer it, some don’t, it’s a personal taste thing.

          • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            8 hours ago

            Whole milk doesn’t mean “all of the milk fat”. I believe it’s something like 3.25%.

            Are you thinking of heavy cream?

            • boonhet@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 hour ago

              That percentage value is the total fat content of the milk, not relative to unmodified milk. No cow puts out pure fat.

    • Buffalox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      10 hours ago

      200° F is 93 C.
      And now we have it converted to Metric, we can easily calculate that heating 1 liter, is 1 kg is 1000 grams = 1000 calories per degree it needs heated, so if it was cooled at 5° C you would need to heat it 88° C = 88000 calories to heat it to 93° C.

      Isn’t Metric cool? I challenge you to do a similar calculation using Imperial without calculator or looking up ratios. 😋

      • runner_g@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 hours ago

        I agree that metric is superior in almost every way, but I’m here for pedantry. 1 calorie is the amount of heat it takes to heat 1 gram of WATER 1 degree Celsius. Raw milk is slightly more dense than water so it would take a few extra calories. Cheerio.

        • Bgugi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          6 hours ago

          To be further pedantic, milk also has a different specific heat which would overcorrect for the density difference by about the same amount.

          The calorie is not an SI unit, it’s a cgs unit, and it isn’t coherent or order-of-ten with SI units.

          Furthermore, I’m not aware of any market where you can buy energy in calories. Most will be in terms of Wh, mass, or volume, none of which would be coherent or order-of-ten with calories.

          Except for food, I guess. But how much utility is there in knowing that you could almost pasteurize a liter of milk with a fun size snickers?

        • Buffalox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 hours ago

          Yes that is absolutely true, and since it’s milk there will be a few percent variance it requires slightly less. But still very good to get the ballpark easy, to check a more accurate calculation isn’t way off because some typo or something.
          Easy calculation between heat, energy, weight and volume is so cool, and actually quite often practical to make quick estimates.

      • dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        6 hours ago

        How many grams of fire to make 88000 calories?

        To heat from 40F to 200F with 10 pounds of milk is 1600 degreelbs and we can heat 16000 degreebls with 10 buffaloxen of firewood, so, conveniently, we know this process takes one clean buffalox of firewood. Pretty trivial in imperial* units.

        I agree of course with the use of metric (even if it’s fun to take the piss), but you’ve arrived at an equivalently meaningless result in either case. Now if you want to use a calculator and go from calories to kWh, it’s a different story.

        • Buffalox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 hours ago

          It makes me so proud to now be a part of the Imperial system, I may even switch to using it. 😋

            • Buffalox@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 hours ago

              That’s fine, we buy firewood every year, Now I will absolutely prioritize a dealer using Buffalox units for it.

    • r00ty@kbin.life
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      95
      ·
      1 day ago

      I mean, you say that. But I think there’s money to be made here. If we just create a new name for pasteurisation processes and market it as “that thing” raw milk. Of course with a 200% markup. Free money!

  • Godort@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    107
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    “Tech bros reinvent trains, but worse” makes perfect sense if your end goal is to grift people.

    Everyone knows what a train is, and any investment firm will be able to understand the material, land, and labor costs because all of that is well known and documented.

    When you have an idea that no one has ever done before, then the costs get nebulous. Getting funding turns into a marketing problem, and thats a lot easier when the person paying doesn’t know exactly what they’re getting. Every investor wants to be on the ground floor of the next major innovation, and your job is to convince them that’s what this is.

  • kubica@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    79
    ·
    1 day ago

    I don’t even know how to feel about this… I’m so tired of people’s bullshit in very broad ways.

    • krashmo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      57
      ·
      1 day ago

      This is what happens when you treat every idea as equally worthy of consideration. We decided it was too mean spirited to call stupid ideas what they are and now the idiots think they know as much as the experts.

    • Fuck spez@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      “I’m so tired of people’s bullshit in very broad ways” IS how I feel about this and many other things.

    • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      I kinda feel like we failed here

      Well I guess not us, but greedy people. It’s hard to imagine a more well-educated populace being this dumb. And it’s hard to imagine us not being better educated in a world with less greed.

    • Paddzr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      As someone that grew up on a farm.

      Yeah, “raw” cow milk isn’t to be consumed. You’d be shitting your guts out for hours.

      • beerclue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 day ago

        I read somewhere that certain places have a very large amount of people with lactose intolerance, like north America. I used to drink raw milk, straight from the bucket my grandma used to milk the cow. Never had any issues. Grew up on a farm in Romania in the 80s.

        • Halosheep@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          8 hours ago

          Most people worldwide are lactose intolerant and the large majority of non-white people are lactose intolerant.

          It would almost be more fair to call it lactose tolerance but English is understandably pretty eurocentric.

        • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          8 hours ago

          Not just lactose, raw milk can contain all sorts of nasty stuff. Seems like you probably had super healthy cows, a good immune system, and a healthy dose of luck.

        • Paddzr@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          24 hours ago

          There’s more to it than just lactose, they have very high fat. You’d want to at least filter it through a cloth.

      • HostilePasta
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        23 hours ago

        Grew up working on a dairy farm, definitely drank raw milk and didn’t shit my guts out. It would if you drank, like, a LOT of it. But seriously you’d have to drink more than a cup or so.