Hmm, how would that work? Doesn't yeast also need to fed with flour or sugar from plants?

I mean, you could always bypass the plants entirely and eat yeast-based nutrient slurry

How one with toxic personality can successfully climb the corpo ladder to the top ? Did the toxic personality rewards the corporation?

It's too expensive I thought

I just don't see these endeavors becoming profitable. Whatever you feed to these animal cells comes from plants. And there's thousands of simpler ways to process plants, of which you just need one way to produce a similarly decent result, then virtually no one's going to pay extra for lab-grown.

This just sounds like an overconfident naive man who got duped into being used by a murderer. He thought he was qualified to take this on because he watched Sherlock Holmes and Miss Maples, and he was growing bored of the book he was writing (which he ended up abandoning entirely).

There's just so many gaps in the narrative and jumping to conclusions on circumstancial evidence at best. I'll admit the investigation was not handled properly, but that is surprisingly extremely common. They never said what was wrong with the pathology evidence to dismiss it entirely when the body was already in rigor mortis when found making Robin's timeline extremely unlikely. The only counter evidence provided was his long time friend claiming he heard a female voice call out Robin at a later time, and an anonymous tip claiming a boastful perpetrator that could not be followed up on, oh and a pedophile step father that's long dead. He mentioned Diana wanting to go to the police shortly before the murder but left out explicit mention that there was any evidence it was about the CSA and not something else. The Horizon computer system scandal doesn't fully exonerate him either; at most it highlights that the motive may not have been unconvering fraud/embezzlement. Why did the author not pre-emptively shut down speculation of domestic abuse as is the most likely explanation for this kind of murder? He seems to completely ignore the possibility.

This reads to me like the dumber version of You Can See Everything rather than true investigative reporting. This author is, maybe unintentionally, presenting the most charitable version of events for Robin because he's worried about upsetting or challenging his friend too much. Where's the Amanda Seyfried character to push back here?

You're not wrong, but I think they could do both. I think even without the pushback lab grown meat has a good chance of not being economically viable, but I would personally like to see it given a chance.

Sounds like there's absolutely enough room for doubt that he shouldn't have been convicted, though.

Based on the article, the man doesn't sound like a psychopath. Seems to lack the superficial charm of one and have genuine fondness for his wife.

I looked into CCRC mentioned here and seems like they only refer cases where new evidence has been found. Rejecting old evidence does not qualify. The committee has also been severely hit by austerity measures in recent years.

Couldn't say whether he's guilty or not, but based on the coverage here and the incompetence of the police investigation, the man clearly deserves a retrial.

But it wasn’t only venture capitalists who had started to grow sceptical of cultivated meat. The technology soon became a target of conservatives. The state governments of Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Indiana, Montana, Nebraska and Texas moved in quick succession to legislate against cultivated meat, passing laws that banned its sale, production, or both. The Florida governor Ron DeSantis made a media event out of signing that state’s law, posing for pictures in front of a blood-stained cutting board piled high with steaks. “Take your fake lab-grown meat elsewhere,” he said.

It's funny how conservatives have bad positions on everything. And even if they had a good idea, it's probably for bad reasons.

There is a widespread feeling in the US that everything is a hoax or a Ponzi scheme

Huh. I don't know if I've seen that stated so directly before.

Feel like rather then making nu-meat they should work the other way and do urban farms in big ominous buildings so I can get year round seasonal veggies.

The Knowing, new horror film coming out in 2027

interesting. is he guilty? here's the article from 2011 about the murder

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-13095106

and here's one from this year

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/major-development-post-office-murder-36786238

if he was rotting in jail for 15y for a crime he didn't commit it's terribly sad. if he did it he's exactly where he should be ofc

It’s interesting that the word “sanctions” isn’t mentioned even once. Working in a financial institution I’ve seen first hand the insane the lengths USA goes to force everyone to fuck over this poor country. North Korea has it better but I guess that’s because of the nukes.

Must be that evil socialism that caused so much human suffering, eh, The Atlantic?

This is some real disgusting poverty porn from The Atlantic, literally a publication that identified itself with the imperialism of the North Atlantic empires (England, France, Spain, Portugal, the USA). It's so disgusting to hear this author be "shocked" at the level of poverty and suffering in a country that's been under blockade for fucking decades by countries whose sanctions regimes have killed over 40M people in the last 50 years, mostly children, elderly, sick people, and pregnant people.

Really? The level of hunger is shocking to you? You are shocked? Have you not been paying attention to the literal over 100 countries that annually meet in the UN to condemn the US and its supporters for the blockade, collective punishment, and literal crime against humanity that has gone on for decades? Really? You're shocked?

This author, this article, and The Atlantic are fucking disgusting

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gattaca

I mean just looking around one can see that it's anything but an abject failure.

How many thousands of systems are running Linux underneath?

Let's see - VMware, many commercial NAS systems such as Synology and Qnap, both which you can install almost any Linux-based software on, nearly every "smart" TV, Android phone, etc, etc.

The thousands of free apps I can install - the only "abject failure" I can see is my own inability to know of all the available packages.

In my best Red Foreman voice: Sit down and shut up, dumbass.

He also states that the justifications one uses for keeping ownership of the software are emotional (i.e. “This software is mine, and I wish to control it”) and economical (i.e. “I wish to become wealthy by programming.”).

He was right once again! That's where I stopped reading, no time to waste on such bullshit that I have seen since the 90s.

Hey maybe if your whole deal is about the GPL you should title your long article "The GPL is etc" instead of using and then narrowly defining a broader label that makes it inflammatory bait.

in nearly every Free Software project which exists today, there is a clear “owner” of the software

Not remotely the same thing. Nobody can stop you from forking Linux. Several efforts have been made to replace the kernel with other philosophical approaches, other languages, other licenses, or straight-up other operating systems. They're relatively obscure because the initial collaborative project works. I don't even have to get into projects where a fork has overtaken the initial effort, or projects where the BDFL has stepped down and a committee directs the community's development. Linux is a wild success story, in part because of the monumental difficulty of replacing and maintaining the once very well-funded entire Unix ecosystem.

Stallman does exactly what he shunned in Why Software Should Be Free.

Not the same thing, to such an extent that the author's just lying. Expecting all software to be out of anyone's control is not enforcing control. Fuck off if you even need that explained. Demanding software freedom is not some emotional attachment. It's everything the author allegedly endorsed, two paragraphs earlier. RMS doesn't just want his software to be free-or-else. He wants all software to be free-or-else. The GPL is just a foothold toward that no-masters goal, using and subverting the laws protecting proprietary software.

the GPL has become so complicated

If what you're doing is also GPL then there's no problem. Which is the entire fucking point. You only need to lawyer up if you're playing stupid games, like putting modifiable software in an unmodifiable box, or keeping your changes secret because people access your copy remotely. Just make a good-faith effort and nobody will give you any shit.

While I don’t agree with proprietary software as a concept, the fact that even lawyers—who are supposed to be expertly trained in the kind of language used in the license—are uneasy about its terms

Working as intended. You idiot. What does being against proprietary software mean, if you can't recognize that the license says 'you have to stop doing proprietary software, to benefit from all this code you plainly want?' Those expert lawyers correctly understand that requirement. They're only "uneasy" when management asks them how to have the cake and eat it too.

It has become especially clear how few people actually understand what the GPL does and does not permit based on the responses to changes that Red Hat made to how they offer their source code

Stupid games, aforementioned. Red Hat's fuckery should lead to a GPLv4 decisively shutting the loophole they have abused. You can't bitch about gaps in the license and also bitch about fixing those gaps.

all because a manufacturer put Linux in their products and blocked users from running their own modified software on that hardware. The absurdity of this line of thinking is compounded by the fact that this had absolutely nothing to do with the Linux kernel since it’s the system’s firmware that would stop users from running different software.

Stopped reading. The author proclaims philosophical agreement, then fumbles their actual beliefs at every turn.

What... the fuck... do you think Stallman was against... if not locked-down firmware? What was all of this about, besides users controlling software on the computers they bought and own?

I think, by now, it is accurate to say that Free Software is an abject failure.

Reading that post, I constantly felt that

1. it was way too long. Trying too hard to pile up ‘proofs’ to make it sound less obvious that it was...
2. very much hostile to the GPL, or to the FSF, or to Stallman, or all of them and their cousin too. (edit! not that it tried to hide it, obvioulsy)

Even though we’re in the age of serial-anathema, I try to not mix my personal opinion and my own emotions, regarding anything or anyone, with what that anything or that anyone actually is. So, I have no idea if this post is ‘abject’ or not but it is indeed making all it can to make sure readers like myself can’t trust it much. Which is a pity, as

1. it seems to point a few things worth discussing (just not in the way the op tries to present them).
2. It also shows some signs of not understanding what the GPL is all about. But who am I to say that, not even being a dev, tsss...

Alas, the post is what it is and if most of the time I’m glad to have discussions on subject matters I’m interested in with people I most likely don't agree with, I'm not that interested in watching someone spat their hatred. And, after reading that post, I feel like I have wasted my time watching someone doing just that. I will be a lot more hesitant to click next time I see a link to this blog.

Edit: typos.

Quibi returns

If you don't bother to read posts here, by definition, you're not qualified to comment here. Just reading the subheadings. Not even the excerpts.

it's such a weird strawman too. Imagine I said something like:

I have a far clear understanding of the fast food industry than some of today's "influencers"

Some might call that an unhinged statement

as long as the system of imprisonment is allowed to continue, nobody is safe from it.

I too distrust anything that calls out "leftists" in its opening sentence for seemingly no reason. Gtfoh with the pointless division.