Outside of the US, are there any markets BYD can't sell that car into? The Dolphin is currently listing at well under €20k here in Spain, which means its only real competition is the equivalently incredibly cheap Dacia Spring
I'm sure, but the Dacia brand as whole has been here for a long time, so they should have a reputational advantage over a newcomer like BYD. The Sandero compact SUV in particular is extremely popular (in a large part due to how cheap it is)
I think it's worse than that. Or at least, the products that have been built because of advertising are worse than that. Instagram/TikTok/Facebook are all ultimately just surfaces to serve ads, but they've wormed their way into their users' consciousness in fairly insidious ways
> It's specifically about lab grown animal cells, which was always crazy expensive and never produced a good tasting meat due to the lack of integrated fat.
These days they are growing animal fats in bioreactors too, albeit separately from the proteins, and then sort of 3D printing them into one another to achieve a meat-like taste and texture. It's conceptually pretty cool, even if the results appear to be underwhelming.
The closest direct competitor is Bouffalo Lab's BL6xx chips, which do bluetooth and wifi and have an open SDK. Their documentation is very poor unfortunately (at least in English).
Otherwise NXP recently released their RW6xx line with wifi/bt/thread/zigbee. But as with any other western maker, the documentation and SDK aren't as easily accessible to mere mortals (but I think NXP in particular has gotten better with this).
That’s crazy to me: they already have to go through certification for the 2.4GHz stuff, why not include a lower wifi standard in there (for the 2.4GHz band)…
Yeah, if you look at a flagship nRF52840 board like the Xiao Seed, it ships with an integrated lithium charge controller, and just 5 μA power draw in deep sleep. If you are building any small battery-operated device, it's a no-brainer
I had to choose between an ESP-based and nRF-based MCU for my MeshCore node, the power consumption between the two made it obvious the nRF one was the way to go for a solar-powered repeater.
> Then, suddenly, the nausea hit... The problem was not the flavor, not the texture, but the knowing. The Knowing. Knowing about the fat tank, about the sticky white substance...
I feel like squeamish people are probably not the best ones to write about novel meat products...
I'm pretty sure it's just the taste of meat that the author didn't like. My half-sister don't eat most meat for taste reasons, and the nausea after tasting beef the author describe sound exactly like her reactions.
I once ate a dog meat stew in South Korea. It was tasty, not very different from any other red meat like beef, lamb, or horse, though the spiciness of the stew may have muted any unfamiliar tastes. However, I had to psyche myself up to eat it, and once I was full and my cultural taboos came flooding back I did start to get queasy. There's a significant mental component to what we find appetizing. Most people aren't that far removed from the stereotypical picky eater, myself included, despite having eaten balut, live shrimp, and many other "exotic" foods.
I would be fine with that, but I don't think it would be quite as effective as you think. I don't like hurting even bugs for no reason but still grew up eating our own raised cows and hunted meat and still do to this day. Atleast half of that I had a personal hand in the entire slaughtering and packing.
If anybody has even the smallest negative thought to eating meat these days, the very first internet search they do will bombard them with pictures of slaughter houses in the most negative light and animal abuse pictures. If that doesn't stop them eating meat itself, very few are going to be turned by a legit farming and slaughter practises.
My sister is vegan and it wasn't our slaughtering of animals that pushed her away from eating meat, it was the internet showing the worst of large corporate practises. For a long while she merely didn't eat corporate meat and only local or home grown or hunted meat.
It used to be that kids as young as five year old were made to kill small animals like bunnies and chickens as a learning experience, but a bunch of people found this problematic so it isn't as common anymore.
People willingly turned a blind eye to concentration camps which killed millions of human beings in their back yards. Distraction, denial, and indifference are more comfortable reactions than horror.
People tend to seek the feeling of blamelessness when they should seek the condition of blamelessness. Often doing the right thing will make a person feel guiltier than doing the wrong one.
Genuinely, how the fuck can you believe that when people have personally slaughtered the meat they consume for most of human history?
My wife grew up in a country where people would still personally slaughter pigs to roast at major holidays. Didn’t keep her or any of her family from eating meat.
We eat far more meat now at a time when far far fewer people are personally slaughtering animals than ever before in human history, so I think the claim checks out.
People who kill animals themselves regularly are probably subsistence farmers who consider meat a luxury, and what's more, the way they killed them was probably nothing like the incredibly high volume processing that goes on in a modern slaughterhouse.
I definitely think that if most people had to visit a modern factory farm and see the life cycle of one of these animals, kill it and process it, they would probably be shocked at what is legal.
This statement is thrown around a lot, but it doesn't really check out. Per-capita meat consumption in most of the west is only around 66kg/year (increasing to 100-120kg/year for meat-heavy countries like Spain, Argentina, and the USA).
That's about one pig and a handful of birds - even many peasant populations could afford to raise that much meat each year. The well-off were consuming massively more meat that this throughout history. Not to mention the incredible quantities of fish consumed by coastal populations.
Records from Durham and Westminster cathedrals suggest monks were eating in excess of 400kg/year of meat and fish. Records from Italy in a similar period show labourers and even widows receiving in excess of 80kg/year of meat. And so on...
>Records from Durham and Westminster cathedrals suggest monks were eating in excess of 400kg/year of meat and fish.
I feel like I eat quite a lot of meat. And even I find that number rather suspect. Over a kilo a day? They did also do labour, but still that sounds extremely high even for pure carnivore diet of today... Or then there is some sort of significant waste.
It sadly doesn't go back further than the 1960s. If you select Western Europe, the number seems to be falling (back from almost 100kg, though). USA, not so much.
Note though that for what your parent describes, you'd want numbers to go even further back, then you could likely see the whole effect of post-WW2 boom; though WW2 itself would obviously also extremely skew the data in the 40s.
Most people in "developed" countries do not eat whole animals, but only selected parts of them.
So the number of dead animals per year needed to sustain a typical human is much greater.
For example someone who is a much more moderate meat eater than most, might eat at least half of their protein intake from vegetables, with the remainder from healthy chicken breast meat, eating around 1 kg of raw chicken breast per week, i.e. from 2 dead chicken.
That means 100 dead chicken per human per year, though it is likely that other less choosy humans would eat the thighs and a few other parts, so the 100 chicken would actually sustain between 2 and 3 humans for a year.
Right, but that's purely reflective of a shift in meat preferences - a single pig would provide the same amount of meat as your 100 chickens. And historically, everyone ate pork and beef, not chicken (chicken doesn't become a major source of meat until after WWII).
I’ll be honest, I’d lie my ass off if I was the author.
I don’t eat meat for ethical/health/climate reasons. You bet your ass I’m singing the praises of lab grown meat if I had that kind of platform. Instead, they used their voice to say how icky pretend meat is. It honestly pisses me off lol.
That's just plain lying. And when people actually tasted the meat they'd call your bluff. In fact I have to assume that many have tasted it and have noped out.
More than just calling your bluff they would be rightfully upset with you and also with what you represent. Activisits often fail to understand this and think that their "noble" goal justifies the means.
I've seen plenty of videos from slaughter houses, mostly ones activists use to point at the cruelty going on inside, but it never made me feel uncomfortable.
It never made me feel uncomfortable, either. But my feelings don't matter. Suffering is bad and should be prevented, whether I happen to feel bad about it or now.
Can you articulate why suffering should be prevented?
Going with a religious doctrine, the existence of an all-loving, all-seeing, all-powerful God in a world full of suffering should tell you that suffering is a good thing, for if it wasn't such a God would prevent it.
I felt a bit uncomfortable seeing carrots with their tops lopped off in a totally mechanical manner on a conveyor belt, or beetroots boiledalive before their corpses were pushed through razor-sharp blades to slice them up, or corn ripped off their husks, or tomatoes... tomatoes... oh man, I feel nauseous, I think I'm going to throw up.
You joke, but plants are alive and have feelings, just like everything else that is alive. They have the ability to communicate using ultrasound and they can pick up your brainwaves and respond to them.
There's a plant that can change the shape it grows its leaf to match what other plant is around them - that includes copying artificial plants. So it has to be possible for a plant to "see".
Have you ever seen a combine harvester kill animals sheltering in a crop during harvest, or considered how many animals are killed by the pesticides used in crop production?
Dairy is a legit nightmare factory for the cattle involved.
Constant rape. Constant separation from off spring. Tons of hormones and medication to keep infections down.
They are so stressed physically and emotionally that their lifespans are 50% or lower of what they should be. Dairy cattle routinely just die from stress.
Its also insanely bad for the environment.
I grew up ranching and have seen dairy operations plenty of times. They're disgusting cruelty factories.
Every time we eat a snack or food that involves dairy, remember that it is completely unnecessary to include dairy.
I am not sure I buy that. Rape is intensely upsetting to humans, but that does not imply it is so upsetting to other animals. And dairy cows aren't usually impregnated through sex to my knowledge; they are artificially inseminated. I don't see evidence that cows find this upsetting.
It's unnecessary to bring in weak arguments when we have such strong arguments. Cows are distraught beyond measure when their calves are taken away.
I don't care what word we use. I'm interested in whether or not we have clear evidence the animals find it upsetting. And if so, is it upsetting in the way my cat finds taking her medication upsetting, or it is upsetting in the way humans find rape upsetting? Just having to hold the animal proves little.
Having to forcibly restrain an animal is clear evidence that they don't like it, otherwise I don't know what clear evidence you would accept. A good proxy for whether an animal likes something is when it shows aversive behavior around that thing!
The fact that your cat needs the medicine just means that the discomfort you are inflicting on your cat is ultimately with its best interest in mind. When we hurt an animal, or even kill one with its best interest in mind, we do it out of compassion.
When we forcibly impregnate an animal repeatedly and then take away it's calf (cows being viviparous animals, this causes them suffering), that is not in their best interest. Their suffering is not benefiting them, it benefits us.
"Our Daily Bread" is a very interesting documentary on modern industrial agriculture, just shows what happens, no commentaries whatsoever.
The last part shows the slaughterhouse process (at least live cow to half beef carcass anyway), fair warning you can't unsee that but imo more people could benefit from knowing how their burgers are made.
From the "Dirty Jobs" TV serie: "Custom Meat Processor" https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1788060/ that includes some self censorship to be able to show it in TV.
Disclaimer: I'm not a vegetarian, but I dislike wasting meat. Something like "eat what you kill" but with in the supermarket in the middle.
And it's so stupid honestly. Why is this making them queasy, but not the slaughterhouses, the industrial farms, the cattle pumped with antibiotics to prevent infections from the open wounds inflicted by their terrible environment, etc. I'd take cells grown in a vat over dead animals everyday.
This is such a stupid line, it makes me wonder if this article just wasn't paid for by a meat industry lobby. Meat industry who we know for a fact is already putting a lot of energy into fighting alternatives, like impossible meat.
Because, as the arcticle states, the author comes from the position of whether to eat meat at all, so no meat vs. lab meat, not lab meat vs. slaughterhouse meat, as you imply.
I wonder how close you can get with Nvidia's GPUDirect. Hook the fast NVME directly up to the GPU (well, it gets direct DMA to GPU at any rate), then implement parallel grep in CUDA... profit?
So these are not actually "VR", right? They are the same fixed projected display cinema glasses that you can buy from half a dozen different brands today?
reply