Barley_Man
@Barley_Man@sopuli.xyz
- Comment on Hmmm 1 week ago:
I don’t think a dish has to be 100% original from the domestication of the species of the ingredients all the way to the invention of the dish. I would say it’s valid to claim a variation of a dish with just one tiny tweak. Norwegians can’t claim the entirety of sushi but they are totally valid in claiming specifically salmon sushi. The French can’t claim to have invented neither wheat, flour, bread, the baking of bread in ovens or any of the other steps it took in-between, but they can claim the baguette specifically as a French bread.
- Comment on Hmmm 1 week ago:
With that logic any Mexican dish that contains cumin, cilantro, wheat or any dairy product including cheese is not real Mexican.
- Comment on Ecosystem services 2 weeks ago:
There are sure to be tradeoffs which would explain why not every animal have evolved similar stomachs. It’s probably expensive energy wise to maintain that acidity. It probably also makes it hard to maintain a healthy gut flora. Also imagine the burn if you vomit up stomach acid with pH 1.0
- Comment on When do we riot? 2 weeks ago:
Soy fixes nitrogen and doesn’t affect the rest of the nutrients. Without soy in the crop rotation you have to simply buy more nitrogen fertilizer for the subsequent crop, which will make it more expensive to grow. Soy is good but it’s not a looming disaster without it. The EU barely grows soy and is doing fine. And regarding dust bowl. Those areas of the US have already switched from plowing to no-till decades ago. Another dust bowl is unlikely even with drought because of it.
- Comment on When do we riot? 2 weeks ago:
Dependence on food imports? The US is a large net food exporter. And will remain so for a long time. Especially in wheat, corn and soy beans. Harvesting grains is incredibly labour efficient. The labour crisis is mostly in fruits and vegetables which are very labor intensive. Even if soy and grain yields would be unexpectedly badly impacted by climate change it will first impact the exports and lastly animal feed and agro ethanol. The yields would have to be unrealistically devastated for it to lead to shortages in human food like bread. So at worst we are looking at a shortage of meat, fruits and vegetables but we are extremely far away from any situation involving starvation. This also includes Canada, the EU and Australia. And it’s not all vegetables either. Potatoes, carrots, peas and onions are machine harvested and won’t get affected by a farm labour crisis and will continue to be available. No one is gonna starve for having to substitute broccoli and asparagus with carrots and peas. No one is going to starve when fruits gets expensive either, they are healthy but you can live without them.
It’s the part of the third world which currently relies on western food exports that will have food insecurity in a worsening climate crisis. The west is at worst facing a more boring and monotone diet.
- Comment on When God Sings, We All Sing 2 weeks ago:
In the case of my own country Sweden and the Vikings I think it’s clear that Norse paganism not only allowed the plundering and rape in foreign nations, it even encouraged it with the concept of Valhalla and the mortality system it had which saw war and dying in war as a positive thing. Now I absolutely know Christians have committed horrible acts in other cases. But in this specific case Christianity was a huge force for good because after christening the plundering stopped, the holding of slaves stopped, the public sacrifice of human beings stopped and society became better and more moral in several ways.
But that’s far away from my point. My point is that monotheism isn’t always bad and paganism isn’t always good. It’s more nuanced than that.
- Comment on When God Sings, We All Sing 2 weeks ago:
If you wanna take up thousand year old history I can as well.
The pagan Roman Empire brutally suppressed Christians for 250 years before they converted.
The pagan vikings regularly went to Christian Europe to rape and abduct women, pillage villages and burn down monastries.
The pagan mongols conquered and raped half the world leading to 30-60 million deaths, consequences include the collapse of the Islamic golden age that they haven’t been able to recover from even to this day.
The shinto-buddhist japanese crucified and killed most of their native japanese Christians in the 1600s.
That’s just some I remember on top of my head. However two wrongs don’t make one right. In today’s world we should tolerate each other no matter pagan, monotheist or atheist. That’s at least my belief. By the way. I suggest you look up the Christian concept of territorial spirits. I find it’s a good explanation to explain the parts of the Bible that seem to be henotheistic.
- Comment on When God Sings, We All Sing 2 weeks ago:
Monotheism is their actual religious belief though. If one says “I believe there is only one god and we call him god” that’s their religious belief. If we are all to be tolerant of each other’s religious beliefs a simple statement of one’s belief shouldn’t be offensive. You should then be able to reply with your own beliefs and both can be like “cool” and move on.
- Comment on When God Sings, We All Sing 2 weeks ago:
Have you really become so hateful against religion that simply the mention of god in a joke triggers you? I understand that you have become absolutely sick of the American brand of evangelical Christianity but remember religious people are approximately 84% of the entire world population. You can’t lump them all together. The immigrants that evangelical christians want to stop are also majority religious. By hating religious people I think you are hating a larger share of the population than the religious people you hate for hating people.
- Comment on Thirsty much? 3 weeks ago:
Those new popular female gym shorts that look like they vacuum sealed their ass with a seam going deep into the buttcrack. I really do think that’s a bit much. “Just let women wear what they want” yes I agree. That’s why I built a home gym instead.
- Comment on Newsflash pal 1 month ago:
Should be whole food and not organic. You can process organic food how much you want. You can buy organic ultra-processed pure white beet sugar if you want. Doesn’t mean it’s healthy or chemically different than regular white sugar. Organic only applies to how it’s grown, not what happens to it after leaving the field.
- Comment on Why can't I apply SPF50 sunscreen twice to get SPF100 protection? 1 month ago:
60% * (1/20) = 3% 3% + 40% = 43% chance to get skin cancer compared to baseline
60% * (1/40) = 1,5% 1,5% + 40% = 41,5% chance to get skin cancer compared to baseline
I did get the math slightly wrong I’ll admit but the principle is the same. And yes you could say you reduce your risk of sun caused cancers in half. But it’s not a meaningful reduction of total skin cancers. Redo the calculation to every form of cancer and you will have reduced your risk to all cancers by far less than a percent by switching from spf 20 to spf 40.
By staying in a deep mine the whole year I will reduce my risk of getting killed by a falling asteroid by over 99%. Sounds great right? But how big was the original risk really? That’s worth taking into account. You’re better off looking into ways to reduce the risk of other cancers than switching from spf 20 to spf 40.
- Comment on Why can't I apply SPF50 sunscreen twice to get SPF100 protection? 1 month ago:
For someone like you I totally understand. Getting sunburned after 15 minutes of cloudy weather is extreme. My condolences.
- Comment on Why can't I apply SPF50 sunscreen twice to get SPF100 protection? 1 month ago:
60% of skin cancer is caused by sun exposure. The rest has other causes. Therefore if you switch from 19/20 to 39/40 you would decrease your risk from 42% of baseline to 41% of baseline. Much less impressive if you put it that way.
- Comment on Why can't I apply SPF50 sunscreen twice to get SPF100 protection? 1 month ago:
DNA doesn’t just start getting damaged before the sunburn. It’s instantly from the first millisecond you’re out in the sun. However it’s surprisingly not a linear relationship where 60 minutes or sun carries twice the risk of 30 minutes of sun. The heavy inflammation associated with a sunburn has a cancer risk of itself, independent from the actual UV dose. So while minimizing UV is important, it may be just as important, if not more important, to make sure you are never sunburned. I can provide sources if asked
- Comment on Why can't I apply SPF50 sunscreen twice to get SPF100 protection? 1 month ago:
I don’t get chasing the biggest spf numbers. An spf 20 already blocks 1/20 of UV rays. I personally get a sunburn after approx 1 hour in my climate and with my skin. Logically I would then have to be outside for 20 hours to get a sun burn! That will never happen. Not even counting that the skin will partly self heal during those 20 hours. Even if you’re one of those who burn in 15 minutes a spf of 20 should still get you 5 hours before a burn.
I say those 50+ SPF sunscreens are over the top and extremely few need a strength that high. Maybe if you’re sun allergic I could understand. And for cancer. Reducing my risk by 1/20 is enough for me. That’s a massive reduction and on top of that skin cancer is the world’s easiest treatable cancer with the lowest death rate. Skin aging? I don’t care. I’m not out to look 15 at 50. I wanna look 50 at 50. That’s my take on it all.
- Comment on How tf do people who work 8-5 M-F get any life done? 2 months ago:
I have a well paying job, not overly so, but around 20% over the national median. I also have a wife and 1 (soon 2!) kids. I work 8-17 with a 30 minute commute. After work I’m too exhausted to want to do much of anything except some gym and maybe some gardening. Before I even got together with my wife she suggested that she be a stay at home mom, which I accepted. Because of that we are far far below the national median family income to the point where we technically are just below the poverty line.
But oh my god I don’t think I would want it any other way. My wife can take care of most of the domestic tasks and the brunt of the child care and none of us are overly stressed or burned out. I gladly take that hit in income in exchange for the huge quality of life increase compared to if we were to both work full time. I still help around the house on weekends so my wife can have some time off from her duties as well.
I constantly get more confident in our choice when I listen to colleagues and their constant complaints about how hard it is to keep your life together. Full time work, 8-9 hours a day, was designed in a time when a stay at home partner was the norm. It just doesn’t make sense if you’re single or if both are working. Maybe we two are lazy but I honestly don’t think we could manage it mentally and energy wise.
I do understand however that I’m very privileged to live in a very low cost of living area. Our lifestyle, with my wage, would be impossible in most of the country I live in. Living close to poverty is alright with me. I don’t desire much and we both have cheap hobbies. We cook all the food we eat. My wife repairs clothes that break. We only have one old shitty car. We don’t travel internationally. But we still manage just fine.
- Comment on Email came out of nowhere 2 months ago:
Yeah thinking about it using the lightning rune twice is really sus. Very hard to defend that.
- Comment on Email came out of nowhere 2 months ago:
I don’t have the email but I would assume those emojis in this case are Slavic neopaganist symbols, also known as rodnovery.
- Comment on quick explanation 2 months ago:
What on earth? Works on my machine
- Comment on quick explanation 2 months ago:
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
00000000000000000000000000000000
88888888888888888888888888888888
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
- Comment on all vegetables 2 months ago:
I was thinking of doing beets, pumpkins, celeriac, carrots, parsnips, zucchini, Jerusalem artichoke and ornamental gourds. They are not vegetables but I’m also planning on growing melons.
- Comment on all vegetables 2 months ago:
I know two local small scale vegetable growers. One grows exclusively brassicas. The other grows exclusively brassicas plus carrots. I’m planning to start a small scale vegetable business myself and honestly thinking of just straight not growing a single brassica to have zero local competition in the local farmers market.
- Comment on Putting down roots 3 months ago:
Nah I’m just very interested in agricultural history (I work in agriculture ) and I learned this stuff as a byproduct of learning about the origins and spread of farming into Europe. If you are interested there are lots of good long-form history videos about the neolithic on YouTube, just search Neolithic. So far Neolithic youtube has not suffered the same AI slop-ageddon as medieval YouTube has.
- Comment on Putting down roots 3 months ago:
There was a time where both modern humans and Neanderthals lived together in Europe and it’s likely they mixed. But this was before the last ice age. After the ice age the Neanderthals were already extinct globally and the first people to repopulate Europe were these WHGs who genetically had little to do with the pre ice age population. Therefore I would assume strictly European Neanderthals have little to no modern genetic impact in Europeans. The Neanderthals genes Europeans carry today would instead derive from middle eastern Neanderthals.
- Comment on Putting down roots 3 months ago:
Modern native European genetics can be roughly said to derive from 3 main sources. One is western Hunter gatherer (WHG). These were not the first people in Europe but were the first to populate Europe after the latest ice age ended. By analysing their genome we think they were dark skinned, black haired and had blue eyes. The light skin adaptation didn’t actually develop in Europe but in the middle east. Here is where the second group comes from.
Early European Farmer (EEF) originally came from Anatolia and were the ones spreading farming around Europe. Interestingly the spread of farming was not spread by knowledge transfer but by the migration and expansion of EEFs. The EEFs and the WHGs would coexist for hundreds of years with little admixture, living completely different lifestyles. The early European farmers, whose genetics derive from Neolithic Anatolia, were light skinned, brown eyed and relatively short. Modern groups with the most genetic similarity to EEFs are modern day Sicilians so you can imagine that. Overtime the EEFs and the WHGs would eventually mix however.
The third group are the yamnaya, also called steppe Ancestry. The yamnaya were a people group in modern day Romania and Ukraine who just so happened to invent the concept of riding a horse and after they did so they steamrolled about all of Europe in aggressive conquest. The Indo European languages derived from them and their expansion vastly changed the genetics of the continent. And all Europeans derive at least part of their genetics from them, of course in different amounts depending on the region. They were believed to be quite tall and have blond hair and are the “Aryans” that the Nazis talked about.
All modern Europeans are a mixture of these 3 groups, in different proportions. So returning to the pictures in the OP it makes sense for the cheddar man would be dark skinned as he would be 100% WHG as he lives way before any of these groups moved in. This does not mean however that the guy on the right is not a direct ancestor, he very well may be. But since he is also a result of the later migrants, the EEFs and the Indo European expansion, he will of course look vastly different.
- Comment on Not a good sign 3 months ago:
I did not know the history of the term tragedy of the commons. Thanks for educating me on that, I will now reconsider using that specific term in the future. However overgrazing is a real issue historically and still today. Overgrazing in the modern Sahel is a great contributor to the advancing of the savanna for example.
- Comment on Not a good sign 3 months ago:
Are those generations really worse than those before it? Yes the environmental destruction is unparalleled but so were also the tools that enable that. In the Stone Age people could not have even come close to doing what we are doing eight now to the environment even if they wanted too.
The term the tragedy of the commons originally referred to English cattle herders letting their cows overgraze public land because if they don’t overgraze it some other herders would do it instead. Stories like this are everywhere in history. The Vikings cut down every single tree in Iceland and the Faroe islands when they arrived with no care for the environmental whatsoever.
Whaling, the clubbing of seals, the extinction of the dodo. There are countless examples. And if we are talking pure human to human cruelty, no war in the 20th century comes close to what the mongols did.
The people of the 20th century were not more cruel or selfish than previous ones. They were simply the first ones given the tools and ability to pollute the whole earth.
- Comment on Smoking Sonic's Stinky Feet 3 months ago:
My goto is explaining how a plant can in certain situations be a weed and sometimes don’t. For example in a farm which farms clover seeds the grass is the weed! In a farm which farms grass seeds the clover is a weed! Same in agriculture, stray plants from the previous years crop often appear as a weed in the current years field.
- Comment on I know you all have big plans for this man 1 year ago:
For anyone who hasn’t heard it there is a banger song about him: youtu.be/PaZXPx1kdtg
