The Noma fermentation lab in Copenhagen has been experimenting with garum for the past few years. There is a detailed chapter in Noma Ferments if you are interested in learning about the process.
I do have aphantasia, and until reading about it a couple of years ago I had no idea most people meant it literally when they talked about seeing things in their mind outside of dreams.
I can describe things in detail based on spatial relationships very accurately with my eyes closed, but at the very most I sometimes see vague subsecond flashes.
we're really lacking in ability to effectively describe the qualia of "imagining" - it could be that some people visualize internal fidelity more closely matching the raw signal of their optic nerve and others have an entirely separate way of experiencing. for myself I can say that I mentally visualize just fine but it is nothing at all like actual vision. if you asked me how is it different then this is where words fail. it's entirely different but I can't describe how.
It's weird. I can construct objects and run physics experiments in my head (not on Tesla's level), and it's a clear tactile sense to me, textures included. I can also play familiar tunes (in my youth this included symphonies, simplified into sections and solos) and mix flavors in my head. But the weirdest part is, I can hardly see a thing in there.
My inner imagination pales in comparison to the visualizations I experience on LSD. This experience sets up a nice contrast of what my mind is capable of VS what I generally am able to do when imagining.
I'm eager to try spending time imagining / visualizing things as I used to do when I was a kid, but it's hard to find time with all the exciting projects and busy life stuff in the way.
US was never really dependent on Saudi oil, and US governments knew it.
Even before the shale oil, US had no problem to expand its oil production to match its own consumption.
What prevented US oil industry to just work was a very strange regulatory framework where it was both shielded from competition, and prevented from expanding, keeping it in subservient role as a supplier to US strategic petroleum reserve.
For all intents, and purposes the US legislation only benefitted Saudi interests after 1975.
US policy in the Middle East is not necessarily about the fact that we get our imports directly from there, but to keep price stability for the global price of oil, which is still something we pay even if we don’t pay SA and friends directly.
Now that we have shale, it seems like this policy is less worth it.
This is exactly the attitude the above poster is complaining against. Breast feeding is probably better than formula in a few small ways, but treating formula use as “neglect” creates a harmful burden on new - and already stressed - mothers.
If breast feeding is difficult, feed your child formula. They will turn out just fine.
Formula feeding is associated with adverse health outcomes for both mothers and infants, ranging from infectious morbidity to chronic disease. Given the compelling evidence for differences in health outcomes, breastfeeding should be acknowledged as the biologic norm for infant feeding. Physician counseling, office, and hospital practices should be aligned to ensure that the breastfeeding mother-infant dyad has the best chance for a long, successful breastfeeding experience.
From the summary of your second link... “ There is some evidence to support the wearing of masks or respirators during illness to protect others, and public health emphasis on mask wearing during illness may help to reduce influenza virus transmission.”
> IV is either a research institution or a patent troll or both, depending on your perspective, but either way, they don't generally commercialize the ideas they come up with, they just license them.
That’s not exactly accurate. IV creates spin-out companies that commercialize particular inventions created by IV inventors. Photonic Sentry is the commercialization vehicle for this mosquito zapper that was invented by IV inventors. Other examples are Kymeta, Terrapower and Echodyne.
IV does not typically commercialize inventions (patents) that it purchases — but the patent purchasing piece of the business is distinct from the invent and commercialize piece.
In my experience this is standard practice in the PR industry and isn’t seen as a problem to solve or viewed as any sort of ethical dilemma.
In the industry these articles would be talked about as a “3rd party op-eds”, and the general practice of finding “3rd party advocates” is a key element of any issues advocacy campaign.
The practice doesn’t stop at op-eds. PR firms or in-house corporate communications teams cultivate a roster of business leaders, academics, politicians, etc that can be called upon to speak on panels at conferences, participate in media interviews, be featured in documentaries and show up in other creative ways.
In the PR world it’s a taken as a given that “your message is most powerful when it comes from a respected third party” so this practice is pervasive and impacts every conference you’ve ever attended, op-Ed pages on a daily basis, and many of the media stories you read.
As for solving it, I’m not aware of any groups dedicated to that cause. Raising awareness is one step — ham-fisted astroturfing made public is embarrassing for a company, but 3rd party advocacy is generally more subtle and not viewed as astroturfing by PR pros.
