This. And I do their work a lot more slowly because it's not my regular job, and I actually already had to do some of the work (getting the items out of my trolley and onto the conveyor). Now I stand there forever fumbling with barcodes, trying to get bags to stay open, switching between getting items out of the trolley and scanning. The old checkout system is so much more efficient when you are buying anything more than a couple of items at a time.
Yeah this is like saying Aldi “automated” cart return. They didn’t, they got every shopper to do the work themselves. Automated cart return would be if you just gave the cart a little “giddyup!” when you were done and it found its way home. Or those cart conveyor belts at Ikea, it’s only part of the process but that part is automated.
[edit] Aldi did automate the management of getting shoppers to do that work, because there’s not a person standing there taking and handing out quarters, but (very simple) machines. Without those machines they might need a person, so that hypothetical role (the existence of which might make the whole scheme uneconomical) is automated. But they didn’t automate cart return, all that work’s still being done by people.
Just as another data point, I think the word 'deliberate' is entirely appropriate as it differentiates between 'casual' practice (e.g. just playing through a bunch of songs and hoping you get better) vs deliberate practice where you are working on a specific exercise with a specific goal. I can't really relate to what the parent post is saying.
Just to offer a different experience, we've kept chooks for years and it's been great.
However, we do have a large yard where they are free to range around – I think this is key.
In my experience there is no need to kill a chook after 3 years. Average lifespan for a chick is 8-10 years. Egg laying frequency does decrease with age, but there's no need to kill them just because they're slowing down a bit. Our oldest chook is 8 years, and laid her (probably) last egg only a few months ago.
When it does come time to kill one for whatever reason, the broom stick method breaks the neck instantly - easy and clean, just a bit of flapping around. As for the body, we just bury them if we are not going to eat them.
I think the heirarchical behaviour depends somewhat on the breed and the environment. Our chooks do have a clear hierarchy, none of them have died as a result. We have a mix of breeds - Australorp, Plymouth Rock, ISA Brown and one other mystery breed.
Flies probably depend on your environment – in Australia here we have a ton of flies already, I don't think the chooks make much difference!
Some of our chooks have a lot of personality and are almost pets, especially the early ones we basically hand raised as chicks – although you don't want to be too sentimental about them either. You have to be OK with killing them if that becomes necessary - it's still a sad time when I have to do that though.
If you have enough yard space and like the idea of being connected to the creatures that supply some of your food, I'd totally recommend giving chooks a go.
* edit: should have added, we don't keep a rooster which probably changes the dynamics too
We do have some ISA browns which are 2-3 years old, but no lash eggs yet – they all seem pretty happy – I guess it just depends.
That said, I'm not that emotionally attached to them – I like them, care for them, but if I thought they were seriously sick I would put them down. We're all different :-)
there is absolutely a reason to kill your chickens that aren't laying - it costs money to feed them. if you don't optimize for price by slaughtering your older hens you will easily be paying > $10 a dozen for eggs.
all bets are off though if you consider chickens pets, instead of livestock.
basic economics for me: 20 chickens, a dozen eggs a day, 30 dozen eggs a month. decent non-organic feed is $20 a bag, organic is $35 a bag. one bag per week if you have the space to do daily free ranging on a decent sized chunk (half acre chicken yard in my case). Round up $0.50 per dozen for incidentals (bedding, repair, replacement chickens semi-regularly due to predation). That's $3 a dozen for non-organic, $5 a dozen for organic.
Drop productivity in half, organic eggs start costing $10 a dozen, and you have to work for those eggs. Cut productivity to 25% and you are even more expensive. In my experience, you are at 50% productivity within 3 years depending on the breed.
All good points, but I would add a couple of things:
1. Scale also comes into play: We only have 8 hens, and are able to significantly supplement their feed with scraps from the kitchen, which are effectively free. The chooks are free ranging over a similar area (~half an acre), so the lower density means more free-range food for them, I guess. As a result, our feed costs per egg are actually much lower than if we had more chooks, and keeping a few old hens around is a negligible cost for us.
2. We regard our chooks somewhere halfway between pets and livestock - it's not a binary choice. We enjoy having them around so they have some intrinsic value for us, but at the same time if they were getting too expensive to keep, we'd be OK with occasionally cooking one up.
One of the commentators said (roughly) "they can make another rocket real quick, but if they blow their one pad up then they are hosed for a long time."
I like SpaceX as much as the next nerd but that's not "intentionally crashing the booster" it's "doing the only other type of landing you can when you abort the first plan of landing it successfully". I'm sure they got useful data out of it (it's better than "booster blows up in mid air") but this is squarely in "2nd attempt to land with chopsticks wasn't as ready as they hoped" bucket, not "132nd attempt to land the booster was intentionally destroying it to see how much farther they could be pushing it" as was originally implied with the wording and prior example.
Oh, sure, I didn't want to make any comment on what they were actually doing or trying to accomplish. Only that the hypothetical we were talking about would have been consistent.
There's a lot of middle ground here. I suspect what's most accurate is "let's push the booster out of envelope a bit, if we get really nice numbers we'll go for the chopsticks landing, otherwise it's into the drink".
In other words, they were optimistic enough to think that another upright landing was within the realm of possibility, while also deliberately doing things which made that outcome less likely, to get the data they need.
If that's true, I wouldn't characterize it as a second attempt at a chopstick land, that would just be a stretch goal. Who knows if it is, but it's consistent with how SpaceX operates.
No, but I'm neither omniscient nor able to see into the future. It's not clear to me that the sentence you're referring to had been posted 18 hours ago, and in any case, I hadn't seen it.
You are not alone at all, I also prefer singular names for the same reason. I reserve plural names for the rare cases where the single row of a table actually contains information about more than one item, which is usually when I'm doing something denormalized or non-relational e.g. CREATE TABLE user_settings ( user_id INT, settings_data JSON)
Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.’ But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil.
This is why I'm perpetually confused by the official swearing of oaths by practicing Christians. There aren't a lot of new rules in the New Testament, but this is one of them.
No Christian can obey all the statutes of the Bible, or else they'll have to withdraw from modern life. The book is contradictory anyways...another part says obey the laws and regulations of the land. So, if the law says you must swear in, what then?
Was raised Christian (no longer one) and even attended a Christian college where we took an oath to be diligent, hard-working students...somebody better not check my transcript because I did the exact opposite.
He is simply saying that your outward promises must be a simple reflection of your internal resolve. "simple yes or no". And dressing it up either as being based on divine attribures or your given nature is a form of deception, self-deception or otherwise.
"anything more than this comes from evil"
Which is basically true. You know your internal position. It is either yes or no on 'promise x'. Why dress it up?
> No Christian can obey all the statutes of the Bible
Love God with all your heart and all your mind, and love your neighbor even as yourself. All the law and prophets hang on this.
That's the meta "statue". It's basically the foundation of a subset of human religions, certainly the Abrahamic ones.
Most struggle with loving ourselves, our fellow bipeds, or our God, or some combo but the clue is the implication that they are all one and the same. ["even"]
It is really core to the entire matter. Love in the fullness of its meaning.
Christian here. You are not misinterpreting. You are correct. In all religions unfortunately people develop traditions and beliefs that are even contrary to the text, and leaders are not good at correcting it.
Swearing by the Bible is a contradiction. But swearing by the Old Testament alone is not a contradiction.
Hebrew has two words for killing. One implies a guilty mind and the other does not. Ask a Hebrew scholar and they'll tell you that the word used for "murder" doesn't include things like military service or capital punishment. And of course, any other interpretation would be at odds with what actually happens in the rest of the Bible.
That passage says you shouldn't take an oath at all, and then gives specific examples. It doesn't say "on a Bible" because the Bible was not compiled until later.
I really like the use of the word "thine" here. In the Scandinavian languages it's translated to "din" (singular) or "dine" (plural) (with an ee sound like in leek, instead of ay like in fine dining). It means yours. In the Scandinavian languages "min" (also with ee pronunciation) means mine. So the thing can either be thine or mine. It's very familiar language to us Nordic types, albeit archaic.
Very interesting. My understanding is that even when the KJV was being written these pronouns were becoming archaic. If it wasn't for the Bible and Shakespeare I wonder how many English speakers would recognise them.
These pronouns were adopted by groups like the Quakers for a long time after the KJV was made. they didn't refer to a single person with "you" because it is a kind of "royal we" where you ascribe plurality to a singular person (when they believed that only applied to God).
When the KJV uses thou or you (it uses both depending on plural vs singular pronoun references), that is because the underlying text is implying something different. Translations without this distinction are losing some of their meaning.
It's, for lack of a better term, "High English." It is meant to sound grand, and thus the grander old style was used. Which is entirely appropriate; IIRC the original Hebrew uses grander language for poetic passages & the words of the LORD.
It uses them because there is an actual difference. In modern English, you cannot tell if "you" is referring to one individual or a group without examining the surrounding context and adding your own judgement (a translator looking at the original text will have much better judgement).
From Wikipedia: "The 1611 and 1769 texts of the first three verses from I Corinthians 13 are given below.
[1611] 1. Though I speake with the tongues of men & of Angels, and haue not charity, I am become as sounding brasse or a tinkling cymbal. 2 And though I haue the gift of prophesie, and vnderstand all mysteries and all knowledge: and though I haue all faith, so that I could remooue mountaines, and haue no charitie, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestowe all my goods to feede the poore, and though I giue my body to bee burned, and haue not charitie, it profiteth me nothing.
[1769] 1. Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing."
The ESV (English Standard Version) is considered the modern equivalent.
[2016] 1. If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.
You've mentioned “concepts, analogies, and metaphors of that era are now of no relevance to the common happenings of the present day” before you edited your comment. I think it is the grave error that results in the rest of your conclusions about “malfunctioning brains” (which is one of the hopelessly obsolete “concepts, analogies, and metaphors” still so common in the present day).
It totally possible to post the same quote as some kind of proto-Anarchist slogan. “Never let any earthly power control what you should do”, and so on. Whoosh, and Bible becomes hip. Of course, it would be incorrect, but who cares?
The paradox is that most actual is most often most transitory, and most ignored and overlooked is most often the most solid. “Philosophy is untimely”, etc.
I edited it several times. I was using GPT to generate old English to try to convey the difficulty of encoding information. I ultimately removed those paragraphs and went with the more interesting point about pushing thought in a way that causes the brain to work harder or deadlock.
My grandmother, who was fit and healthy into her 90s, used to chuckle at the idea of "exercising". I now understand where she was coming from – a simple active lifestyle can be all the exercise one needs.
These days I live in a rural Australian town and mostly walk or ride a bike to get around. We don't have a TV, a dishwasher, an air-conditioner or a ride-on lawn mower. Life is great. I'm working on a small building project in my spare time and instead of using machinery to level the ground, I just used a mattock and shovel (like my grandfather would have). It took weeks instead of hours, but that's OK.
I always experienced them 'back-to-front' as well, and I believe it is what happens if your eyes are focusing on a point in front of the picture ('cross-eyed') instead of a point behind it.
With a lot of effort, I can see it the right way by putting the image very close to my face, and relaxing my eyes to focus on an imaginary point beyond the page/screen. Then I slowly back away so that the image fits more comfortably in my field of view. However, I still find it very hard to bring the image into sharp focus, and at any moment the illusion can suddenly disappear and I have to start again.
I have excellent vision but after trying to look at these stereograms for a few minutes I am suddenly having difficulty focusing on normal objects around me. Quite unnerving.
Sounds like you might like Wood Working for Mere Mortals (https://woodworkingformeremortals.com/). I haven't taken any of the courses Steve offers but I'm a huge fan of his YouTube videos.
