I tried both Emmer and Einkorn, but don't remember anything special about the end result. One of the flours/doughs was pretty yellow, but that's about it. It was a while ago and I only tried about a kg of each so my memory is fuzzy.
After the appearance of durum wheat, and then of the bread wheat, the products made from emmer and einkorn (and later also from spelt) have always been more expensive, without having any decisive advantages.
Nonetheless, these minor varieties of wheat have remained important due to their ability to grow in soil or climate conditions where the more productive modern varieties of wheat fail.
So they were frequently used as "backup" crops, for the cases when bad weather or pests destroyed the main wheat crops.
As said in the parent article, they may become again more important where soil has been made worse by modern agricultural practices.
I wrote a bit more, but deleted as I felt it was getting too long. I now see that what's left is missing some context. I also wrote that e.g spelt dough is in contrast very easy to recognize when you make it. It's very smooth and soft, it behaves differently, maybe even gooey. As for Emmer and Einkorn, I don't remember much other than the color for one of these.
Since they are not a political party, the issue will be who will run the institutions. They have 250 people on the election list. Institutions are also made of people. I believe these people are smart and know what they are doing, but they cannot do all of it themselves. I support this "experiment", but it will be interesting to see where they will find hundreds if not thousands of people to run the country. An established party has members as a pool to pick from.
You cannot setup a team of dozens of people to run an important sector of the whole country by having them apply for positions. Not even companies hire that way, most companies hire based on recommendations and contacts. You don't have time for this, they need to form a government in a month or so. Six months in people already get antsy if enough is getting done, you'd be going through the third round of interviews.
Not every country has a spoil system, there's probably no need to change anyone in the institutions (except those very close to Vučić in dangerous positions)
Every ministry still has a team of people that are there based on their affiliation with the currently elected government. Of course I don't think they need to replace every clerk.
This is true, but doesn't contradict my statement. As I said, I am looking forward to this and am in fact not that pessimistic. But in the end you need actual people, and these need to be found.
I unfortunately predict doom for this group. Statecraft is largely about coalition building and who is doing favors for whom. Without this the wheels simply stop turning, public bureaucracies stop cooperating, private funding dedicates itself to destroying you instead of supporting you. This is never going to change, this is how politics is, it's why parties always form even when we try to prevent them.
The essential factor in whether a state is good or bad for the people at large is arguably whether you can draw a clear line around which sorts of favoritism are permitted and which are outlawed as corrupt, and actually achieve enforcement when people in power inevitably break these rules. A cardiologist, bioarchaeologist and a physicist are going to know nothing about all of this. Their job is to work with the incumbent bureaucrats and elites who hold the real power in that society and those people will almost certainly run circles around them. Fantasyland Reddit politics consists of making aggressive, principled statements. Real world politics is about recognizing you have to deal with a ton of people who are quite frequently awful but because they've managed to cling to one lever of influence or another you can't ignore them. They are moving things in a the direction you don't want them to go every day so what do you do about them? Jail them? Kill them? Buy them off? Cut a deal with them? Make them see reason even though it's against their personal interest because you're just that smart? (lol!) You can't ignore them. It's nothing like the deterministic systems all these people have studied. I wish them luck but I think I know how this is gonna end.
The market is still up 20% since May. Some of the stocks collapsing now were purely speculative, e.g. Intel. It was a crappy company a year ago and nothing changed dramatically for it to be a less crappy company, but AI and the stock went to the moon.
Very good news. I thought it was interesting how the EU was more cozy with Vucic. My guess would be that despite this new movement being closer in ideals with what the EU should stand for, they are nervous about the idea of people taking control into their own hands instead of delegating to established parties.
What we've accomplished here strikes fear into the hearts of that so-called democratic Europe. This is a brand new level of democracy they’ve never even witnessed. Their politicians are just as much careerists as ours used to be. They are terrified that if we’ve proven this is possible, why couldn't the exact same thing happen to them? They’d prefer that no one hears about this anywhere at all—imagine, picking people straight from the people, without a political career, uncorrupted people with no baggage! God willing, everyone will rise up just like we did and wreck the political elite everywhere.
This is a fallacy. People 100 years like your great grandfather ago solved problems they had 100 years ago. People today solve problems they have today.
This is about a dead grandfather as he is decomposing in the ground. Not about his life which might have been more energy-intensive than that of many moderns.
Not sure about your great-grandfather, but mine didn't own a car, didn't travel on vacation by airplane, and, while he may have used a stove to heat his house, he probably only used it sparingly, because coal was expensive. So I doubt his life was more energy-intensive than mine.
Now I'm wondering what the CO2 efficiency of a modern airplane per tonnage of cargo/people is compared to coal fuelled ships, obviously ignoring the aspect of _where_ aircraft emit their exhaust in the atmosphere which IIRC makes a difference.
It's nothing relevant to your comment, I thoroughly agree, but just got me curious.
And they will hold on to unrealistically high expectations on the value of their properties.
I was talking to a realtor I bumped into last month, he said that houses are staying on the market longer because sellers don't want to accept the offers they are getting. In some cases people are upside down or close to it.
It has been a long time since people have had to deal with the idea that their house will do anything other than increase in value. He said he thought up to a 50% "adjustment" in home prices is coming.
I think social interactions are very tiring, especially today. The reason being, most people want to be impressed by someone somehow, but the comparison is no longer the person down the street, but some really really funny person that lives on a social media feed. Another reason is, people are getting less and less accustomed to any pushback, since they are not used to it anymore, any discussion above smalltalk is difficult.
It's probably true that some form of a satisfying social interaction is missing today, but I would say it's a trope any will do to make us happy. In general any type of party I've been to recently, I've enjoyed leaving as soon as possible.
The headline is preposterous. The article itself says less than 5 percent people used cash last year compared to 10% 2023. How is that abandoning its cashless society? The only thing is the government asking people to have roughly a $100 worth of cash at home for emergencies like total blackouts.
Yup, its nonsense, nobody to very few is going back to cash but may keep some cash at home as recommended. I've actually had $100 in my wallet for 3 years that I haven't used because I never pay with cash, sold a table to an american couple and they didn't have Swish.
This doesn't help that much because cash today is also useless without electricity. You can't go to a bank anymore to get cash from an actual person. The machines run on electricity.
To say cash today is "independent of any technology" which is what I replied to simply isn't true anymore. Read more carefully what the discussion is about please.
You are arguing something I did not discuss. The post I replied to made a general case that cash is decentralized and immune to issues like missing electricity. My entire point was only this: while true and thus having some cash is smart for short term issues (e.g. I am now traveling and took cash with me I am unlikely to use, but don't want to be stranded without money away from home), cash itself is long term not immune because today we need electricity to get the actual cash. True btw even if you could walk into a bank and ask for money because without a working computer they're not giving you any money. So overall the ship on cash is sailing, it's not really a solution anymore.
Cash solves the problem of getting through a widespread week long power or internet outage, which is already a pretty serious situation. Beyond that is another situation entirely, and starts to enter the realm of canned food, gold, and bullets.
That's a fair point to make that for 90% of us we get cash from a machine that requires electricity.
It's not a fair characterisation that cash is useless without electricity because once you have it(presumably before the electricity stops) then you can still transact with it.
Just because it wouldn’t help with a long-term crisis, there’s no need to overlook the benefit for a short-term crisis. Especially as the latter is far more likely.
reply