Also, it's wrong to say that wanting to eat a meat substitute is immoral. Because its not eating the meat that is immoral, its the killing. You don't bring in any additional suffering into the world by having the meat, if no death or suffering was needed to get it.
I don't see why eating meat should be immoral at all if you get your meat from a responsible breeder that treats his animals well until the day they get killed! All of nature is full of animals eating each other and most of it is done in a way more brutal manner. Is the lion then an immoral beast that feasts, in a way literally, on the suffering of other beings? Most of the things were eating produce suffering in one or the other way, sometimes great sometimes small .... a wheat field has no natural diversity, especially treated in a modern fashion. An industrial-grade soy field is not overly much more a habitat for animals than a parking lot ...at least the parking lot doesn't get turned over 2-3 times a year... . I think just IMMORAL and MORAL are too grand of a word in a world which is maybe too complex for them.
The difference is that lions and other animals have no choice. They don't have the mental faculties to consider the morality of their actions, much less create synthetics to what they'd consider immoral. Saying "it's nature, we're just animals" is a pretty bad dodge. Animals in nature do terrible things all the time without thinking twice, eating their mates or children, raping to procreate, keeping a body alive and laying your eggs inside it, and so on. Just because it happens in nature doesn't excuse when beings capable of greater and abstract thought behave immorally.
@@HungrigerHugo89 but unlike animals humans can choose not to eat meat? Animals are ruthless bastards you wouldn't rape someone using the justification dolphins do it. And the killing isn't the only issue with eating meat. Like sure killing is bad but raising animals is terrible for the environment. The amount of food grown to feed a cow is mostly wasted energy we could've used to feed people more efficiently. Humans don't need to get nutrients from meat but we choose to because we like the taste (I'm not a vegetarian or vegan). Growing meat in a lab mostly gets around the huge energy waste and the killing problem.
@@katiecaldwell4087 it’s a bit misleading to classify what dolphins and shark do as rape, even though when looking at it certainly feels that way. A dolphin can’t roll themselves over, it’s literally required for them in order to procreate. There are more cows alive now because of farming than if there wasn’t farming. If we stop farming them, what do you think happens to their population? The diet of a small planet book is misleading as often the only way to get nutrients back into the soil, sustainably, is through a cow pooing and then kneading it’s poo deeper into the dirt. This also acts as an incredible carbon sink if done right. We might literally need to be farming cows (in more sustainable, less cruel ways) in order to prevent our own extinction
Im sorry Brady I have to disagree with your argument. For me at least the enjoyment from eating meat comes from the the flavour and texture of the meat not from some sort of primal thrill of consuming the flesh of another. Therefor i fail to see any immorality associated with trying to reproduce those flavours and textures in a synthetic product. If we were creating virtual cows to slaughter in order to satiate our inner animal then maybe id see your point.
It works from the other end of the killing as well, there's a sportsmanship skill level to killing either by knife, arrow, gun or strategy, and e have developed games that test and improve those skills separately from strictly killing for the enjoyment of the ones doing it as hobby and the ones who watch the sport. The most stark example of this is of course MMA/Kickbox/Boxing.
American law student me feels compelled to note that the American legal profession does seem aware and anxious about making contracts and legal language more understandable. At my law school, Latin phrases are generally discouraged and considered bad writing, something you get marked down for. Much of my writing education is centered on concise, plain English explanations of complex legal things. There is a strong emphasis of brevity and clarity. But legalese is going to stay a thing. The benefits of phrasing important contact terms as a series of seemingly awkward logical statements and not in colloquial English to eliminate ambiguity is not going away. Using terms like "Act of god" or "contempt of court" or "cease and desist" or some of the lingering latin phrases, mens rae, as a short hand for particular, sometimes complex, legal meanings that would require a deal more plain English language to explain, is genuinely helpful sometimes for clear and concise communication of those legal ideas. Using a number of conjunctive ands or ors to increase or narrow the scope of a clause has a purpose. So excessive legalese is problematic. Latin is pretentious and the lingering habit of older or dead lawyers. I think courts should be especially suspicious of unnecessary legalese in consumer contracts and forgiving to reasonable consumer misinterpretation. But a certain degree of legalese is just too helpful to dispense of. It's something to be toned down, not eliminated.
When my fam has hot pots, there's usually a solid divider in the pot, and one side is for meats, and the other is for vegetables and maybe seafood. Cause the meats cook slower, so you don't want to be mixing fast cooking veggies with the slower cooking meats.
Same, my family usually uses a divider for that reason. Most hot pot places where I am from use dividers. We also use it to divide spicy vs. non-spicy broths.
The difference between the murder room and simulated meat is one is pandering the need to kill. The other is not pandering the need to kill the animal but to taste meat
I feel like I have Aphantasia; when I try to picture an apple I don't see anything. It is more like I have a thought and this thought is of a green apple but I do not see anything at all. I used to (when i was a child) be able to picture things but it was never on the scale that people describe they are able to. As I have gotten older I have noticed that I can't picture things like that anymore. For the longest time, I just thought that this was how everyone experiences growing up and not having that child like imagination anymore. It was not until I saw a video about Aphantasia that I realised there was a problem. I am with Grey, though, someone put me in an MRI and tell me what my brain is doing.
Sometimes when I think of images they're nearly as vivid as though I'm seeing them. "Vision thoughts" can be as powerful to 'override' my present thoughts, just for a moment. I work in the film industry and my mind has always been pretty visually-oriented.
I think I have it to. The best way I can describe it for me is that it's like having a computer without a monitor. If you tell me to picture something, I'll have an idea and tell you things about it, but I can't see anything. If you show me a 3d object and ask to rotate I have an idea what the rotated object will look like but don't visualize it. So it's like all the math and data it's being done somewhere, it just doesn't have a visual output.
I cannot visualize things whatsoever. When you say "imagine an apple" I think about the characteristics of apples. I understand the concept of an apple and if you ask me what color it is, my brain returns with "apples are usually red". For the test of determining what shape is a rotated version of another shape, I have never had any issues. I can quickly pick out the defining characteristics of an object and pick out the other object that matches it. Something that other people find surprising is that I have trouble remembering directions when traveling because I usually only know when to turn based mostly on how long I've been driving and then based on a "description" of where I need to turn. Other people tell me they remember what a turn looks like.
I absolutely have aphantasia. I can't imagine anything visually. When I try to picture an apple, absolutely nothing happens. I always thought that "mental image" was like a figure of speech, and not a literal thing. When I found out people could actually do this, it was like, everyone in the world has this super power but me. Blew my mind.
As a STUDENT of business law, my professors indicated that in certain legal paired phrases (i.e. Cease and Desist, Null and Void, etc...), the two words are provided to prevent the misinterpretation of the previous/following word. Since words can have multiple definitions, this reinforces the specific definition intended. By example, a "frustrated" person indicates someone is "irritated/annoyed." But a "frustrated" shipment indicates it was "delayed." TLDR: The second word indicates a common meaning. Hopefully, this note was "valuable and helpful" to someone.
11:15 I have pretty much phased social drinking out (my taste has become EXTREMELY sensitive after a massive head injury). I was a heavy drinker when i came to social situations back in my hay-day, and definitely look like someone who is ready to get a drink on hard if it was appropriate. But even for me, old acquaintances and 90% of new people who ask me if I want a drink, or what I'm drinking, don't really care that i don't drink alcohol anymore and will only offer me non-alcoholic drinks for the rest of the night. I'm never against someone asking me, because I'm not *against* myself drinking alcohol, I just never feel like my erratic taste swings are going to enjoy consuming it at the time. I still had crazy fun the 2 times I'd gotten drunk in the last 5 years, I just enjoy myself enough without.
I would recommend you read about Patrick O. Brown, the founder of Impossible Foods. He was a biochemistry professor and tried to create plant-based meat alternatives, not for moral reasons, but because of environmental reasons, hoping that plant-based meat alternatives will help phase out the environmentally damaging meat production industry. He had hypothesized that the "meaty" flavor of meat came from the heme present in it, and then the teams did many studies trying to verify this, and the plant-based burgers, etc. are made by extracting heme from plants that do contain them (I think initially they had tested with clover). Given the knowledge of that being the process by which the "impossible" meats are created, I can't imagine them having many negative health side effects. I do not know how other companies make their plant-based meat alternatives. (BTW I have no idea what I'm talking about, I've just done minimal reading out of curiosity. It's not my kind of topic)
Bit late here but it's pretty much the same stuff, economic theories and all. Same goes with financial theories. What set things apart is the requirement of taking Marxist theory classes, but you'll have to do that no matter what your major is. I didn't go to college in China but my parents are college professors in China, and I have a bunch of friends as my source of information (in case you ask how I know).
@@fionafiona1146 For sure there are different ways of dipping food in liquid, but what they call "hot pot" is stock. The slices of meat are super thin so they cook really quickly. From the wikipedia, hotpot is "a Chinese cooking method, prepared with a simmering pot of soup stock at the dining table, containing a variety of East Asian foodstuffs and ingredients".
What you're talking about is fondue. From the wiki: "Since the 1950s, the term "fondue" has been generalized to other dishes in which a food is dipped into a communal pot of liquid kept hot in a fondue pot: chocolate fondue, fondue au chocolat, in which pieces of fruit or pastry are dipped into a melted chocolate mixture, and fondue bourguignonne, in which pieces of meat are cooked in hot oil or broth."
Few comments about Brady's experience in China: I do think this is their own hospitality style... I am married to a chinese lady who happens to have her both parents (soon to be retiring at that time) mathematics lecturers in university... I went there for our wedding, and few days before the ceremony, I was taken to the main building... got into this fine dinning room... we seated there for few minutes, not sure what was happening ... then this man came in (no cameras... I'm not that important) and introduced himself as the president of the university.... he spoke PERFECT french...he was even translating to my becoming in-laws!!! he then apologized for not being able to attend our wedding, and wished us all the best.. we had a nice hour...2 hours lunch time
"what other activity can you do while listening to a podcast" Really Brady? after having read a letter from a fan claiming to listen while performing surgery.. ;)
When I started hello internet and had loads of content, I would listen to it while doing loads of things like crashing airplanes and discovering water on mars. These days I listen intently to every second several times without any distraction before moving on. JKJK but I do now listen as a singular activity because I enjoy the content and don't want to squander it.
When I use my mind's eye to visualize an object like an apple, the image is wispy, like a lucid dream. The object is nothing like actually seeing an actual apple, but forms slowly by focussing on parts of it. The shape, color, and details are in constant flux. It only parts of comes it comes into shape if I think of it, the stem, the freckles spots, the gradient color of red to green. Usually looking at its side view, the iconic apple shape. I could rotate the view, but have trouble viewing the top, bottom, angled shape as clearly as looking at it from the side. It forms distorted, like a child's drawing.
This is the first podcast I listen to and I felt so identified because I actually was sitting with my eyes closed when Grey said nobody would do this. So crazy
The murder room has nothing wrong morally. The question would be the psychological effects it would have on that person, and how that affects society as a whole.
cubandarknez i can only imagine it would be almost the same affect as a graphically violent video game, but now that I say that, I need a psych study and a game to test this on. Who knows, might major in psychology after all...
garak ward little late for that, but i decided im gonna study how to change people's beliefs rather than violence. or studying how effective using violence is to change people's beliefs....hmmmm....
RE: Legalese: The main problem is that legal words have specific meanings, that don't necessarily mean the same thing to the general public. "Injured" means a certain thing in the context to an assault law, but something else in a lawsuit. For example "hovercrafts" in the UK have a special classification, which isn't included in "or other vessel". So a hovercraft has to be added specifically. Also many basic words mean different things depending on the context. For example, "Shall" to most people means "may", but in the legal sense it means "must".
I do pay attention but I have to say I am listening to this while rock climbing just as background. I definitely feel i retain everything and dont miss a beat.
I do some stuff on my phone and check other tabs I have open when listening to this podcast. But make sure that the other things I'm doing don't involve reading or listening.
From personal experience (admittedly anecdotal of course), people tend to be far more noticing and sometimes even offended (if not downright hostile) about not eating meat than not drinking alcohol. I've rarely been more confused and exhausted than when someone's getting _angry_ at me because meat makes me sick.
I'm the 5%, got a bad migraine so I put this on and put my airplane blinds on and currently standing on a couch until the meds kick in. But yeah 95% of the time I would be working or browsing Reddit while listening to this.
I think laws that are too wordy are often written by lawmakers on purpose to be as hard to understand as possible. This is either to get it passed without a committee arguing against it for some stupid reason, OR because the fewer people who are aware of it and know what it says the less likely the lawmaker will get in trouble for writing the law.
as a graphic designer i have encountered many people who can not visualize things. i explain, it would be like this..only blue. or this logo..only this big on the side of the car. many clients would not be able to visualize it and insisted i mocked it up showing a picture of what the whole would be. my sister is like this and was very hesitant on having new railings on her front stairs.
a panda bear named Bei-Bei has recently been moved back to China. 'tis a tragic news, life will never be the same without him. At least he gets to be back with his brother and sister in China
Next time, if there is one, Brady, ask to have separate compartments in the hot pot. All hot pot restaurants have this, mainly to have different flavors of broth or for people who don't like spicy, but it works for vegetarian too.
Brady really has come a long way! He's gone from "I don't swear", to saying wankers in such a casual manner. P.S: For Americans: some British terms, like 'wanker' and 'fanny', may just be mild and funny in the States, but in the UK they're pretty strong.
41:10 Fuck yes Grey, you're so on point here. Some people just cannot stop talking about how they're so special. When they have some kind of problem, your solution obviously doesn't work for them.
The law is written in a way that is hard for people to understand because language is complicated and amorphous. As a very personable person you're likely to use a lot more rhetoric and context clues but law needs to be very specific and explicit or you end up creating loopholes you didn't intend to. Punctuation can change the meaning of the entire phrase and not using punctuation is actually an effort to make it more clear. Moreover, because legal documents are meant to last and language is fluid, if it's written as language is commonly used the law would be interpreted differently in the future when language changes.
exactly, the example grey gave with "why not say anywhere" is to prevent creating a loophole. If you say an authorized person can enter anywhere then that legally means anywhere they suspect bee sounds coming from instead of locations and vehicles that may carry bees. Anywhere is such an ambigious word that one horrible lawyer could describe abuse as "searching in anywhere".
@@Userext47 Indeed, I was listening to a law school podcast wherein the host was previously editor of the law review at their law school and she said "By the time you're done here you'll be able to tell the difference between a regular and italicized comma and know why it matters." (paraphrased)
21:00 Brady I totally understand your situation. I was invited to China during my PhD and had the same feeling as you. Really felt the Imposter syndrome!
Personally, I do listen to these podcasts actively. I do pay attention to every argument and enjoy it as much as watching a nice video or so. Maybe the real reason is CGP Grey
I wanna make fun of Grey mentioning cleaning up computer files as an activity, but I honestly can't. I probably spend more time on digital cleaning than physical cleaning.
Eating meat is not based on cruelty but on experiencing good tasting food. So if you remove actual cruelty you're good. There's no inherent wrongness in that. But with Murder rooms it's based on cruelty and it's better to have simulated so that it won't cause harm but it's based on cruelty. So the analogy is very much skewed.
About the streaming services release schedule: By putting out shows weekly rather that all at once, you both extend the subscription period for the user and delay reviews for the critics, thus engaging the entirety of the audience for as long as possible before each show is dropped
"Is not it immoral to want to taste meat, when you don't want to cause suffering ?" Is such a weak argument it is like saying "You want lab grown organ implants, but don't want strangers to be organ harvested against their will, how hypocritical !"
Max Mustermann Exactly. The reason eating meat is immoral is because the byproduct is animal suffering. The instant you eliminate the suffering, you also eliminate the immorality of eating meat. Also, to compare it to a murder simulator is an apples to oranges comparison, because the human urge to eat meat is not a human urge to kill animals.
@@jonsmustache7704 Indeed, we should research methods to extract meat from animals while alive and locally anesthetised so that they can't feel the pain
Zinthe Zweihander Suffering includes emotional suffering. Your suggestion would not qualify. You must grow the meat in a lab so that you never cause physical or emotional suffering to a sentient creature.
My imagined imagery can override reality, so probably high on your rating. But there is definitely a wide spectrum, and I still have trouble grasping that it’s hard for others to “see” something.
tl;dr when terms are too broad in legal speak it causes problems so the thing which first went through my head when the bees/legal speak topic showed up was "i'm pretty sure grey at the very least plays or has played a little bit of magic the gathering, but now i wonder how much," because i'm almost sure that if it was a lot, it would be much MUCH easier to understand the reasons behind complex legal speak. for instance, i'm going to use a hypothetical card i proposed in my friends' discord the other day and then i'm going to try to relate that back to the bees so my brother came up with the idea for the card and it was basically "you can stockpile damage and then if you would die, all that damage is dealt at once to whoever tried to kill you". but obviously you cant just write that on a card. i kust doesnt work in a game as complex as mtg. (just the same way you cant just say "foreign bees are illegal" and be done with it. you need to outline EXACTLY in what way they're illegal) also before anything else, yes, i do know the card is kind of op and also possibly too wordy to be printed. i picked this card specifically because it had a lot of that legal-speak extra fluff to it that needed to be explained. yes also i know it's not that complex. this is another reason i picked this card; i wanted to show that for perfect clarification, there needs to be an EXACT wording on things otherwise edge cases may arise where the text itself is abused or misunderstood rather that the intent of the card, law, or other extremely specific thing needed to be spellled out. as a side note, when this type of language goes wrong in computers specifically, they just simply cease to function as intended. so eventually the card ended up as reading: "if a source (meaning literally anything. combat damage, a permanent's ability, direct damage spell, etc.) an opponent controls (because you don't want it triggering on yourself you dont want your teammates triggering it in a team format, and you need to account for the use of the card in a multiplayer format such as commander in which there may be more tha one opponent) would cause you to lose life, (cant say damage because its slightly different) that source's controller (specifically need to specify the controller. "owner" is different. and so is the source itself.) gains X (variable number. needs to be indeterminate) vengeance counters (the name of the counter is unimportant as long as no other card causes a player ((specifically a player)) to gain a counter with that exact name. additionally, it needs to be counters otherwise the effect doesnt work as intended) where X is equal to the amount of life lost. (providing a value for X) if a source an opponent controls would ("would" being the operative term here, meaning the ability triggers before it actually happens) cause your life total to drop below 0, each (accounting for multiple opponents. also intentionally left so that in a game in which the player with this card may end up with a vengeance counter on themselves, it would result in a draw via self- inflicted damage thus flavorfully exhibiting the self destructive nature of vengeance)player loses life equal to the amount of vengeance counters on them. (loss of life being specially important in this regard as its interaction with damage prevention effects and triggers regarding damage received differently) there was more to the card rgarding the removal of vengeance counters so that the card isnt singularly oppressive, but the example as-is is enough so in the bees example grey provided, "for the purposes of exercising any power conferred on him (so only when this law applies. no abusing this all willy-nilly) by or under section one of this act (specifically referring to the circumstances detailed in an earlier part of the act), an authorized person (so not just anyone. and i'm not a lawyer, but i'm pretty sure this DOES mean you need a warrant) may at any time (once you have the warrant, they cant turn you away at the door, say come back in the morning, and hide all illegal goods) enter any premise or other place or any vessel, boat, hovercraft[sic] aircraft, (once again, i am no lawyer, but i would imagine that each of the vehicles listed here each have individual rights attached to them which requires listing them each separately. futhermore i imagine there may be key location types left out so as not to accidentally illegalize something intentional. for instance if a beehive sets up within a foreign embassy and suddenly flies into an apartment building nearby, the local police do not have probable cause to harass the tenants) or vehicle of any other description (so someone can't put wheels on their beehives and parade them down the street and claim it's legal simply because the vehicle type wasnt listed there. as stated my guess is that it doesnt just say "any vehicle" because the specified vehicles each have individual and separate legal protections) on or in ("my bees werent 'in' my car they were 'on' my car" doesnt count.) which he has reasonable grounds for supposing (i don't feel like explaining what probable cause is) there are or have been (evidence of past illegal activity remains as cause for investigation) any bees or other things subject to control (it would seems section 1 of this act doesnt just regulate the control of bees) under an order under that section (section 1)" so there's a good reason that everything is worded exactly the way it is. it's not just "ass-covering", but that the law is extremely complex and that each phrase and word has a very specific definition that applies to a very specific thing an ONLY THAT THING. so even if a layman were to read it an think that it seemed cut and dry, if a defense layer were to try and excuse a defendant who was in clear violation of the law to the layman, they may know to look up the definition of a premises (which the draft lawyer who composed this almost certainly did when composing it) under the law and find that it applies to a much more narrow definition than expected (which is likely exactly what happened, thus the additional definitions) that would render the document nearly useless. as a final side note, drafting a document like this and needing to look up every legal use of of every word you type for even just one line of text is a huge pain in the ass. that's why these lawyers are paid so much. its not a matter of ass-covering so much as that the document HAS to be composed in this exact way, but if a layer could get away with a more general and broad they absolutely would. not just because it gives the interpreter of the document more power (which is sometimes desired) but simply just because it means their job is that much easier as a result
Did Grey and Brady completely forget about that one time where Brady crashed a Hello Internet party where groups of people came just to listen to the podcast together?
4:00 the difference is you don't want the experience of the animal dying you want the taste whereas the vr murder room you want to recreate the murder itself. In more lomdish terms you are recreating the totzaa (outcome) of the immoral act not the immoral act itself
Hot Pot is NOT oil! It is soup broth! Often more than one kind of soup broth in a divided pot, or you can choose your own broth if you go to the restaurants where everyone gets their own pot. A pot of deep-frying oil on a table would be insanely dangerous and gross. Source: Expat living in Taiwan!
As regards legalese, Brady hit the nail on the head right off the bat: they are intended, *in a court of law*, to be utterly unambiguous. Because of the need to completely eliminate ambiguity, again *in a court of law*, laws and contracts are so written as to cancel out any possible weaseling on the part of a theoretical defendant should that law or contract ever be legally challenged. Legalese is basically /very precise/ English, and everywhere laws exist there is an equivalent in the local language.
I kinda wonder if people with anaphantasia have an issue where there brain produces the image but discards it too fast. I feel like I have it and have a feeling like I had it, but couldn't hold it.
I actually did just sit down and watch the first 55 minutes until I got called out for not multitasking - usually I wouldn't but the Pandas were entrancing
The streaming model of dumping a season of TV in one fell swoop is the aberration. For the sake of maintaining interest, it makes much more sense to release a show weekly. Otherwise a show is talked about for a day or two then forgotten within three or four. With so many UA-cam channels covering television - basically, free advertising - it makes zero sense to dump a whole season. The most a UA-cam video would end up covering is a minute or two per episode. A weekly show, though, gets a hundred weekly podcasts about it. And for those who enjoy binge-watching a show... just wait until the season is over, then watch them all in one go, if that's your preference.
There is the same language problem with psychology and philosophy. I study IT but I still need to study human relations and so. The Textbooks we have are really complicated. The vocabulary and sentence structures are really really complicated. As a reader instead of respecting their language skills, it discourages me from reading what they write. Why do I need to trust someone who cannot express themselves simply?
Part of the problem with releasing shows as one big dump to binge is that it gives no time for the shows to build a fan community or make much impact on pop culture. Compare the following from weekly-release shows where people can discuss and speculate as it goes to say, Squid Game: popular for a while but all but disappeared from public consciousness now.
If i were to make a cynical (or bordering on if not firmly conspiratorial) take on why legalese is the way it is (which is to say that i don't necessarily believe it but i think it's possible) it'd not be about keeping the jobs or industry (although that might play a part) but more so about keeping the populace ignorant or otherwise incapable of holding those in the industry or in power accountable to the fullest extend of the law. The ambiguity in legalese (despite it being oddly specific at times as well, which they point out with the mentions of various vehicles in The Bees Act document) could also leave the laws open enough to interpretation that a lawyer, judge or politicians etc can bend a lot of laws to mean what is most convenient to them at any given time. So calling it a tool of obfuscation like Grey did near the end, migt just be accurate. IF as i said, you want to take the cynical/conspiratorial approach. Chances are it's likely a combination of a little bit of everything that Brady and Grey mentioned and some of the cynical (or bordering on if not firmly conspiratorial) takes that people have. Keywords here being little bit.
I can imagine an apple, I don't need to see it to know what it looks like. I don't need to be eating it to know what it tastes like. I think most people visual things very similarly and there is a problem when communicating this across. Brady asks why the score is so low? Does he not know what shape it is or what colour it is? The answer is yes, ofcourse he knows, but he knows from memory it isn't the same as seeing an apple in front of him. Remembering a picture is different then seeing. Blind people can understand shapes and have an excellent sense of the space around them. It isn't dependant on being able to see. I think the 2 of them visualise the apple very similarly but just disagree on how close the experience is to seeing a real apple.
Most vegan cheeses are made out of plants. For example daiya cheese is made out of is made out of a root. Also vaping doesn't have some of the horrible chemicals that are in smoking but it generally when people use it they use much more nicotine than smoking and we know that nicotine is horrible for you so it's not exactly unknown
Also, it's wrong to say that wanting to eat a meat substitute is immoral. Because its not eating the meat that is immoral, its the killing. You don't bring in any additional suffering into the world by having the meat, if no death or suffering was needed to get it.
I don't see why eating meat should be immoral at all if you get your meat from a responsible breeder that treats his animals well until the day they get killed! All of nature is full of animals eating each other and most of it is done in a way more brutal manner. Is the lion then an immoral beast that feasts, in a way literally, on the suffering of other beings? Most of the things were eating produce suffering in one or the other way, sometimes great sometimes small .... a wheat field has no natural diversity, especially treated in a modern fashion. An industrial-grade soy field is not overly much more a habitat for animals than a parking lot ...at least the parking lot doesn't get turned over 2-3 times a year... . I think just IMMORAL and MORAL are too grand of a word in a world which is maybe too complex for them.
The difference is that lions and other animals have no choice. They don't have the mental faculties to consider the morality of their actions, much less create synthetics to what they'd consider immoral. Saying "it's nature, we're just animals" is a pretty bad dodge. Animals in nature do terrible things all the time without thinking twice, eating their mates or children, raping to procreate, keeping a body alive and laying your eggs inside it, and so on. Just because it happens in nature doesn't excuse when beings capable of greater and abstract thought behave immorally.
@@HungrigerHugo89 but unlike animals humans can choose not to eat meat? Animals are ruthless bastards you wouldn't rape someone using the justification dolphins do it. And the killing isn't the only issue with eating meat. Like sure killing is bad but raising animals is terrible for the environment. The amount of food grown to feed a cow is mostly wasted energy we could've used to feed people more efficiently. Humans don't need to get nutrients from meat but we choose to because we like the taste (I'm not a vegetarian or vegan). Growing meat in a lab mostly gets around the huge energy waste and the killing problem.
@@katiecaldwell4087 it’s a bit misleading to classify what dolphins and shark do as rape, even though when looking at it certainly feels that way. A dolphin can’t roll themselves over, it’s literally required for them in order to procreate.
There are more cows alive now because of farming than if there wasn’t farming. If we stop farming them, what do you think happens to their population?
The diet of a small planet book is misleading as often the only way to get nutrients back into the soil, sustainably, is through a cow pooing and then kneading it’s poo deeper into the dirt. This also acts as an incredible carbon sink if done right. We might literally need to be farming cows (in more sustainable, less cruel ways) in order to prevent our own extinction
42:26
Crazy how I never realized Brady was a Minecraft villager
wow that so spot on
People got to like this it’s hilarious
Always has been
Im sorry Brady I have to disagree with your argument. For me at least the enjoyment from eating meat comes from the the flavour and texture of the meat not from some sort of primal thrill of consuming the flesh of another. Therefor i fail to see any immorality associated with trying to reproduce those flavours and textures in a synthetic product. If we were creating virtual cows to slaughter in order to satiate our inner animal then maybe id see your point.
It works from the other end of the killing as well, there's a sportsmanship skill level to killing either by knife, arrow, gun or strategy, and e have developed games that test and improve those skills separately from strictly killing for the enjoyment of the ones doing it as hobby and the ones who watch the sport. The most stark example of this is of course MMA/Kickbox/Boxing.
I can barely concentrate because of the adorable pandas
And a voices talking about murder impulses...
@@Sergalt Yeah ...
American law student me feels compelled to note that the American legal profession does seem aware and anxious about making contracts and legal language more understandable. At my law school, Latin phrases are generally discouraged and considered bad writing, something you get marked down for. Much of my writing education is centered on concise, plain English explanations of complex legal things. There is a strong emphasis of brevity and clarity.
But legalese is going to stay a thing. The benefits of phrasing important contact terms as a series of seemingly awkward logical statements and not in colloquial English to eliminate ambiguity is not going away. Using terms like "Act of god" or "contempt of court" or "cease and desist" or some of the lingering latin phrases, mens rae, as a short hand for particular, sometimes complex, legal meanings that would require a deal more plain English language to explain, is genuinely helpful sometimes for clear and concise communication of those legal ideas. Using a number of conjunctive ands or ors to increase or narrow the scope of a clause has a purpose.
So excessive legalese is problematic. Latin is pretentious and the lingering habit of older or dead lawyers. I think courts should be especially suspicious of unnecessary legalese in consumer contracts and forgiving to reasonable consumer misinterpretation. But a certain degree of legalese is just too helpful to dispense of. It's something to be toned down, not eliminated.
When my fam has hot pots, there's usually a solid divider in the pot, and one side is for meats, and the other is for vegetables and maybe seafood. Cause the meats cook slower, so you don't want to be mixing fast cooking veggies with the slower cooking meats.
Same, my family usually uses a divider for that reason. Most hot pot places where I am from use dividers. We also use it to divide spicy vs. non-spicy broths.
The difference between the murder room and simulated meat is one is pandering the need to kill. The other is not pandering the need to kill the animal but to taste meat
Yes! This is exactly what I was thinking!
I also hate it when someone comments on youtube and then edit saying "thanks for all the likes" I just... 😑
Hehe PANDAring
"What other activity can you do while listening to a podcast?"
Oh Brady...
ima play minecraft while i listen cause gray said playing video games while listening is a luxury
Masturbation.
This is the only podcast I will sit down and do nothing but listen to it.
I feel like I have Aphantasia; when I try to picture an apple I don't see anything. It is more like I have a thought and this thought is of a green apple but I do not see anything at all. I used to (when i was a child) be able to picture things but it was never on the scale that people describe they are able to. As I have gotten older I have noticed that I can't picture things like that anymore. For the longest time, I just thought that this was how everyone experiences growing up and not having that child like imagination anymore. It was not until I saw a video about Aphantasia that I realised there was a problem. I am with Grey, though, someone put me in an MRI and tell me what my brain is doing.
Sometimes when I think of images they're nearly as vivid as though I'm seeing them. "Vision thoughts" can be as powerful to 'override' my present thoughts, just for a moment. I work in the film industry and my mind has always been pretty visually-oriented.
I think I have it to. The best way I can describe it for me is that it's like having a computer without a monitor. If you tell me to picture something, I'll have an idea and tell you things about it, but I can't see anything. If you show me a 3d object and ask to rotate I have an idea what the rotated object will look like but don't visualize it. So it's like all the math and data it's being done somewhere, it just doesn't have a visual output.
Yeah, I have trouble even doing the number one. I frequently wonder if my brain creates the image and discards it too fast.
I cannot visualize things whatsoever. When you say "imagine an apple" I think about the characteristics of apples. I understand the concept of an apple and if you ask me what color it is, my brain returns with "apples are usually red". For the test of determining what shape is a rotated version of another shape, I have never had any issues. I can quickly pick out the defining characteristics of an object and pick out the other object that matches it. Something that other people find surprising is that I have trouble remembering directions when traveling because I usually only know when to turn based mostly on how long I've been driving and then based on a "description" of where I need to turn. Other people tell me they remember what a turn looks like.
I absolutely have aphantasia. I can't imagine anything visually. When I try to picture an apple, absolutely nothing happens. I always thought that "mental image" was like a figure of speech, and not a literal thing. When I found out people could actually do this, it was like, everyone in the world has this super power but me. Blew my mind.
As a STUDENT of business law, my professors indicated that in certain legal paired phrases (i.e. Cease and Desist, Null and Void, etc...), the two words are provided to prevent the misinterpretation of the previous/following word. Since words can have multiple definitions, this reinforces the specific definition intended.
By example, a "frustrated" person indicates someone is "irritated/annoyed." But a "frustrated" shipment indicates it was "delayed."
TLDR: The second word indicates a common meaning.
Hopefully, this note was "valuable and helpful" to someone.
Grey, that is EXACTLY what I do. I'm just laying down, and listening to this at x2 speed.
11:15 I have pretty much phased social drinking out (my taste has become EXTREMELY sensitive after a massive head injury). I was a heavy drinker when i came to social situations back in my hay-day, and definitely look like someone who is ready to get a drink on hard if it was appropriate. But even for me, old acquaintances and 90% of new people who ask me if I want a drink, or what I'm drinking, don't really care that i don't drink alcohol anymore and will only offer me non-alcoholic drinks for the rest of the night. I'm never against someone asking me, because I'm not *against* myself drinking alcohol, I just never feel like my erratic taste swings are going to enjoy consuming it at the time. I still had crazy fun the 2 times I'd gotten drunk in the last 5 years, I just enjoy myself enough without.
I would recommend you read about Patrick O. Brown, the founder of Impossible Foods. He was a biochemistry professor and tried to create plant-based meat alternatives, not for moral reasons, but because of environmental reasons, hoping that plant-based meat alternatives will help phase out the environmentally damaging meat production industry. He had hypothesized that the "meaty" flavor of meat came from the heme present in it, and then the teams did many studies trying to verify this, and the plant-based burgers, etc. are made by extracting heme from plants that do contain them (I think initially they had tested with clover). Given the knowledge of that being the process by which the "impossible" meats are created, I can't imagine them having many negative health side effects. I do not know how other companies make their plant-based meat alternatives.
(BTW I have no idea what I'm talking about, I've just done minimal reading out of curiosity. It's not my kind of topic)
i think it’s pretty funny that these two guys are having a conversation on top of footage of Pandas.
I've been listening to HI all day this is awesome!
What kind of economics do they teach in China, I have an strong feeling it’s quite different from Economics class in America.
Bit late here but it's pretty much the same stuff, economic theories and all. Same goes with financial theories. What set things apart is the requirement of taking Marxist theory classes, but you'll have to do that no matter what your major is.
I didn't go to college in China but my parents are college professors in China, and I have a bunch of friends as my source of information (in case you ask how I know).
John Cao
Thank you for telling me! I was genuinely curious how prevalent marxist theory was in the economics classes over there.
HOT POT IS WATER BASED. It's usually some kind of stock, not oil. Small detail but it was bugging me, haha.
Aren't there different types tho?
Soup, oil (deep-fry), cheese, chocolate ect, raw meat in Northern Asia isn't usually diped in broth for few minutes.
@@fionafiona1146 For sure there are different ways of dipping food in liquid, but what they call "hot pot" is stock. The slices of meat are super thin so they cook really quickly.
From the wikipedia, hotpot is "a Chinese cooking method, prepared with a simmering pot of soup stock at the dining table, containing a variety of East Asian foodstuffs and ingredients".
Sounds like he went for 麻辣, which can be quite oily, but is mainly beef stock based with dried and fresh chilis and sichuan peppers.
Thanks
What you're talking about is fondue. From the wiki: "Since the 1950s, the term "fondue" has been generalized to other dishes in which a food is dipped into a communal pot of liquid kept hot in a fondue pot: chocolate fondue, fondue au chocolat, in which pieces of fruit or pastry are dipped into a melted chocolate mixture, and fondue bourguignonne, in which pieces of meat are cooked in hot oil or broth."
Amazon Prime releases Grand Tour episodes one week at a time
I'm playing The Sims while listening to you guys! Also it's great to listen to the podcast while drawing or crafting gifts!
Few comments about Brady's experience in China: I do think this is their own hospitality style... I am married to a chinese lady who happens to have her both parents (soon to be retiring at that time) mathematics lecturers in university... I went there for our wedding, and few days before the ceremony, I was taken to the main building... got into this fine dinning room... we seated there for few minutes, not sure what was happening ... then this man came in (no cameras... I'm not that important) and introduced himself as the president of the university.... he spoke PERFECT french...he was even translating to my becoming in-laws!!! he then apologized for not being able to attend our wedding, and wished us all the best.. we had a nice hour...2 hours lunch time
At 55: 15 - I for example am building a castle in Minecraft while listening to your show.
I'm digging a pit mine in Minecraft while listening.
"what other activity can you do while listening to a podcast"
Really Brady? after having read a letter from a fan claiming to listen while performing surgery.. ;)
When I started hello internet and had loads of content, I would listen to it while doing loads of things like crashing airplanes and discovering water on mars. These days I listen intently to every second several times without any distraction before moving on. JKJK but I do now listen as a singular activity because I enjoy the content and don't want to squander it.
When I use my mind's eye to visualize an object like an apple, the image is wispy, like a lucid dream. The object is nothing like actually seeing an actual apple, but forms slowly by focussing on parts of it. The shape, color, and details are in constant flux. It only parts of comes it comes into shape if I think of it, the stem, the freckles spots, the gradient color of red to green. Usually looking at its side view, the iconic apple shape. I could rotate the view, but have trouble viewing the top, bottom, angled shape as clearly as looking at it from the side. It forms distorted, like a child's drawing.
"No more weekly shows only season dumps" - cgp grey
Part 0 of a series release presumably on Indians - also cgp grey
This is the first podcast I listen to and I felt so identified because I actually was sitting with my eyes closed when Grey said nobody would do this. So crazy
I usually listen to theses while playing video games. Usually strategy. This time it was Medieval II Total War
The murder room has nothing wrong morally. The question would be the psychological effects it would have on that person, and how that affects society as a whole.
cubandarknez i can only imagine it would be almost the same affect as a graphically violent video game, but now that I say that, I need a psych study and a game to test this on.
Who knows, might major in psychology after all...
garak ward little late for that, but i decided im gonna study how to change people's beliefs rather than violence.
or studying how effective using violence is to change people's beliefs....hmmmm....
Love listening to this podcast. I wonder if there will be a christmas special
It bothers me when hot pot was described with "oil." It should be broth in the hot pot...
RE: Legalese: The main problem is that legal words have specific meanings, that don't necessarily mean the same thing to the general public. "Injured" means a certain thing in the context to an assault law, but something else in a lawsuit. For example "hovercrafts" in the UK have a special classification, which isn't included in "or other vessel". So a hovercraft has to be added specifically.
Also many basic words mean different things depending on the context. For example, "Shall" to most people means "may", but in the legal sense it means "must".
I do pay attention but I have to say I am listening to this while rock climbing just as background. I definitely feel i retain everything and dont miss a beat.
I do some stuff on my phone and check other tabs I have open when listening to this podcast. But make sure that the other things I'm doing don't involve reading or listening.
From personal experience (admittedly anecdotal of course), people tend to be far more noticing and sometimes even offended (if not downright hostile) about not eating meat than not drinking alcohol. I've rarely been more confused and exhausted than when someone's getting _angry_ at me because meat makes me sick.
I'm the 5%, got a bad migraine so I put this on and put my airplane blinds on and currently standing on a couch until the meds kick in. But yeah 95% of the time I would be working or browsing Reddit while listening to this.
55:45 im listening to this while i change the shell on my switch and joy cons.
I think laws that are too wordy are often written by lawmakers on purpose to be as hard to understand as possible. This is either to get it passed without a committee arguing against it for some stupid reason, OR because the fewer people who are aware of it and know what it says the less likely the lawmaker will get in trouble for writing the law.
looking at pictures from comiket and cleaning the house .... is what I am doing while listening to this one.
The reason for not eating meat is to avoid killing animals. If a meat substitute fills that criteria then it's doing it's job to me.
as a graphic designer i have encountered many people who can not visualize things. i explain, it would be like this..only blue. or this logo..only this big on the side of the car. many clients would not be able to visualize it and insisted i mocked it up showing a picture of what the whole would be. my sister is like this and was very hesitant on having new railings on her front stairs.
53:38
Quite literally doing as Grey describes, though mostly because I'm tired and listening to this as I rest my eyes.
a panda bear named Bei-Bei has recently been moved back to China. 'tis a tragic news, life will never be the same without him. At least he gets to be back with his brother and sister in China
Ooooooooo boy I can't wait for that Star Wars podcast!
I some times just sit and listen but I usually do puzzles
Brady's takes are always borderline insane.
Oh Boy! I was waiting for this one. :D
Next time, if there is one, Brady, ask to have separate compartments in the hot pot. All hot pot restaurants have this, mainly to have different flavors of broth or for people who don't like spicy, but it works for vegetarian too.
Brady really has come a long way! He's gone from "I don't swear", to saying wankers in such a casual manner.
P.S: For Americans: some British terms, like 'wanker' and 'fanny', may just be mild and funny in the States, but in the UK they're pretty strong.
i have adhd and the thought of just sitting and doing nothing but listening to a podcast is heresy
41:10 Fuck yes Grey, you're so on point here. Some people just cannot stop talking about how they're so special. When they have some kind of problem, your solution obviously doesn't work for them.
The law is written in a way that is hard for people to understand because language is complicated and amorphous. As a very personable person you're likely to use a lot more rhetoric and context clues but law needs to be very specific and explicit or you end up creating loopholes you didn't intend to. Punctuation can change the meaning of the entire phrase and not using punctuation is actually an effort to make it more clear. Moreover, because legal documents are meant to last and language is fluid, if it's written as language is commonly used the law would be interpreted differently in the future when language changes.
exactly, the example grey gave with "why not say anywhere" is to prevent creating a loophole. If you say an authorized person can enter anywhere then that legally means anywhere they suspect bee sounds coming from instead of locations and vehicles that may carry bees. Anywhere is such an ambigious word that one horrible lawyer could describe abuse as "searching in anywhere".
@@Userext47 Indeed, I was listening to a law school podcast wherein the host was previously editor of the law review at their law school and she said "By the time you're done here you'll be able to tell the difference between a regular and italicized comma and know why it matters." (paraphrased)
21:00 Brady I totally understand your situation. I was invited to China during my PhD and had the same feeling as you. Really felt the Imposter syndrome!
Personally, I do listen to these podcasts actively. I do pay attention to every argument and enjoy it as much as watching a nice video or so. Maybe the real reason is CGP Grey
I wanna make fun of Grey mentioning cleaning up computer files as an activity, but I honestly can't. I probably spend more time on digital cleaning than physical cleaning.
Eating meat is not based on cruelty but on experiencing good tasting food. So if you remove actual cruelty you're good. There's no inherent wrongness in that. But with Murder rooms it's based on cruelty and it's better to have simulated so that it won't cause harm but it's based on cruelty. So the analogy is very much skewed.
I like to think I paid full attention to the Podcast. I was just chilling at my computer while playing Minecraft though.
About the streaming services release schedule: By putting out shows weekly rather that all at once, you both extend the subscription period for the user and delay reviews for the critics, thus engaging the entirety of the audience for as long as possible before each show is dropped
"Is not it immoral to want to taste meat, when you don't want to cause suffering ?" Is such a weak argument it is like saying "You want lab grown organ implants, but don't want strangers to be organ harvested against their will, how hypocritical !"
Max Mustermann Exactly. The reason eating meat is immoral is because the byproduct is animal suffering. The instant you eliminate the suffering, you also eliminate the immorality of eating meat. Also, to compare it to a murder simulator is an apples to oranges comparison, because the human urge to eat meat is not a human urge to kill animals.
@@jonsmustache7704 Indeed, we should research methods to extract meat from animals while alive and locally anesthetised so that they can't feel the pain
Zinthe Zweihander Suffering includes emotional suffering. Your suggestion would not qualify. You must grow the meat in a lab so that you never cause physical or emotional suffering to a sentient creature.
My imagined imagery can override reality, so probably high on your rating. But there is definitely a wide spectrum, and I still have trouble grasping that it’s hard for others to “see” something.
tl;dr when terms are too broad in legal speak it causes problems
so the thing which first went through my head when the bees/legal speak topic showed up was "i'm pretty sure grey at the very least plays or has played a little bit of magic the gathering, but now i wonder how much," because i'm almost sure that if it was a lot, it would be much MUCH easier to understand the reasons behind complex legal speak.
for instance, i'm going to use a hypothetical card i proposed in my friends' discord the other day and then i'm going to try to relate that back to the bees
so my brother came up with the idea for the card and it was basically "you can stockpile damage and then if you would die, all that damage is dealt at once to whoever tried to kill you". but obviously you cant just write that on a card. i kust doesnt work in a game as complex as mtg. (just the same way you cant just say "foreign bees are illegal" and be done with it. you need to outline EXACTLY in what way they're illegal)
also before anything else, yes, i do know the card is kind of op and also possibly too wordy to be printed. i picked this card specifically because it had a lot of that legal-speak extra fluff to it that needed to be explained. yes also i know it's not that complex. this is another reason i picked this card; i wanted to show that for perfect clarification, there needs to be an EXACT wording on things otherwise edge cases may arise where the text itself is abused or misunderstood rather that the intent of the card, law, or other extremely specific thing needed to be spellled out. as a side note, when this type of language goes wrong in computers specifically, they just simply cease to function as intended.
so eventually the card ended up as reading:
"if a source (meaning literally anything. combat damage, a permanent's ability, direct damage spell, etc.) an opponent controls (because you don't want it triggering on yourself you dont want your teammates triggering it in a team format, and you need to account for the use of the card in a multiplayer format such as commander in which there may be more tha one opponent) would cause you to lose life, (cant say damage because its slightly different) that source's controller (specifically need to specify the controller. "owner" is different. and so is the source itself.) gains X (variable number. needs to be indeterminate) vengeance counters (the name of the counter is unimportant as long as no other card causes a player ((specifically a player)) to gain a counter with that exact name. additionally, it needs to be counters otherwise the effect doesnt work as intended) where X is equal to the amount of life lost. (providing a value for X)
if a source an opponent controls would ("would" being the operative term here, meaning the ability triggers before it actually happens) cause your life total to drop below 0, each (accounting for multiple opponents. also intentionally left so that in a game in which the player with this card may end up with a vengeance counter on themselves, it would result in a draw via self- inflicted damage thus flavorfully exhibiting the self destructive nature of vengeance)player loses life equal to the amount of vengeance counters on them. (loss of life being specially important in this regard as its interaction with damage prevention effects and triggers regarding damage received differently)
there was more to the card rgarding the removal of vengeance counters so that the card isnt singularly oppressive, but the example as-is is enough
so in the bees example grey provided,
"for the purposes of exercising any power conferred on him (so only when this law applies. no abusing this all willy-nilly) by or under section one of this act (specifically referring to the circumstances detailed in an earlier part of the act), an authorized person (so not just anyone. and i'm not a lawyer, but i'm pretty sure this DOES mean you need a warrant) may at any time (once you have the warrant, they cant turn you away at the door, say come back in the morning, and hide all illegal goods) enter any premise or other place or any vessel, boat, hovercraft[sic] aircraft, (once again, i am no lawyer, but i would imagine that each of the vehicles listed here each have individual rights attached to them which requires listing them each separately. futhermore i imagine there may be key location types left out so as not to accidentally illegalize something intentional. for instance if a beehive sets up within a foreign embassy and suddenly flies into an apartment building nearby, the local police do not have probable cause to harass the tenants) or vehicle of any other description (so someone can't put wheels on their beehives and parade them down the street and claim it's legal simply because the vehicle type wasnt listed there. as stated my guess is that it doesnt just say "any vehicle" because the specified vehicles each have individual and separate legal protections) on or in ("my bees werent 'in' my car they were 'on' my car" doesnt count.) which he has reasonable grounds for supposing (i don't feel like explaining what probable cause is) there are or have been (evidence of past illegal activity remains as cause for investigation) any bees or other things subject to control (it would seems section 1 of this act doesnt just regulate the control of bees) under an order under that section (section 1)"
so there's a good reason that everything is worded exactly the way it is. it's not just "ass-covering", but that the law is extremely complex and that each phrase and word has a very specific definition that applies to a very specific thing an ONLY THAT THING. so even if a layman were to read it an think that it seemed cut and dry, if a defense layer were to try and excuse a defendant who was in clear violation of the law to the layman, they may know to look up the definition of a premises (which the draft lawyer who composed this almost certainly did when composing it) under the law and find that it applies to a much more narrow definition than expected (which is likely exactly what happened, thus the additional definitions) that would render the document nearly useless.
as a final side note, drafting a document like this and needing to look up every legal use of of every word you type for even just one line of text is a huge pain in the ass. that's why these lawyers are paid so much. its not a matter of ass-covering so much as that the document HAS to be composed in this exact way, but if a layer could get away with a more general and broad they absolutely would. not just because it gives the interpreter of the document more power (which is sometimes desired) but simply just because it means their job is that much easier as a result
Highly recommend: Legal Writing in Plain English, Garner
57:37
I love Brady's American accents
I'm sitting in a NSW emergency room in 2024. I rolled my ankle on a walk home from a stupid night out
Did Grey and Brady completely forget about that one time where Brady crashed a Hello Internet party where groups of people came just to listen to the podcast together?
4:00 the difference is you don't want the experience of the animal dying you want the taste whereas the vr murder room you want to recreate the murder itself. In more lomdish terms you are recreating the totzaa (outcome) of the immoral act not the immoral act itself
I wasn't doing anything else while I listened to this.
Someone connect Grey with Lawful Masses with Leonard French
When did they discuss vaping before this?
Hot Pot is NOT oil! It is soup broth! Often more than one kind of soup broth in a divided pot, or you can choose your own broth if you go to the restaurants where everyone gets their own pot. A pot of deep-frying oil on a table would be insanely dangerous and gross. Source: Expat living in Taiwan!
"UK PM 'humbled' by election win"- bbcnews
I feel like this is the place to get informed on whether this is correct use or not....
As regards legalese, Brady hit the nail on the head right off the bat: they are intended, *in a court of law*, to be utterly unambiguous. Because of the need to completely eliminate ambiguity, again *in a court of law*, laws and contracts are so written as to cancel out any possible weaseling on the part of a theoretical defendant should that law or contract ever be legally challenged. Legalese is basically /very precise/ English, and everywhere laws exist there is an equivalent in the local language.
I kinda wonder if people with anaphantasia have an issue where there brain produces the image but discards it too fast. I feel like I have it and have a feeling like I had it, but couldn't hold it.
I actually did just sit down and watch the first 55 minutes until I got called out for not multitasking - usually I wouldn't but the Pandas were entrancing
The streaming model of dumping a season of TV in one fell swoop is the aberration. For the sake of maintaining interest, it makes much more sense to release a show weekly. Otherwise a show is talked about for a day or two then forgotten within three or four. With so many UA-cam channels covering television - basically, free advertising - it makes zero sense to dump a whole season. The most a UA-cam video would end up covering is a minute or two per episode. A weekly show, though, gets a hundred weekly podcasts about it. And for those who enjoy binge-watching a show... just wait until the season is over, then watch them all in one go, if that's your preference.
I usually listen to podcasts while eating or playing mobile games.
That Reddit one is for real
Edit: Thanks for the gold, kind stranger
At 6:54 and all the other time this panda shows up I wanted him to break that bamboo so badly
There is the same language problem with psychology and philosophy. I study IT but I still need to study human relations and so. The Textbooks we have are really complicated. The vocabulary and sentence structures are really really complicated. As a reader instead of respecting their language skills, it discourages me from reading what they write. Why do I need to trust someone who cannot express themselves simply?
I wonder if contracts and legal stuff are more understandable in different languages
they used to say that about video games, if there is no victim there is no crime, there are no such thing as a bad thought only bad deeds
Part of the problem with releasing shows as one big dump to binge is that it gives no time for the shows to build a fan community or make much impact on pop culture. Compare the following from weekly-release shows where people can discuss and speculate as it goes to say, Squid Game: popular for a while but all but disappeared from public consciousness now.
Listening to this while playing resident evil (again)
was there a hot pot hot stop drop
Great episode! Would love a minisode of complaints regarding the Mandalorian if Brady can get past the first episode.
Wait so Brady gave a talk about a UA-cam channel and China. Is UA-cam still not banned in China?
As they mention in the video UA-cam is still banned in China.
They let him do a talk about a banned service.
The pandas are too cute.
If i were to make a cynical (or bordering on if not firmly conspiratorial) take on why legalese is the way it is (which is to say that i don't necessarily believe it but i think it's possible) it'd not be about keeping the jobs or industry (although that might play a part) but more so about keeping the populace ignorant or otherwise incapable of holding those in the industry or in power accountable to the fullest extend of the law. The ambiguity in legalese (despite it being oddly specific at times as well, which they point out with the mentions of various vehicles in The Bees Act document) could also leave the laws open enough to interpretation that a lawyer, judge or politicians etc can bend a lot of laws to mean what is most convenient to them at any given time. So calling it a tool of obfuscation like Grey did near the end, migt just be accurate. IF as i said, you want to take the cynical/conspiratorial approach.
Chances are it's likely a combination of a little bit of everything that Brady and Grey mentioned and some of the cynical (or bordering on if not firmly conspiratorial) takes that people have. Keywords here being little bit.
4:50 PANDA-ring?
It was Panda-monium
I will do something else or dedicate time depending on the gif. With these pandas, I just watched them.
Differently listening to this at work........
I can imagine an apple, I don't need to see it to know what it looks like.
I don't need to be eating it to know what it tastes like.
I think most people visual things very similarly and there is a problem when communicating this across. Brady asks why the score is so low? Does he not know what shape it is or what colour it is?
The answer is yes, ofcourse he knows, but he knows from memory it isn't the same as seeing an apple in front of him. Remembering a picture is different then seeing. Blind people can understand shapes and have an excellent sense of the space around them. It isn't dependant on being able to see.
I think the 2 of them visualise the apple very similarly but just disagree on how close the experience is to seeing a real apple.
I too am sporting a true crazy person scraggly beard, but I just do it for fashion. Yeah that's it.
More concerningly, if ignorance of the law is no excuse, then laws need to be both accessible and *comprehensible*.
What about if i want to recreate medieval battles and swing swords at people? Would that still seem immoral?
Most vegan cheeses are made out of plants. For example daiya cheese is made out of is made out of a root. Also vaping doesn't have some of the horrible chemicals that are in smoking but it generally when people use it they use much more nicotine than smoking and we know that nicotine is horrible for you so it's not exactly unknown
55:18
yeah, usually @work
currently revising as you are on about doing something else