It's certainly not real sourdough, but where it has been given time to rise more naturally it will often say so, and that implies it is not a product of the chorleywood process. Could be wrong though!
But yes, I'm not surprised the supermarkets skirt as close as they can to the law and mislabel with wanton abandon.
It's funny that you mention co-op and lidl.. neither of them actually have "bread fresh baked on premises including stuff like ancient grain sourdough" [0].
kwhitefoot is correct and the vast majority of bread in the UK is not what you think it is.
The bread in these two stores is mostly baked in a factory and then delivered to the store where it may be heated for a golden crust (at most). The ancient grain sourdough is (likely) just mostly wheat bread [1].
In my personal experience, I was always suspicious of the "fresh sourdough bread" at Tesco. It was far too soft to be real sourdough bread and now I think it was a straight-up lie- sorry just a marketing label.
I’m not sure about that, but I can tell you that the UK has been regressing in: healthcare, policing, education, road infrastructure, rail infrastructure, immigration control and social care for the last 10-15 years amongst other things. The median disposable salary has also been decreasing.
My tolerance for Apple's walled garden expired with what they've pulled in reaction to the Digital Markets Act. It's become blatant (to me) they are landlords of their digital empire seeking to squeeze rent from everyone. I wouldn't mind paying for their expensive and yet still-profitable hardware if not for the antics they pull on the software side.
Everyone should be able to run whatever legally-obtained program they have on their device without needing to pay someone, and without needing the permission of someone else.
In my opinion, that should be law. (I think that would be net-beneficial to society and so worth the restriction on profits for a couple of humongous companies or whatever.)
I just wonder how products like game consoles would be viable under a law like this. I assume they would have to cost much more and there would be far less incentive for their development in the first place.
Then again, we are at the end stages of game consoles. Microsoft in particular seems to be considering the idea of not even bothering with hardware. Software is where the money is, Chinese hardware companies can make hardware like you see in the retro handheld scene.
The Steam Deck iirc is sold below cost and seems to have been a reasonable success.
The market for consoles would still exist. It would just be that the bar for console manufacturers would be set higher from "make a good console then extract value" to "make a good console, then make the best digital marketplace for it, then extract value" which seems fair to me. Make the big three sweat a lil.
Keep wondering then because game consoles never have been and never will be required by your insurance company to not get dropped from coverage and they will never be how you pay for things in public or the place to carry your government ID or be useful for anything much besides pure entertainment and we usually don't have the same kinds of concerns with entertainment that we do with tools required for living in society. THis "but game consoles" trope is getting real old now. Maybe it's the first you've raised it, but this discussion has many others and so does pretty much every other discussion going back probably 15 years.
I think consoles still make sense for their simplicity and convenience, there's a substancial demographic that just want a device they can turn on and game right away. They don't want the small annoyances that come with PC gaming (windows updates, proton compatibility, configuring graphics settings on a newly installed games, setting up gamepads, troubleshooting game issues, etc), and I'm not trying to exaggerate these annoyances to make them seem insurmountable, just saying that no matter how small the issue is, it's friction that users don't want. As long as that demographic exists, there will be consoles.
MS already allows you to unlock the ability to run custom code on their hardware for a ~$20 fee. Sony doesn't seem to do this yet, but on the other hand, they did eventually get the disk drive version of the PS5 to not sell at a loss.
So, I don't think it'd affect them too much. Alternative stores would mainly just end up being convenient for small indies and homebrew developers, neither of which would've been able to afford the fees to get onto the official stores anyway.
I don't. This is a stark realisation that I have had over the past few years. I would once staunchly recommend iPhones for their strong security, in particular app isolation, on-device AI, and physical device security.
However, over the years there have been more and more instances where Apple decides what I can do with my phone. From restricting APIs to give their first-party apps advantage, to, most recently, not having any (local) method to move voice memos off my Apple Watch.
I've realised they are orchestrating their hardware and software to build a truly solid wall from within which they can extract continuous rent from their captives.
I don't own my device because I cannot freely run the software I create on it (without paying Apple and gaining their approval, which is impossible in some cases).
I'm done with Apple... but there are no acceptable alternatives. Android is bad in other aspects.
This is not a free and fair market; it's a duopoly.
I genuinely pray weekly for a phone like the Framework Laptop, where I can run my own software (Arch Linux) and repair and replace the hardware as needed.
I assume you're aware and have some other reason that disqualifies it (e.g. you're in the US), but Fairphone does exist and comes pretty close (i.e. PostmarketOS is supposed to run, at least): https://www.fairphone.com/
Thank you. I did actually come across this a few weeks ago as I semi-regularly search for new phones in my despair!
It is the closest phone to what I have been after for a while. I particularly like their long software support and their support for right-to-repair. It runs stock Android, however I'm not sure whether that means Google is still fully entrenched into all aspects of the phone by default including through Play Store APIs, notifications, etc.
(If anyone would shed some light on the software side, I would appreciate it because I'm not familiar with modern Android.)
Even if it were suitable I would not be in a position to buy it for a while, hence I am still plodding along with my iPhone but just keeping an eye out for good alternatives.
Edit: I re-noticed you said it runs postmarketOS. That's awesome and I'll need to look into it - I know very little about it. Though it seems many aspects of the hardware are not supported on even the Fairphone 4.
Fairphone runs pretty standard Google Android, basically what you get in the emulator if you ask for the "Google Play" image, sliightly closer to AOSP than the Pixels.
The bootloader can be unlocked trivially (just like on OnePlus/Nexus), but loses SafetyNet when you do.
The company that imports Fairphone 4 to the US (Murena) runs e/OS which is OK. There's a bit of FUD that pops up on HN about e/OS from time to time, but the reality is that it's a mostly de-Google'd but still usable LineageOS clone. Their emphasis is on de-Googling, and usability, not security. It's probably worth a look. I'd say that their privacy/de-Googling is the best of all the LineageOS flavors. You can see comparisons between all the flavors here:
That said, you can flash any Android Os that supports Fairphone, or PostmarketOS to it.
The phone itself is responsive/quite good despite being a bit old at this point. I can do all normal phone tasks (email, web, music, navigation, etc) with no lag or any issues. I have not attempted to game on it. The Fairphone 4 is modular, parts are available for repairs, and it works great in the US with T-Mobile or T-Mobile MVNOs.
Yup, this is the choice: Either a walled garden run by Apple that has a price premium. Or a discounted device by Android that allows Google to snoop on all your data if you want to use a single one of their services (App Store, Gmail, Google Maps) - and correct me if I'm wrong but without play services enabled an Android is not really usable. I rather pay the premium.
GrapheneOS runs the google play services as a containerized app instead of a system level app, allowing you to disable access as needed. The downside is that it's only available for pixel phones.
GrapheneOS is as close to a private phone as possible nowadays, though it does require paying Google a somewhat hefty premium too (not as expensive as the iPhone, still). You can definitely use Android without Google apps, though GrapheneOS does include options that would let it behave like a normal app without special privileges. You can even isolate it to a work profile so it has no access to your main.
I depends what you want from your tool. I get around 4 years of use from the device. I upgrade every 2 years, and my son inherits my old one. I replace the battery if it's below 80%, it's usually once when I hand it over to my son.
That is a reasonable fee every month for the tool I get. I'm not tweaking every little thing and I don't need full access. I don't want it either. So far, Apple has created dependable devices that serves my purposes. I don't see the value in "upgrading" my phone. Maybe the pace will soon be slowed enough that it makes sense, but so far, the leap every 2 years has been enough for me to justify it. I know that is not what everybody want.
I used to do hardcore linux on computers as well, but now that I have other things I want to spend time on, I just need a laptop that is a tool. And maintaining and especially debugging Arch/Debian/Whatever breakage due to an upgrade is not part of the things I want to spend time on.
In principle, I do agree that we should have the ability to gain full access, one way or another. Maybe that means you cannot be part of the walled garden, but that should at least be a choice you can make.
I don't see the value in upgrading parts of my phone apart from a failing battery. And if you read it again, I upgrade because my sons phone is 4 years old, and changing the battery is no longer worth it anymore to me.
But I suppose it's better to just jump on semantics instead of trying to understand the whole of the post.
Admittedly, you plus your son get 4 combined years out of the device. It's an unexpected way to count, but it works. And since you were talking about buying new devices, I took it as a context where that's what the word "upgrading" means too. I wouldn't speak of open-source or third-party mods to the phone as "upgrades", just... "modding". Anyhow. Sorry for skimming.
Wear clothes - I know that hermit crabs wear shells
Make music - I know that birds sing, and a quick Google search shows whales and seals seem to make "music" as well
Theorize - Depending on what you mean of course (but I agree with you about e.g. scientific hypotheses to be tested), but as an example apparently birds "theorize about the minds of others", again by Google search
Writing - Definitely a stretch here (and so I agree with you) but animals do leave chemical markings for others
> Wear clothes - I know that hermit crabs wear shells
You show me one outfit, I raise you an entire textile, clothing, and fashion industry allowing us to show our features in displays of status all the way to enabling us to walk in space.
Both degree and kind. While hermit crabs and other animals who wear garments do very little manufacturing (they use something as is or do some “minor” fashioning), the techniques and kinds of clothes we make are of a totally different sophistication. Our clothes allow us to enter ecosystems and hostile environments, for example. Our clothing is both functional and cultural. Etc.
You need to look at the real incentives in a system, not pick out what you would like to happen.
Large multi-national profit-focused companies are responsible for your food. (To be more precise, something like 60% of calories consumed by western nations is produced by a small number of international companies... I think my point is clear enough.)
Their overriding goal is to make money. It is not to make healthy food.
They do not comprehensively test new ultra-processed ingredients before using them in foods. This is partly why there is a cycle of "oh no, X is bad for you" and "don't worry, we can fix all of this by using Y" and "oh no, Y is bad for you". The test is live, on everyone, happening right now.
There are no general regulations preventing them to do whatever it takes to reduce the cost of "food", so long as they are not obviously killing people. There are many "slightly bad" side effects of this that will pass unnoticed until investigated with great effort and cost.
That's what this review is.
You are finding out now, after the fact.
Don't misjudge the cause though. It's not the ingredients. It's the system that underpins the entire (food) industry.
This sort of thinking risks putting doubt in the medical industry that we rely on for our safety. This is exactly the sort of thinking that leads to abysmal Covid booster numbers.
You are making a hasty generalisation. Foods are not nearly as well controlled as medications, and even then vaccines only represent a subset of medications. Where food is sold, known human carcinogens are freely accessible on the open market and are very popular. Processed meats like bacon, ham, etc. are listed known human carcinogens but persist despite health concerns because of their popularity.
Some medications are also human carcinogens but tend to only be accessible through a doctor where the benefits are thought to outweigh the risks in a professional capacity. It's not like you can just go out and buy a box of azathioprine because you feel like your immune system is being a bit overdramatic lately.
According to the WHO, there is increasing evidence that aspartame may be carcinogenic, a sweetener which has been on the market for decades at this point. Here in the UK even, government interventions to reduce sugar in products have even encouraged manufacturers to include this in even more products.
The real problem is that discovering health risks is a hard problem which often don't appear for decades.
I think you mean that the motives of the food industry isn't in the health of the consumers, but rather the profit of the stock holders and the practitioners of food science.
As opposed to the medical industry which has the health of the consumers at it's heart. Which is manifest that so few medical companies have been issued multimillion fines for malpractice. Like we see so few companies like GlaxoSmithKline and Phizer having record breaking fines levied against them. I mean GSK didn't get a whopping 3 billion fine or something.
Hmm, you know what. I think you have convinced me. Thank you.
I was on a Grand Canyon river trip and offline content decided to offline itself giving me no music for three weeks. That was annoying and made me cancel my subscription for a couple years. I tried Apple Music but I think Spotify does a better job making recommendations for me.
