I won't buy meat at Walmart. The couple times I have, it looks great in the package, but when you open it, half the weight is a big fat cap on the bottom. I've seen it happen several times. It's often cuts that should go to a grinder or other use, but not fit for use as a steak.
I avoid fresh produce at Walmart as well, mostly in that the selection usually kind of sucks. There are more and better options around. As to Butchers, there isn't really a dedicated one near me, have to drive halfway across town. But a local grocery chain does have Butchers, but special cuts usually take a few days to get in.
>Prescribed burns are generally focused mainly on acreage and reducing the amount of fuel available for wildfires; cultural burns are focused on what needs burned to revitalize woodlands and promote biodiversity.
I wish they'd elaborate on how this is done. Focuses on what needs to be burned? Meaning a type of tree? Just the undergrowth? Curious how fire can be controlled to just specific elements in the landscape.
From my layman understanding: usually it's just dry undergrowth and dead stuff that burns. Getting a healthy tree to burn needs a lot of heat or time, so if you burn frequently enough the undergrowth burns away long before the trees have a chance to catch fire. If too much flammable material has built up, remove undergrowth from around the tree trunks (or inversely, stack dead branches under trees you want to burn, though not sure if anyone does that).
I think it's really hard to burn a healthy tree. Water is good at controlling temperature. Even you use a blowtorch on a healthy tree. You will just make a black taint on it. And a big healthy have tons of water in it. Make it even more durable to fire.
To make a healthy tree burnable. You first need tons of heat source to prepare the wood itself so it is dry enough that actually burnable. But a healthy forest shouldn't have that level of heat source to make it doable (otherwise it will burn itself away someday, just like current situation of CA)
Prescribed burn here exists to remove the fuel, so it never pile up to the level that "Once it ignited, everything burns regardless of it is a healthy tree or what. And it burns forever because everything is burnable at this level of temperature".
Aren't bars similar to dating sites? A forum for men to compete with other men for women. I would think they'd have better luck with group activities (rec sports, craft/hobby stuff) or online groups devoted to something (restaurant enthusiasts, etc).
Yes, but the crucial difference is that online you're competing with everyone else in your city, in a bar you're only competing with the other guys in the bar.
Nightclubs, yeah, most bars aren't nightclubs though.
Bars are a fairly decent place for low stakes socialization, at the very least.
In person dynamics are just different - I met my husband in a bar. At the time neither of us were looking to date anyone for various reasons but we happened to get chatting and our chemistry was immediately apparent. If he were exactly the same person but I first "met" him as a dating profile on the screen I almost certainly would have passed.
Groups could be drinking at someone's house. They're paying money and arranging transportation to be doing their group drinking in public. It's rude not to engage with them.
There is much less competition in a bar. Very rarely would an attractive guy in a bar be picking up 3 or 4 women at the same time. So those women would be forced to not choose anyone, or choose a different man. Next, an attractive man can only "court" a very small actual number of women in a physical real time setting, vs online.
Not really the same at all. People in bars tend to be much more willing to engage with others than they are on the apps. Its very easy to set insanely high standards when the next person is only a swipe away.. compared to in person you can see 'these are all of my options so pick someone and see how it goes'
> Surely you don't think anything goes in a children's library?
Children's libraries are curated by librarians and teachers. There's never been a point in history where "anything goes" in a children's library.
And the internet is not for children? That's my point, social media is targeted at kids. Why is it that people scream "free speech" when hateful content is banned online while at the same calling for the banning of books? They're mad that they can't say whatever they want while simultaneously feeling that other people shouldn't.
History curriculum is routinely modified to match the modern ethics. They don't call this banning, but it really is. Out with an old version, in with a new.
reply