Since this comment has gone far afield of the original topic (cigarette butts as litter), I want to see you complain about the inconsiderateness of people wearing perfume and of people that smell of smoke after they sit around campfires.
> "I want to see you complain about the inconsiderateness of people wearing perfume and of people that smell of smoke after they sit around campfires."
People who wear perfume have the excuse of believing they were being considerate, their fault is ignorance not selfishness. No smoker can earnestly claim they made themselves smell like an ash tray because they believed other people would appreciate it.
As for camp fires, if somebody fails to bath before coming into the office after spending the weekend camping, that is a very clear cut case of poor hygiene, which of course is very inconsiderate.
Are you happy now? Do you think the reputation of smokers has been rehabilitated thanks to your digressions? That smokers are notorious for liter is a consequence of their notorious personality defect of being inconsiderate. They don't care about how their actions impact those around them. That's why they liter. That's why they picked up a habit that makes them smell like an ash tray.
>You are acting as an apologist for every scent that you personally don't mind.
On the contrary, I defended the moral character of people who wear perfume, not the stench of perfume, since they do not categorically possess the same moral defect as smokers. (And I didn't defend in any way people who smell like campfires. People who go camping should bath before presenting themselves in public, they have absolutely no excuse.) Did you even read my post or did you assume the contents of it?
Which each passing year, as cigarette smoking becomes less and less popular, the portion of the population who hate for the stench of people who smoke will only rise. A majority of the public in first world nations agrees with me, and that's not going to diminish. Smokers are left with a choice, either they change or they weather the hate they rightfully get from the rest of us.
Why do you think it's a good thing for people with celiac disease that pretty much every restaurant has gluten free options on their menu?
Most restaurants advertising gluten-free items don't have dedicated cookware, utensils, cutting surfaces, grill areas, etc., which greatly raises the risk of cross-contamination.
And a significant percentage of gluten-free products in supermarkets are made in shared facilities that process wheat - why count that as helpful for celiac sufferers?
EDIT: I'd seriously love to be able to psychologically go into the average restaurant or fast food place and buy their gluten-free food without getting sick, so I welcome evidence as to why I'm wrong.
Head Chef here: for a celiac I'll use fresh equipment for their meal. My cutting boards are bleached and sanitised every night, my knives are constantly being cleaned and we certainly don't reuse dirty pans.
Where is this at, if you care to share? And do you know if your menu states anything about this? Most restaurants I look into (and won't eat at as a result) say stuff like:
"Gluten Free – Did you know that Chef Heather knows each and every ingredient that goes into her dishes? If you require a gluten free dish, please tell your server, or ask the Chef about it. Gluten Free is Not available for every dish." http://plumtreebistro.net/bistro-menu/
But when I email the restaurant, such as Plum Bistro, I get replies such as, "Hi there we are not a gluten free restaurant. We simply offer gluten-free options it's not advisable to dine with us if you have celiac disease because cross-contamination may occur."
Or another restaurant, after enquiring about their gluten-free options: "Thanks for your inquiry. We don't have specific cross contamination protocols."
I find these, or restaurants that have fine print about shared facilities and not assuming risk of cross-contamination, to be the norm in Seattle.
My current menu doesn't actually have gluten free items on it (i ask that the customers tell me, and ill do something for them on a one on one basis) - the reason being i just took over this restaurant(so its not my menu for another 2 months when we change it).
I have seen what you describe a lot - its usually by restaurants where the head chef isn't in charge. I personally go over everything about new menus - every single line of text is checked by me - as it reflects on my reputation.
As for cross-contamination, frankly anyone who says they dont have protocols in place is full of shit - we have it for EVERYTHING. In Australia we even legally have to have different coloured cutting boards for different produce types.
There is a difference between what the chef will do for you after a one-on-one discussion vs. what their marketing people will claim in written documentation that will come back to bite them in court if you get sick and sue them. We live in a litigious society, and it impacts our communications.
But they are right -- if you are Celiac, and it is so serious that a shared utensil is dangerous to you... their CYA statements are probably correct that it is not advisable to eat there. That doesn't mean you cannot do it... but it is your decision whether to go against that advice, and take that risk upon yourself... not their decision to give you a green light and put that risk on their kitchen staff.
For me, having to have a one on one discussion with the chef (not my comfort zone) about whether they can make celiac-safe food isn't the same thing as almost every restaurant having gluten-free items on the menu. BTW, plenty of restaurants seem to list fried foods that are gluten-free but also mention that they share the fryer with items containing gluten. That's not legalese, that's certain contamination.
I said it above but i want to say it again - in a well run kitchen, there should be no shared utensils. Even common kitchen tongs should not be shared between pan's, and should be cleaned between each meal.
In my opinion (not so humble haha), if you can't even do that, you don't belong in a proper restaurant.
Sadly, a lot of hacks exist in the world of food. It's refreshing that you're far from being one of them, and definitely it pays to eat at a restaurant that has pride in what it does. I think more broadly, you just have to choose wisely! I'd rather eat your food once a month, than a chain's once a week.
The ones who weren't trained at least, you can help. The ones who have no pride in what they do, the hacks, should (as you said) not be in the world of food. There are a lot of people like you though, and one good thing that popular culture has done is to recognize that good food takes time and care. There might be a lot of people preparing and eating crap, but there's more good, respectable food than ever.
Most restaurants take the approach that Applebee's takes, which is to disclaim responsibility. Why should someone with celiac disease risk it when milligrams over the course of a day can ruin one's life for potentially weeks?
"Please be aware that during normal kitchen operations involving shared cooking and preparation areas, including common fryer oil, the possibility exists for food items to come in contact with other food products. Due to these circumstances, we are unable to guarantee that any menu item can be completely free of allergens." https://www.applebees.com/Allergen-Info
I hate those messages with a passion. They really reflect poorly on myself and the chefs under my command. As if i would trust anyone in my brigade who didnt keep my standards, and as if i myself, was unable to control my stations.
For the states I've been curious about in the United States, each state's Secretary of State usually has a search form for corporations, LLCs, and limited partnerships. examples: California (http://kepler.sos.ca.gov/) and Washington (http://www.sos.wa.gov/corps/).
I wholly agree regarding email hosted in the United States, especially for any emails stored over 180 days on servers you don't own (see Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986).
So "astronomical summer" oddly starts with the day that the incoming solar energy is highest in the northern hemisphere? Ok, that explains why it's used in English, but really it just uses the same definition! The meteorological calendar just appears to use three months, so that is pretty arbitrary.
The most logical definition of astronomical summer and winter imho would have been winter and summer being the quarter-years centered on the summer and winter solstice respectively. Then the astronomical definitions would have been in line with (non-english) language, i.e. mid winter is the shortest day and mid summer is the longest day.
> Midsummer is celebrated on the longest day in some cultures, on the solstice in others
Aren't those the same thing (maybe give or take a day)? Where I live it's celebrated on a weekend near the solstice, which makes even more sense because alcohol.
> So "astronomical summer" oddly starts with the day that the incoming solar energy is highest in the northern hemisphere?
In a way, but you're looking at the effect, not the cause. The solstice is the day where either day or night is the shortest, which is caused by the earth either being at the aphelion or the perihelion (i.e. nearest or farthest points from the sun).
One could reasonably suspect that the solstice dates better represent a period just before the centre of the season rather than the beginning of it, since seasons take a bit of time to move in (at least up here in Canada). Snow won't stay until the ground has cooled enough, for example.
Aphelion and perihelion do not have anything to do with the solstices. They are currently coincidentally 2 weeks apart, but will be months apart in several thousand years.
Sapling is too generic to me. Two leaves in a 2 cm stick is a sapling but a juvenile 5 m high tree is also a sapling. Some trees grow really slow, some plants are not trees but have a 'similar' function in nature (bamboo for example) and a lot of trees begin as multitrunked shrubs. Is not trivial to count trees in a forest when several trunks share the same root system so we can expect a lot of troubles and variations. We should focus in measuring live biomass probably instead. To group different saplings of different species and try to cook a result from this is always a problem.
Maybe to make people understanding the consequences of deforestation we need to create a new system and talk instead of ecological categories like seed, seedling, 'treedler', tree and perhaps 'treelder', but I'm just having fun with the words.
Ash, for example, is equal to "a common tree" but people forget often that the morphospecies "a 500 years ash" is extinct in most forests (as all species that depend on it). This is like if we try to define and understand human societies just looking at "people from 20 years or less".
