I agree, it's not a life-changing burger, but it's quite a good substitute and both filling and attractive. This picture from Kenji Lopez-Alt shows how attractive it is to compared to processed beef patties:
I bought the impossible burger at White Castle but didn't like it since they cooked it too "rare" for me (I generally like ground beef well done/no pink, not for health reasons, just an appetite thing). It's weird to see a non-actual-meat burger with pink in the middle! It tasted like a rare burger.
it is a half baked truth. pharma want you to believe trials are expensive so they inflate crazily their costs to price their drugs high. but at the end when u try to sell them software they dont look at the inflates costs of trials be sure of that
Costs don't drive prices. Demand does. I'll be the first to admit that pharmaceutical economics is not simple (lots of externalities, asymmetry of information, etc.), but in the long run costs do matter, and so does price. Best example is Solvaldi, which initially sold for ~$100,000 per treatment. It's much much down (~$65,000) once Merk came online with their hep C competitor. Prices do matter, and while the market is easily distorted, it's not immune to the laws of economics.
the W3C Web of Things framework is agnostic to use cases and devices. Mozilla's WebThings framework can work in medical, industrial, etc. It's just that Mozilla's focus is to put people first. (Plus it's easiest to invite makers and community dev when contributors can use it themselves at home). All the code is open source -- I've already seen some industrial companies pick it up and customize for their needs.
They reported on the claims that were made. Once again, newspapers are not oracles. Facts change from day to day and stories develop over time.
There's a reason that the Times puts out a new edition every day, instead of releasing just a singe one 2000 years ago that we all worship as indisputable truth.
"Fake news" is reporting that Barack Obama, Black Lives Matter, and Anonymous are planning riots in 37 city centers at 7 pm on July 15 2016, as Breitbart, the Daily Caller, and other far-right news sources reported two days before. The story was entirely made up, and most of the text was copied from a chain email from the 00s.
hence why you do not report on something as being a fact before it is proven and before you investigate the claim. Its like me reporting the earth is flat because someone said it.
No other facts were available. The claim was itself the news, with updates pending a police investigation. This isn't complicated. Investigating crimes is the police's job, not every single newspaper in the world's.
Should all of the world's newspapers have held off on reporting the MAGA bombs until Cesar Sayoc's conviction?
Should we all have pretended that nothing was wrong about the world trade center until the 9/11 commission filed their final report?
not my point. but don't say it is a terrorist attack before proven. don't say it is a racist attack by two white men wearing a maga hat before its proven. can you imagine implications of people lynching to people with red caps in the street thinking its them?
And at what point did the evil lying media say those things? They said that "Jussie Smollett claims he was attacked by a group of racists late at night. He was relased from the hospital with minor injuries. Police are investigating it as a hate crime". Those are facts.
Here are some examples, quote the statements that were verifiably false at the time.
are you serious? there is no way to do research on massive amounts of data at the public level anymore. if you want to change things its in the private. + money is also good
the stupid idea that it is the algorithm driving people to extreme content. It is not. people are driven by that. our whole societies are driven by violence, fear, disruptive stuff
have you been there? deep poverty as soon as you jump in a train, massive open defecation, legal system that is tribal and still rely on caste, very low women rights especially for non-educated ones. but yeah they might be doing better than anyone for sure.
Democracy, is not about any of these issues you are pointing at.
India may have a long way to go in aspects you have mentioned, but the way the Indian democracy works, it has enough checks and balances to make it work as intended, which IMO is among the best if not the best.
PS: I have worked at booth level before, during and after the elections in India, to know the intricacies of what happens during the whole process.
Dude have you been here? Legal system that is tribal? Deep poverty as soon as you jump in a train? I am not saying India is perfect but this is an exaggeration and undermines the steps India has taken in the past one or two decades in a positive direction
not saying that progress has not been made. But calling India the best democracy is not factual worse it's a blatant lie. It is a country where you can (should) bribe public officials i.e: "A study conducted by Transparency International in 2005 recorded that more than 62% of Indians had at some point or another paid a bribe to a public official to get a job done"
So like American Police's discrimination against people of color?
I am from India, in India. You have only read about it, I live in it. Not saying the slums around railway lines are not there but the condition also has improved a lot. 2005? That's more than a decade back.
again, democracy is how elections are held, how elected officials work, and how the transfer of power occurs without problems, how legislations are passed, how rules and regulations are created/maintained/updated/destroyed.
Democracy doesn't mean Utopia.
Feel free to disagree and say that India is not the best democracy on earth. But it'd sound credible if you can tell which country is the best democracy as per your data/facts/beliefs, and probably share that too.
