commandar

There’s literally someone in this thread right now saying you can eat raw pork in America without worry…

The correct response to that is to provide the actual guidelines based on actual data, not to fearmonger while quoting lines referencing wild game.

A huge part of why commercial pork is safe – that you’re consistently leaving out – were major changes to how livestock are raised. Trichinosis transmission in pigs is primarily caused by the consumption of infected meat; US standards were changed to more strictly control what’s fed to pigs, which led to the decreased risk. The risk remains in wild boar because they’re omnivores that will scavenge whatever they can find.

145 is still a limit people need to follow, lots of people don’t.

145 isn’t a hard limit. It’s the recommended holding temperature for one minute.

The USDA and FDA, which both lean conservative in their recommendations, consider whole cuts of pork safe down to 145F (roughly equivalent to cooked to medium):

https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2011/05/25/cooking-meat-check-new-recommended-temperatures
https://www.fda.gov/media/107000/download

This has been the case for over a decade. Pork should be cooked but the old 160F recommendations have been gone for a long time now because commercial pork is relatively safe.

Also note that this is the one-minute pasteurization temp; meat can be held at a lower temperature for longer to render it safe.

Assuming you’re in the US, I 100% would’ve done a credit card chargeback. Bank would’ve taken your side on that one.

Nevermind abroad. A lot of them would do well just to get some actual exposure to larger cities in their own states.

Part of the urban/rural divide is fueled by the pervasive belief that cities are lawless hellholes because they’ve never had real exposure to it.

Stakeholders are people with any kind of interest in the company doing well

Corporate social responsibility as a concept is even broader than that – it’s not just anyone who has interest in the company doing well, but broad consideration of anyone impacted by the decisions of the company.

A company might be able to save operational costs by dumping toxic sludge in a river, but within a CSR framework, people living downstream would be considered stakeholders and the potential negative impact of the decision on those people is supposed to be taken into account when decisions are made. The corporation is supposed to have a responsibility to do right by anyone impacted by their actions wherever possible.

At least that’s the theory. It shouldn’t be surprising that the language of CSR gets pretty commonly coopted by companies looking to whitewash what they’re actually doing.

The wider international community has largely rejected wars of conquest as legitimate in modern times.

The exact same argument could be applied to Israel and e.g. the Golan Heights, but I don’t think you’ll find that to be a particularly popular position.

This AI ruling is also actually completely in-line with existing precedent from the photography world.

The US Copyright Office has previously ruled that a photograph taken by a non-human (in this case, a monkey) is not copyrightable:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute

FedEx ground are all contractors. It depends on who has the contract for your area, but they tend to be pretty bad IME as well.

Restricts Freedom to Use the Software

I’ve always found this particular one somewhat frustrating. It’s essentially the intolerance paradox repackaged into a software licensing analog:

“You are restricting the freedom of users by taking away their ability to close the code and restrict the freedom of other users!”

It’s always read very “I got mine” to me.

That said, while I lean copyleft, I also don’t find just barring commercial use entirely interesting. The goal is to ensure source code remains available to users; I think there are better ways of addressing that than trying to delineate and exclude commercial use.