Most companies are probably going to continue their regular food safety procedures, but a few things you can do to reduce some personal risk:
Buy hard, solid veggies and fruits (apples, melons) or ones with rinds (bananas are probably fine). Scrub the peel/rind thoroughly with soap and water before consumption.
The more solid and dense the meat, the less likely it is for contamination to spread very far. Buy your meat in solid cuts, NOT GROUND. Especially not ground chicken rn, salmonella bad.
Cook things thoroughly. Follow guidelines for the internal temperatures meat is supposed to reach and stick to those guidelines. Use a meat thermometer. Make your steaks well done for a while.
I’d stay away from shellfish as a whole if I were you. The diseases you can get from it are some of the nastier ones. No sushi for a while, too. If you have fish, make sure it was frozen following anti-parasitic guidelines and cook thoroughly.
AVOID LEAFY GREENS. This is where we’ve been seeing the most outbreaks lately, so be very careful.
The pregnant, elderly, immunocompromised, and the very young are the ones most at risk in an outbreak. If you are in one of these groups, be extremely cautious and avoid soft cheeses and prepackaged deli meats. Check on friends and family in these groups. Report symptoms of foodborne illness to a doctor so they can report to the state health depts that are still running.
Even with these in mind, remember that most outbreaks of foodborne illness are due to things like improper cooking and storage. Stay safe out there, folks 💙
The single greatest and most fascinating “futurist” architecture movement in the world right now is happening in Bolivia, where national prosperity and a dedication to works for the poor and public housing led to an explosion of colorful styles inspired by Aymara Indian art. There should be more articles about this, the interiors are just as amazing. Incidentally, most of these buildings are not for the rich or in trendy neighborhoods, but are public housing. I’ve heard this style referred to as “Neo-Andean” but like most currently thriving styles it doesn’t have a universally agreed on name yet.
I intended to help someone, but it turns out the thing I did kills people. The only moral option is … Doubling down and killing more people.
It all boils down to the different moral foundations people use. For progressives, care, equality and “freedom to” are the main building blocks for deciding whether something is just and moral.
- Does it harm people? - Does it result in inequality? - Does it prevent people from engaging in society?
As long as the proposed idea (behaviour, policy) clears those two hurdles, it’s good to go for progressives.This type of thinking is super compatible with consequentialism.
For conservatives, there are more foundations to consider - authority, loyalty, fairness, purity and “liberty from”.
- Does it violate established social hierarchy? (in this approach, hierarchy is good and beneficial). - Does it damage in-group bonds? (again, strong in-group loyalties are considered to be good). - Does it fail to reward contributors and punish wrong-doers? (this is a big one - fairness is about just desserts and consequences for actions, not equality). - Does it breach the sanctity of the body? (this is a complex one, rooted in cultural notions of disgust and body as a temple). - Does it force people to engage in actions they disagree with? (this is the freedom from taxation, PC, and so on).
Libertarians pretty much care only about Liberty from things, usually the government.
This complex set of values means that the same idea or policy will get different moral evaluations. Let’s take a few examples:
Legalising weed: all fine in terms of the progressive foundations. But it breaches purity (the body is a temple) and to an extent interacts with conservative version of fairness by removing a punishment on what they consider to be morally wrong behaviour.
Universal healthcare: again, all clear in progressive values. This policy will help. But in the conservative value set, the policy fails at fairness by ‘rewarding’ non-contributing behaviour (poverty and illness). Let’s not get into a debate over how this is even classified as behaviour rather than a condition. It also breaches freedom from for people who are mostly focused on being free from government, rather than private insurers. The interesting caveat is that purity should favour healthcare - if the body is sacred, we should as a society value accessible ways to keep it healthy and clean. However, because many health conditions have contributing behavioural factors, it can be considered unjust to help people out of the consequences of their actions - even at a net loss to society.
If anyone is interested, Jonathan Haidt writes a lot about the moral foundations, and while he’s often annoyingly centrist in how he presents the ideas, the research is pretty solid.
This slots pretty well with things I’ve observed about the conservative thinksphere, which is ideology-based. You start with a philosophical ideal, and decide from there the facts that should result from it, and report only on those. If the facts don’t match the ideology, you can either ignore them, lie about them, or make up facts that do, until you have established a coherent whole.
It’s more important to be ideologically coherent than to be factually true, since ideas are considered the higher form of thought (a reason why they frequently tangle with science, unless they can appeal to it as an established authority rather than a pattern of information gathering.)
There’s a reason “evidence-based” was one of the first words to be banned in this new administration.
this line of “thinking” represents about 92% of theology, too. people keep deciding theology based on whether it is “correct” or “coherent” or “orthodox” (the framework here is always white men relying on elite men of history for validation) or whatever, no matter the results it produces. this. is. bullshit. especially given a tradition that is “know them by their fruits (results)”/good samaritan/matthew 25/etc.
1. this is horrifying
2. I will never understand
conservatives on a fundamental
level but at least now I have a grasp of where that lack of understanding comes from
3. “authority, loyalty, fairness, purity and “liberty from”“ this is cult mentality this is literally how cults work
Have I watched the movie in the last decade or more? No. Do I have iron clad evidence to support my argument? Yes.
1. She’s the most knowledgeable about candy. She’s committed to it, and knows her stuff. When Wonka holds up a little yellow piece across the room, she recognizes it immediately. She was able to switch to candy bars for the sake of the contest, so we know she has personal discipline and is goal oriented. Also, two major projects play directly into her strong suits: the 3-course-meal gum that Wonka failed to make safe (gum) and the neverending gobstopper (longevity).
2. She’s the most fit to run a business. Violet is competitive, determined, hard working, and willing to take risks. Her father is a small town car salesman and politician, so she could easily pick up knowledge and support from him. (Veruca’s dad is also a business man, and in a compatible market (nuts), but it’s made very clear that Veruca has no respect or knowledge of business practices or hard work.)
3. She’s the most sympathetic to the Oompa Loompas. She critiques Veruca when Veruca demands to buy one. More importantly, Wonka has been testing the 3-course-meal gum that ‘always goes wrong’ on Oompa Loompas while he presumably just watches. Violet is ready to put herself on the front line, instead of treating the Oompa Loompas as disposable, and would therefore be a better boss.
4. Her personality ‘flaw’ is the most fitting for the company. In the moralizing Oompa Loompa song, they just say ‘gum is pretty cool, but it’s not socially acceptable to chew it all day‘. The thing is, we already know that she can stop if she wants, because she already did that to win the golden ticket. And yeah, she is defensive about the perceived impoliteness of her hobby (like when her mother tries to shame her about her habit during a televised interview) but the obsession with candy and neglect of social norms is EXACTLY what Wonka is all about. This is on brand.
5. Her misstep in the factory is reasonable. Wonka shows everyone a candy he’s very proud of. Violet is like “oh sick, that’s gum, my special interest.” Wonka is then pulls a “WRONG! It’s amazing gum!” So in the very moments before she takes the gum Wonka has mislead her just to belittle her. So when he’s like “I wouldn’t do that” why should she give a shit what he has to say? She’s not like Charlie over here who’s all “Sure Gramps, let’s stay behind while the tour leaves and secretly drink this thing that has been explicitly stated to fill you with gas and is too powerful for safe consumption, oh and also I just saw what happened to Violet so I actually KNOW what this stuff can be capable of” Also, Violet is not selfish about her experience, she tells everyone what she’s tasting and feeling, and everyone is eager to hear it. Taking a personal risk to share knowledge with everyone. Violet is Prometheus: fact.
So Augustus contaminates the chocolate river. Charlie sneaks around and contaminates the vent walls. Veruca destroys and disrupts the workspace. Mike knows exactly what will happen to him and transports/shrinks himself deliberately. Violet had no idea what the gum could potentially do to her, and caused no harm to anyone or anything but herself.
Lastly: Can you imagine Charlie filling Wonka’s shoes? That passive, naive boy? Violet is already basically Wonka. She’s passionate, sarcastic, candy-obsessed, free thinking, and a total firecracker. She’s even better than Wonka, because she doesn’t endanger others.
Violet should’ve been picked to inherit the chocolate factory.
He was. I used to live in Richmond, Ky which is where Cassius Clay’s family home White Hall was located. I worked there during Halloween for Ghost Walk which took people through the rooms for ghostly scenes from history. The Bowie knife was featured often.
Plus I’m pretty sure that place is haunted as fuck.
