Quite unexpected. I love soy sauce in a classic tomato-cucumber salad, but soy sauce + beetroot is something I cannot comprehend. Maybe I'll give it a spin, though!
Where I am, it's potato, carrots, and beets, which coincidentally make a traditional salad.
This is not a coincidence :)
Really, if you want to look into cheap and good food, look no further than what your ancestors ate. They ate it precisely because it was cheap and as nutritionally adequate as they could get.
Sure, some modifications must be made now that we have more foods and clean drinking water available on demand, but this is a good starting point.
I use the formal "You" when talking to adults I don't know well and in official conversations. Also, with superiors.
I use the informal "you" with friends and family, and with colleagues I know well. Informal "you" also communicates warmth, safety, a call to action, or authority, which is why it may be used when addressing children (particularly preteens), people in danger, or someone else you need to either influence or make feel safe, or both.
Of course there are millions of exceptions, and everyone keeps it slightly different. For this reason, it is common for people to have hard time figuring whether to address certain people by formal or informal "you". Mistakenly using the formal option can be read as creating more distance, the informal - as invading the personal space. It's an issue in spoken conversations, too, as these forms are actually two different words that are audibly different.
Thousands of tons on a single vessel. The reason we have such huge container ships is that while the surface area and subsequent water resistance gets squared, the volume growth is cubic.
This means the larger the vessel, the more energy efficient it is at delivering anything from point A to point B. This is exactly how shipping has become the most efficient way to deliver goods.
If you want to deliver the same amount of cargo by many smaller ships, you'll need way, waaaaaay more energy to do so. This is incredibly inefficient, and ships of the past were of that scale exclusively due to structural limitations. Hence, shipping costs were incredibly high, leading to only the most expensive items being transported.
Now, rowboats cannot technically be wide, because otherwise you won't be able to seat enough rowers to drive the ship. And they cannot technically be too long, or else, being narrow, they will be turned over or broken in a storm. So, they are forced to be small.
Oil
I answered you right there - you can use electricity generated through renewables instead of heavy human labor. Sodium ion batteries for smaller missions (like ports in Asia), green hydrogen for longer hauls (like China-US), and nuclear for particularly long hauls through complicated areas (like the Northern Sea Route).
Strawman argument
I re-read your comment again. You claim we're all wage slaves anyway and it's better to row a cargo ship until people in power decide to rather throw us into war. You also mentioned that it's either rowboats or ecological collapse. Did I get it right, or did you mean something else entirely?
What's your basis for what you're saying?
Studies on the issues of modern agriculture and recent developments in renewable energy tech. We do have safe ways to grow food, indeed, but they require much higher level of investment and do not pay off very well, while renewables are already cheaper than their traditional counterparts, naturally leading to massive rollout. We just need to keep going with this.
You think sailing is a 9-to-5?
Obviously not as in "9 hours a day, 5 day a week job". It's more of a cultural reference to the current work time conditions. If there are too many workers and too little job, maybe the best course of action is reducing work time and redistributing gains made through automation?
This way people won't need to do useless jobs like rowing a boat in the era of electric propulsion, and will have more time for themselves.
Bad faith
By no means. I was genuinely engaged with the conversation, but it just so happens that the point of your argument completely misses me. There are obviously better ways to do what you propose, and I fail to see the merits of going back to rowing as means of ship propulsion.
Rowboats cannot be big, hence they fail to reap physical benefits that come with larger ship sizes, which alone makes them so incredibly inefficient; they require intense manual labor and overblown crew, raising costs and reducing useful load, and they offer a very grim picture of the future full of pointless jobs instead of worker liberation.
Never on a historical scale we moved so much cargo. Long-range ships were primarily used to move something extremely valuable, such as spices and gold - and now we have ships hauling everything because it's so much more efficient than anything else.
Our owners have never been so far from needing more of us
And so the solution is, instead of reducing work week and expanding social programs, to crank people up in dangerous conditions and make them do one of the hardest and most avoidable jobs known to humanity?
I didn't say "use bad methods to grow food and fuel the crew with that."
Fair, but it follows. Nowadays, in the age of cheap solar and new, eco-friendly power storage options, it is much, much easier and cheaper to add an electric engine than to maintain a fleet of wage-slaves fed by agricultural surplus.
Your kind of "solution" is both economically inefficient and inhumane, and doesn't seem to get out of the box of "9-to-5 to everyone by all means". So, don't rush to accuse me of shortsightedness.
I'm pretty sure rowboats are absolutely not viable for moving thousands of tons of cargo. Also, they existed because there was a huge supply of slave labor.
That's not to mention the larger crew doing hard manual labor would require much more food, which is a sort of fuel in itself, one that is not commonly produced in an environmentally sustainable way.
Electric motor seems to be the superior option all-round (except for energy density in storage, where diesel still reigns supreme by a large margin)
Nice, though I wonder about reliability of this thing, as well as capital costs. In any case, an auxiliary motor is a must, and good thing they have that too.
First, terminal is, for the most part, distro- and DE-agnostic. Unless you use something specific to the distro or DE (like package management or working with DE dependencies), what would work on one Linux system would also work on the other. This allows you to immediately get a grasp of any Linux system.
Second, terminal is fast. You can search through GUI for all eternity, or you can type one line that does what you want, saving tons of time in the process.
With that said, both GUI and terminal should develop hand in hand to provide a user experience that suits both regular and power users alike. Windows commonly shifts to the side of regular user, while making it harder for power users to do what they want. Linux as it was in the old days shifted towards power users.
Nowadays, I think Linux finally strikes the right balance - it is accessible and powerful at the same time.
I'm actually waiting for male birth control pills so bad
They would give men more agency on reproduction, aside from vasectomy, which is permanent, and condoms, which can rip or be intentionally poked.
Also, they can be used in couples where a woman is hesitant to take pills herself, either out of reproductive concerns (fear that pills would make them permanently sterile), or the overall influence of hormones on the body and the menstrual cycle.
For all I know, Nostr is a kind of social network with distributed identity.
The problem with publishing elsewhere is not that it's hard or can't give you reach.
It's the scientific metrics dictating your readership, job prospects and essentially your entire scientific career. Not only your ratings are affected, but also ones of your institution, so you have to play by the rules to have a job.
For your publication to count, it needs to be published in journals listed in certain international indexes such as Scopus and Web of Science. These indexes are, in turn, corporate-owned (by Elsevier and Clarivate, respectively) and the respective boards are free to reject (and certainly will reject) your independent publishing source.
Sounds like a porn site