Poll of the Day > Welp. Looks like I caught the omicron.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Revelation34 posted...

Because America is too huge to do a massive rail system.

https://www.russiantrains.com/en/page/high-speed-trains-russia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_Russia#/media/File:HighSpeedRailWaysOfRussia.png

Russia has 82% more land area than the US (counting Alaska and Hawaii, so that number should really actually be bigger because it's a given than an American high-speed rail system would only serve the contiguous states) with 43.7% of the population, which works out to less than a quarter of the overall population density.

If Russia can put serious effort into developing useful passenger rail transit instead of relying almost exclusively on highways and personal cars, the US is not "too huge" to do something comparable. As others have said, China is also larger than the US (by a fairly small margin overall, but especially so if we only count contiguous states), but they at least have the advantage of having triple the population and therefore higher density to work with, so that isn't necessarily the fairest comparison.

Moreover, I'm not exclusively talking about massive, long-range rail systems. I'm talking about city-scale rail and other forms of public transit that make not having access to a car more viable for everyday travel. I'm talking about suburbs built around transit hubs so people drive for 5 minutes to spend an hour on a bus or train instead of spending an hour driving. Cities built around public transit and active transportation instead of 6-lane highways. Instead, single-occupancy vehicles are the expectation and the norm around which everything is designed, which can be attributed almost entirely to the propaganda from the car and oil industries that convinced America that that is true freedom and the only real American way. Even now, you get people like the Koch brothers actively lobbying against efforts to improve public transit anywhere in the country because they make so much more money when people have to buy/use cars.

All of which boils down to the point that Covid is not remotely unusual in the extent to which politics, the media, and public perception influence how much money certain people can make off of it. Some people are going to make money off of preventing it, others are going to make money off of allowing case numbers to explode and treating them, others are going to make money off of burying the victims. There's absolutely no reason to distrust Covid mortality statistics to any greater extent than any other mortality statistics.

Revelation34 posted...

Because America is too huge to do a massive rail system.

No it's not. The Koch brothers worked really hard to kill the mass transit industry through lobbying.

How are you feeling so far?

Revelation34 posted...

Sugar tax is bullshit and there's no defending it.

Why? I don't see how selling extreme amounts of sugar and putting it unnecessarily into products is defensible.

oh nooo

Revelation34 posted...

Sugar tax is bullshit and there's no defending it.

So you want people to travel by freight train?

https://www.amtrak.com/home

i know you've seen these, too.

Without sugar, all ghosts would die.

CaptainStrong posted...

How? It's the same type of thing. Both are about not endangering the people around you. Actually, drunk driving isn't as bad as going out in public unvaccinated. Drunk drivers don't infect their victims with a deadly virus who then spread it to other people who spread it to other people. Far more people have died because of COVID than drunk drivers in the last two years.

How did Omikron get here from South Africa again?

Revelation34 posted...

Sugar tax is bullshit and there's no defending it.

The real BS tax is duty.

Revelation34 posted...

Sugar tax is bullshit and there's no defending it.

I agree with this

HornedLion posted...

It was probably your mom cause she gave me something, too.

got damn. dude came hard with the thunder

ReturnOfFa posted...

Why? I don't see how selling extreme amounts of sugar and putting it unnecessarily into products is defensible.

Fruit also has sugar in it. No sugar added products have sugar in them. There's no reason for a sugar tax.

MetalGarurumon posted...

https://www.amtrak.com/home

i know you've seen these, too.

Those are in very select few cities and most are slow anyway. Even if they did the fastest high speed rail it would probably take something like 12 hours minimum from California to New York.

Revelation34 posted...

Fruit also has sugar in it. No sugar added products have sugar in them. There's no reason for a sugar tax.

"Sugar tax" is a colloquial term for adding a deterrent tax to products with excessive amounts of sugar in them, given how objectively harmful such products are when consume in excessive quantities (which is often very easy to do because of how cheap they are). Nobody's actually suggesting a tax that's calculated per gram of total sugar with no regard for where that sugar came from or how healthy the overall product is.

Revelation34 posted...

Fruit also has sugar in it. No sugar added products have sugar in them. There's no reason for a sugar tax.

Those are in very select few cities and most are slow anyway. Even if they did the fastest high speed rail it would probably take something like 12 hours minimum from California to New York.

I never suggested applying a sugar tax to fruit nor to products with no added sugar.

EvilMegas posted...

More liesss for attention.

Sums it up. It worked though.

TC, I dont like you

MetalGarurumon posted...

a very large amount of people are suggesting that and have been for decades

I say it constantly which bothers POTD greatly. Just imagine the ire if the healthcare, media and political industries started to actually remove these dangerous products from existence.

You hanging in there TC?

SunWuKung420 posted...

I say it constantly which bothers POTD greatly. Just imagine the ire if the healthcare, media and political industries started to actually remove these dangerous products from existence.

It would depress some poeple. And other would just learn how to make all of it, anyway. So, it probably wouldn't help at all...

LinkPizza posted...

It would depress some poeple. And other would just learn how to make all of it, anyway. So, it probably wouldn't help at all...

Eh, a lot of the really unhealthy stuff isn't really possible to make at home. Anything hydrogenated needs to be produced industrially, and while you could technically probably pull off HFCS at home, it'd be a ton of work and considerably more expensive than just using regular sugar (it being cheaper is the only reason it's used commercially). People can still gorge themselves on sugar at home, certainly (though even then, the simple act of putting all of that sugar in tends to turn people off of the product), but actually reproducing everything that's unhealthy about fast food is beyond the vast majority of home kitchens.

LinkPizza posted...

It would depress some poeple. And other would just learn how to make all of it, anyway. So, it probably wouldn't help at all...

Most of the terrible additives are only available commercially.

adjl posted...

Eh, a lot of the really unhealthy stuff isn't really possible to make at home. Anything hydrogenated needs to be produced industrially, and while you could technically probably pull off HFCS at home, it'd be a ton of work and considerably more expensive than just using regular sugar (it being cheaper is the only reason it's used commercially). People can still gorge themselves on sugar at home, certainly (though even then, the simple act of putting all of that sugar in tends to turn people off of the product), but actually reproducing everything that's unhealthy about fast food is beyond the vast majority of home kitchens.

Probably wouldn't stop people from trying, though. Like when they made alcohol. It might not be the best, but they would probably still try... And if someone was able to actually make it, they'd probably try selling it. Even if it was illegal... Like with alcohol... And in that case, you wouldn't need everyone's kitchen to be able to make it. Just a few would need to... I don't see getting rid of fast food accomplishing anything. People will still eat what they want. And will probably replace it with other unhealthy options... And probably be worse off for it...

SunWuKung420 posted...

Most of the terrible additives are only available commercially.

Sure. But there are people who can definitely find ways to make them... Because even if everybody can't get there hands on something, they are plenty of people who can...

SunWuKung420 posted...

I say it constantly which bothers POTD greatly. Just imagine the ire if the healthcare, media and political industries started to actually remove these dangerous products from existence.

Lol.

LinkPizza posted...

Probably wouldn't stop people from trying, though. Like when they made alcohol. It might not be the best, but they would probably still try...

Alcohol is incredibly easy to make, though. Chuck some juice and some yeast in a bottle, and in a few weeks, you've got booze. Distillation is more complicated, but you could build yourself a still with a saucepan and some aluminum foil, in a pinch. Hydrogenating fats, on the other hand, involves metal catalysts and very high temperatures/pressures (an Instant Pot isn't going to cut it). Most artificial colours are petroleum byproducts, and backyard refineries aren't really a thing. HFCS involves a series of enzymatic digestions, followed by separating the different fractions by liquid chromatography and blending them to get the desired composition, and that requires expensive specialized equipment.

These are industrial processes. They're really not feasible to do in a home kitchen. Hypothetically, you could get black market production happening, as happened during prohibition, but that's going to be very high risk and therefore probably too expensive to really be viable.

That last point brings us to the biggest issue, though: These products are not things that are put into food because people like them. These are things that are put into food because they make food cheaper to produce, store, and sell. Those cost savings, however, are only realized because these products can be made and consumed on an industrial scale. If they can't be, then they stop being cheaper than alternatives, meaning demand for them completely evaporates.

People will continue to want fast food, yes, but that demand is going to result in people emulating it without whatever products are banned, not illicitly creating those products to reproduce it exactly. These products are just too expensive to make on small scales and don't have enough of an impact on the consumer's experience to be worthwhile.

Didnt think anyone would, or could respond.

adjl posted...

Alcohol is incredibly easy to make, though. Chuck some juice and some yeast in a bottle, and in a few weeks, you've got booze. Distillation is more complicated, but you could build yourself a still with a saucepan and some aluminum foil, in a pinch. Hydrogenating fats, on the other hand, involves metal catalysts and very high temperatures/pressures (an Instant Pot isn't going to cut it). Most artificial colours are petroleum byproducts, and backyard refineries aren't really a thing. HFCS involves a series of enzymatic digestions, followed by separating the different fractions by liquid chromatography and blending them to get the desired composition, and that requires expensive specialized equipment.

These are industrial processes. They're really not feasible to do in a home kitchen. Hypothetically, you could get black market production happening, as happened during prohibition, but that's going to be very high risk and therefore probably too expensive to really be viable.

That last point brings us to the biggest issue, though: These products are not things that are put into food because people like them. These are things that are put into food because they make food cheaper to produce, store, and sell. Those cost savings, however, are only realized because these products can be made and consumed on an industrial scale. If they can't be, then they stop being cheaper than alternatives, meaning demand for them completely evaporates.

People will continue to want fast food, yes, but that demand is going to result in people emulating it without whatever products are banned, not illicitly creating those products to reproduce it exactly. These products are just too expensive to make on small scales and don't have enough of an impact on the consumer's experience to be worthwhile.

Its (alcohol) much easier to make, yet people did have trouble. Like with people dying and stuff. As for the tools, we already have the tools. Someone knows how to make and use them. They could easily just use those. Or remake what is needed. And as we get more tools, it could get easier

And people might not care about expenses if they can get what they want. And depending on how well its running, it could still be somewhat cheap. That depends on whos doing it, though

As for whether they try or not would depend on if they want the food. Even if those products are only used because they make the food cheaper, if it also makes it taste a certain way, people would probably want it. People most likely want something that taste exactly the same