Something I think about often is an oliver sacks book about an ethnic group that has a particularly high rate of true monochromacy. And the people with no color perception at all are particularly adept at spotting certain plants based on some characteristic of their leaves that is obscured by color. So even removing information can change perception in surprising ways.

OTOH sacks seems to have fabricated a lot of shit over the years so who knows if this is even real. Another thing I think about a lot now.

It depends on something about your screen at least. I first did it on a low quality monitor and it made the line between the two obvious even if I couldn't tell the colors apart. The "hard mode" one was impossible on that screen however.

It seems to me that a significant point of the article is that this is a choice you're continuously making, not an immutable fact about you.

People mostly lose their jobs and suffer through no failure they were positioned to avoid, and often through no fault of their own at all. Spending your career chasing fads out of fear of being abandoned to penury is at least as limiting as mere conservatism towards new technologies. The risk is real and the fear is valid but that isn't the solution, no individual action you can take is the solution.

Some might call that learning from our mistakes.

People don't believe in that anymore. If your gut instinct was wrong, you're not only bound to it for all time, but you'd best angrily double down at every opportunity. God forbid you "flip flop" or consider new information, or whatever.

Fortunately the LLM will always see that your gut instinct was right all along.

Are you saying you believe the cop who said, under oath, he "doesn't know" whether his wife could be having an affair with afroman chose to do that as part of a deliberate legal strategy? And that you think this casts him in a more positive light than merely being clueless?

It's a small county with an extreme minority of black people, like a couple hundred or less. It's quite likely he had personally encountered some of these officers before, and almost certain they knew who he was. Within the realm of possibility he saw something like this coming. Small rural sheriff depts are astoundingly corrupt.

He is a seasoned professional at this. He was respected in the diss track game in his day, he definitely understands the boundaries of defamation. And what has long been known in rap in newspapers: even if you're right it's not worth it to be on the stand defending defamation. "It's average size your honor."

Any effective defensive weapon is an offensive weapon, in that it allows you to commit other resources to offense, or defend against a retaliation in response to an escalating offense on your part.

Yeah, any kind of aid (e.g. food or medicine) allows the people you're aiding to spend more on the military if they want. I guess the only way around it is to set limits on someone's military capability and make aid conditional on not crossing these limits.

There's almost no discernible difference between unhomogenized pasteurized milk and raw milk, both tasted directly and in the final cheese. As a working chef* I had to be taught to detect the difference, and now that I'm not doing it regularly I doubt I even could.

* at the time at a michelin star restaurant, not to brag but because the finesse of my palate is directly relevant and likely to be called into question.

we have a small dairy farm. We sell milk to a company which pausterizes milk soon. BUT

we have in the past made cheese for illegal exporters of cheese, and they require it be made of unpausterized milk. Apparently, they can't get enough unpausterized cheese in their country, so they habe to smuggle it. They can't disclose neither the cheese origin nor its nature; the consumers do taste tje difference.

Similarly, my father prefers the taste of unpausterized milk cuajada (non compact cheese) He says pausterized milk loses most of its flavor.

For the record. I prefer pausterized milk; I also notice the difference.

It makes a little more sense for cheese as a cultured product.

Isn't most good cheese unpasteurised? Comte, Roquefort, Gruyere, Epoisses, Parmesan, even many (most?) small-producer Cheddars.

Yeah sorry I was a little careless there. For the cheeses we were sourcing it didn't matter, and for most of the raw milk cheeses they are done that way out of tradition and because the process is reliably safe enough.

For some unwashed aged cheeses it does truly seem to matter but those the production is so closely tied up with the local agriculture, aging in specific natural conditions etc it's really not a process to try to emulate in your cheddar at your dairy that averages an outbreak every 18 months like the one in the article.

Oh, yeah, agreed. That dairy sounds like a death-trap!

I'm a big fan of cheese and have researched this a bit. The consensus seems to be if two cheeses were made with the exact same process except for using past/unpast then you might be able to tell a difference (especially for younger cheeses) but one isn't necessarily better than the other. Over the years cheese makers have learned how to get the best flavor out of the base milk. So a pasteurized brie will be just as good as an unpasteurized brie but made slightly different.

I've tried doing taste comparisons between past/unpast but there's so much variation for even the exact same cheese that I've never been able to detect a meaningful difference.