"Seven kilometres away, there was only a 30 per cent reduction in the intensity."
That seems extremely surprising, being able to raise the current temperature by several degrees over kilometers, are datacenters put in regions with no wind at all? And hot air is supposed to escape by itself.
15 times more larvae compared to a colony eating only artificial pollen substitutes made from protein flour, sugars, and oils, which does not contain all the necessary nutrients.
You can use the chargemap card which is virtually accepted everywhere but they add their own fees which can be ridiculous, sometimes it can even double the price of electricity.
"When asked to choose between whether the federal government should provide “help for American workers who lose their jobs to AI” or create “incentives for American tech companies to keep innovating so that America outcompetes the rest of the world in developing AI, even if it allows tech companies to profit while eliminating jobs in the US,” the public overwhelmingly favored workers. Nearly 60% of all respondents"
What kind of biased poll is that? I'm surprised only 60% agreed with that.
A lot of polling is quite terrible, and the questions are designed to get the desired answers. It doesn't mean that polling itself is invalid, but it's often warped to be invalid by idealists.
"The FDA has highlighted studies finding that pasteurization does not negatively affect the nutritional value of milk. Still, advocates of raw milk continue to claim, without evidence, that raw dairy has benefits."
There is no taste difference between raw and pasteurized milk. The taste comes from the container. If you have both in glass, there is no discernible difference. My father is a dairy farmer and bet his professor (many years ago) that he could taste the difference. The professor setup a blind taste test where he gave my father pasteurized and raw milk in glass cups. There was no difference.
"Nutritional value" is a very ambiguous. It's only in what you measured. Raw milk advocates are going to value things like bacteria and if proteins were changed. Pasteurization by definition is going to kill the bacteria and change the protein structure. The main benefit for pasteurization is that it makes milk a commodity. You can have unsanitary farms with high bacteria counts that don't make people sick. This is both good and bad. Good because it means more milk available with less disease. Bad because our bodies are complex and some bacteria is healthy.
My recommendation is that if someone wants to consume raw milk, they should have a personal relationship with the dairy.
Depends on the pasteurization method. UHT will change the taste 100%, normal pasteurization might not. My grandmother used to pasterize her milk at a slightly higher than needed temperature, to separate the cream, and eat it on the side. Raw milk/pasterized milk with cream have the same taste, when you remove the cream though, it changes.
Honestly that's the best way to consume milk, pasterize it yourself, that will allow you to control the taste and the fat % you tolerate in your milk.
It may depend on the milk quality and the dairy. There's definitely a taste difference between our raw milk and our pasteurized milk, and neither one is bottled.
You can even sniff the pasteurizer and smell if it's the raw milk or if it's been pasteurized.
Also when making cheese, the naturally occurring bacteria and enzymes in raw milk make quite a large flavor difference (from a cheesemaker's perspective anyways).
I find this hard to believe because there is a massive difference in tastes just between two dairies. You can also get low-pasteurization milk from the same dairy and the taste difference is also remarkable.
Yes, different feed, cow breeds, etc are all going to influence taste. You also need to identify the path that the low-pasteurization milk goes through to see if it has anything that will adjust the taste. My father's professor was able to control the variables such that it was the same milk, no contaminates, etc.
If neither sample is your usual brand you can get two different flavors, but still not be able to tell which was pasteurized. You could try to guess that the one you liked best was raw and be wrong.
A local small grocery chain started stocking raw milk (with many warnings) and I decided to risk consuming it to see for myself. I couldn't tell the difference between it and ordinary full fat milk. I wondered if it was a fraud (commercial milk falsely advertised as Local Forbidden Delicacy Milk), but maybe there's not much difference. Or maybe I am not a subtle taster. I also can't taste the superiority of an $80 bottle of wine when it's pitted against an $18 bottle.
I can taste the difference between a $100 wine and $400 wine, but it's maybe 20% better, if it's possible to flatten extra layers of flavour into a linear scale. It's easier to appreciate for different levels of quality from the same producer. My example is drawn from Casanova di Neri Tenuta Nuova vs Cerretalto. They're basically the same style, the Cerretalto just has extra.
Across different grapes and regions and it's like apples and oranges. Sometimes I want a savory Burgundy, sometimes I want a Coke. If you don't know what wine from a terroir tastes like, and hankering after that, don't spend extra on it.
I'd generalize that to cheese. Can't beat a good aged Comte (a raw milk cheese), but it's not everyday cheese.
I’ve had a few different specialty brands of milk and there can be a difference, but I think that has more to do with the cows (and their diet) than the process. Jersey cow milk is probably more different than raw milk than pasteurized is from raw milk.
Most of what people like about "Raw milk" is that it is not homogenized. The cream has not been emulsified thoroughly, so the mouth feel can be different.
You can sometimes find pasteurized milk that hasn't been homogenized in order to get the good mouth feel without drinking absurdly unsafe bacteria culture.
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.
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.
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.
"Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is utterly impossible to parody a Creationist in such a way that someone won't mistake for the genuine article".
I remember growing up, my dad’s family had cows and we would drink the milk raw. The main feature for me was how thick it was. Even the whole milk I buy at stores here is very thin.
It's also my understanding that whole milk isn't necessarily just "pasteurize and pass along"; it really means "3.25% fat".
All the milk has its fat separated out and re-added at specific percents, and the 3.25% for whole milk is just what whoever standardized this thought about typical for whole milk. An individual cow might have a mix that's a little more or less.
If you look around you can occasionally find higher fat milks; I've seen as high as 5% (without getting into half-and-half or heavy cream). You could probably just splash a little heavy cream in yourself if you aren't satisfied with the thickness of whole milk.
That would get in the way of Arstechnica's hyper liberal bias. I eat raw cheese because it tastes good. It's common in France, like in reblochon and Brie de meaux. There aren't mass deaths in France because of this.
There aren’t mass deaths in the US either (no deaths reported per the article). But there are definitely cases of listeriosis due to raw cheese in France. A recent outbreak was in 2025 and led to 2 deaths.
It is better. We have a decently strong cheese tradition in Sweden too, but French cheese is tastier.
I don't even like the French, their culture is obnoxious, I'd take every chance to shit on the French. But you just can't argue with their cheese, it's that good. Some of their wines are ok too, but I mostly prefer Italian on that front.
No, it's called functionalism. To me, it's actually the opposite, assuming there is a fundamental difference between simulated neurons and real ones seems almost religious.
While it's true that we aren't there yet, and simulated neurons are currently quite different from real ones (so I agree there is a big difference at the moment), it's unclear why you presumably think it will always stay that way.
If you actually have a way to fully, without reductions, simulate matter, that's probably a Nobel prize coming your way.
The common scientific understanding is that this is not possible, at least not without extreme amounts of energy and time.
The dimensionality, or complexity if you'd prefer, of your logic gates is quite different from the cosmos. You might not agree but in my parlance a linear and a fractal curve are fundamentally different, and you can try to use linear curves to approximate the latter at some level of perspective if you want but I don't think you'll get a large audience claiming that there is no difference.
As far as I know we've also kind of given up on simulating neurons and settled for growing and poking real ones instead, but you might have some recent examples to the contrary?
For the qualities we care about, it may turn out to be the case we don't need to simulate matter perfectly. We may not need to concern ourselves with the fractal complexity of reality if we identify the right higher level abstractions with which to operate on. This phenomenon is known as causal emergence.
> That is, a macroscale description of a system (a map) can be more informative than a fully detailed microscale description of the system (the territory). This has been called “causal emergence.”
> A highly compressed description of the system then emerges at the macro level that captures those dynamics of the micro level that matter to the macroscale behavior — filtered, as it were, through the nested web of intermediate ε-machines. In that case, the behavior of the macro level can be predicted as fully as possible using only macroscale information — there is no need to refer to finer-scale information. It is, in other words, fully emergent. The key characteristic of this emergence, the researchers say, is this hierarchical structure of “strongly lumpable causal states.”
Who are "we", and why would I care about them here?
There are situations where approximations are good enough for simulations, sure, but that's not the subject here.
I reject the idea that chatbots have feelings or intellect because they output text that is similar to what a human might write in some hypothetical situation or other. To the extent that they can have those properties, it is to the same extent as Clark Kent can, if one were to accept such a conflatory and confused discourse.
Seems more like sunk cost fallacy, after 12 months in jail you could be unwilling to give up and tell where the treasure is, because then you would have spent a year in jail for nothing, and then it just gets worse and worse each passing year...
