Savory yogurt is reasonably common in e.g. Mediterranean and Middle Eastern cuisine. For example (see also, e.g., tzatziki). I will say that don’t know why anyone would be specially feeding that to cats, but hey, I guess it’s better to make sure there’s no ambiguity.

Worth noting:

• Journals published by MDPI are notorious for being low-quality.
• Academic literature out of China is notorious for being low-quality.
• The actual info relevant to your point is in this study published again in MDPI’s Microorganisms.
  • It reads: “These results [from 12 cats; 6 control, 6 treated] all show that the bacteria L11 could be related to the fat metabolism of cats and affect the gut microbiota positively so that the odorous substances decrease for the improvement of the digestibility of nutrients.”
• Many cats are lactose intolerant. Your own link discusses this.

Not saying this is wrong, just that taking veterinary advice from someone on the Internet isn’t necessarily a great idea. You can buy bacterial cultures rather than feeding your cat yogurt and messing with their digestive tract more than you have to, and certainly ask your vet if possible if your cat is having GI issues.

“We should take Munich, and push it somewhere else!”

Firefox has begun the AI enshitification process

Dude, it’s like five things – one of which is just translations that can be performed locally, and another of which is an alt text accessibility option – with an obvious universal kill switch (and of course individualized ones). Calm your tits. Chill your balls. I don’t use LLMs at all except for translations, and I still think the whinging over this is completely overblown.

“Begun” implies a slippery slope of much more, and that just doesn’t seem to be the case.

How is the headline ragebait? Ragebait is the cynical production of content to increase clicks and engagement. The author clearly actually is that passionate about FOSS self-hosting over paid gatekeepers like Plex, and the tone of the article is adequately reflected in the headline.

An opinion author stating a strong opinion in the headline isn’t automatically “ragebait” just because you personally aren’t as passionate. And I say that as someone who isn’t as passionate as the author.

Here’s the study in Minerals. I’ll caution that it’s an MDPI journal, but it’s better than Earth.com’s content mill dogshit.

How the shit is this supposed to be “programmer humor”? Comms really do return to the lowest common denominator if they aren’t actively moderated for relevance; jesus christ.

Don’t worry, anyone who thinks the crab is too short to block the goal: if they’re a member of e.g. families Portunidae/Ovalipidae (distinctly possible as at most three pairs of walking legs are visible), they can swim using rear paddles.

(For those who say the chelipeds aren’t the right shape: shhhh.)

Okay, entirely fair. I’d believed you were, by not pushing back, not just explaining it but justifying it as a talking point, but I see I was mistaken.

https://considerveganism.com/counter/

Not even just land animals (although that’s 100% true). Life-for-life, land animals would be exceeded by wild-caught fish (conservatively) in a matter of days if literally the entire world went vegan in a microsecond and literally every farmed land animal on Earth were slaughtered at the same instant. Humans arguably couldn’t even practicably keep up the worldwide mass-slaughter pace just compared to wild-caught animals within this ridiculous anti-vegan fever dream.

Edit: Say there are 30 billion land animals as livestock. Assume on the very low end that 1 trillion wild fishes are caught every year. This would mean you’d be killing 1/33 of the annual wild fish catch in a microsecond and that it’d take you about 12 days to, life-for-life, exceed the instantly killed entire land livestock population from wild-caught fishes alone. As icing on the cake: “We estimate that 124 billion farmed fishes were killed for food in 2019.”, so contract that down to less than 10 days if you count fish overall.

a) What does that have to do with Del Monte’s closure? The fact that animals who were by definition going to be killed could be killed if the meat industry suddenly collapses?

b) Even if it were relevant: “and?” “Oh no, it suddenly matters that the animals who were going to be tortured and killed for food will be killed sooner (because it no longer selfishly serves me). Look what you made me do, you evil vegoons!”

“Why are you trying to stop the dog fighting ring? Don’t you know that most of the dogs would have to be put down because they’re too violent to be adopted? Wow, you’re a sick fuck.”

They can’t. It makes no fucking sense; anti-vegans are as braindead and obsessed as they like to project onto vegans.

My Mom’s a pediatric oncology nurse and she said

Dude, I’m sorry; it’s not the same thing. Virologists were freaking the fuck out about COVID-19. Your mom being qualified to nurse children with cancer does not qualify her literally at all to give a prediction on the virology of an emergent outbreak. You may as well have said she was a vet tech.

If you’d read it, you would know:

At this early stage of the investigation with limited available information, we consider everyone on the ship to be close contacts, due to the closed setting and shared social areas and activities, aligned with the precautionary principle.

If a cruise ship is close and personal, a fuselage is obviously close and personal. The virologists are taking this into account; you’re not going to have any considerations they haven’t already thought of with 1000x more expertise and scrutiny.

I wonder if all great cooks “feel it out” or if that’s just something I tell myself to help my disorganized ass sleep at night.

Care to share with the class? Is the Lügenpresse in the room with us right now? I just linked to “the press” who were pushing that WHO quote around.

you don’t have the ability to control what I chose to read, sorry.

What does the word “please” mean to you? It’s a well-informed suggestion, and you were always free to ignore it.

As for the quote “very complicated and required extended intimacy”, can you point me to where the WHO has said that regarding this outbreak? Neither your article nor mine says those exact words.

• I’m not saying that human-to-human transmission isn’t possible. The WHO has acknowledged the possibility.
• The point is that transmissibility is likely quite low, i.e. even if there’s human-to-human transmission, it’s unlikely to be severe.
• “Got infected” in this case is “suspected of being infected”; we don’t know yet.
• For your own health, please don’t read the New York Post. Anything worth reporting will have coverage in other, actually reliable, sources.

The idea of human-to-human transmission is not some kind of fringe media panic. The World Health Organization has acknowledged that it could be human-to-human.

“We do believe ‌that there may ⁠be some human-to-human transmission that’s happening among the really close contacts, the husband and wife, people who have shared cabins,” Maria Van Kerkhove, the director of epidemic and pandemic preparedness and prevention at the WHO, told reporters in Geneva.

It’s just that the spread would likely be limited, unlike COVID which is highly transmissible.

Not likely, OP. Human-to-human transmission is so rare that its existence was credibly disputed in 2021, and virologists collectively assert that public risk is quite low. Good to keep an eye on; just not probably healthy to “COVID-19 2.0” about it.