So…? 🤷‍♀️

There’s even a website that translates it for you: https://www.composerize.com/

Can you please explain how the puratos lab

Yeah, I can explain that:

“… refreshed every two months with the original flour with which it was made, thereby replicating conditions in the original bakery.”

https://www.questforsourdough.com/puratos-library

Funny, mh?

What does that have to do with bread?

Nothing, it means you don’t have any idea how “that starter from etsy” smelled.

Starters contain the yeast that’s in the flour and the air where they are made.

Then you say: And maybe the defining variable is your local microbiota,

🙄 You really have issues reading, don’t you.

lol that was the point I was disagreeing with then you flip flop or something.

My point was that a bought starter will change at your home, but since your own source shows that it is in fact the flour, you probably should go bake some bread. aY cArAmBa.

That’s nonsense. Chlorinated water is harmless for any human but will make short work of your starter.

Aha. Well, you’re right about one thing: sourdough is a symbiotic colony of not just yeast but also LAB. Everything else…

Where do you think the yeast and LAB in your starter come from? Why do you have regional differences in microbial composition? Why do rye and wheat starter have completely different proportions of LAB and yeast? What happens if you change the temperature of your starter during the growth phase?

Go ahead, split your starter, feed one part each with rye, wheat, spelt flour. Now go and take the same flour but grow one at a different temperature from the other. Come back again in three weeks, tell me they’re still the same starter.

Your starter is a product of it’s surroundings, that is your house microbiota, flour, also water and temperature. And maybe the defining variable is your local microbiota, not the flour, IDK. Doesn’t matter.

Source: the starter I bought on Etsy still smells and tastes the same as it did when I bought it a year ago even though I’ve been feeding it my flour.

I highly doubt that a) you have a proper recollection of smell and taste of something you assessed a year ago and b) your senses are a proper indicator of microbial composition.

Source: I studied sensory evaluation methods and conducted studies with several hundred participants.

Also, science.

Lol

Don’t. Starters contain the yeast that’s in the flour and the air where they are made. So whatever yeasts are in your bought starter – they will quickly be replaced by the ones you add.

You will end up with what you’ve gotten with your own flour anyway, so don’t bother.

The taste of the starter depends on the flour, a whole rye flour starter will be very different from an italian tipo 00 flour madre lievito.

And since nobody mentioned this: watch the quality of your water. Tap water is very good where I live, but it might be chlorinated at your place.

deleted by creator

Look, I just gave you real world examples why and how your view on evolution is undercomplex and wrong, also I did explicitly tell you there’s more to society than the pure basics of evolution.

Maybe – just a really wild speculation here – the adult Gorns are responsible for the Gorns being a space-faring species, like, you know, the same way humans don’t need school and university for survival…

What is reading

It’s also a lifestyle that selects for intelligence (small hunters tend to be pretty smart)

Humans are already on the large side for mammals and are pretty intelligent (or let’s rather say successful)

Why would there be a species where the adults are intelligent and social enough to be a spacefaring power, and yet apparently nothing they learn as an adult is needed for an individual to pass on it’s genes?

You already do know another species who does that, and you call those useless adults Nana and Gramps.

There’s more to a society (and to evolution) than just surviving and procreating, you need knowledge and history. This you can only build when you’re not constantly fighting for the very survival, so having people around who aren’t busy with procreating all the time is actually the most likely route to developing genuine sapience.

Probably just a wild boar.

Nah, a scythe is not tedious. I mean, if you consider it a chore, sure, then it is. Everything is.

But once you got a proper rhythm and a smooth motion, it’s really a relaxing, meditative thing. Also great workout: https://youtube.com/watch?v=OeMxwt6MC3Y

Beats sitting on a screaming hell machine by a long stretch.

But here you’d also want to get a handmade fitted one, not the one from home depot. In Central Europe that’s not too hard, don’t know about US for example.

Manual lawnmowers only work for lawn though, anything high and/or weedy they can’t do.

Scythes are awesome, but you need to get the hang of it. They’re best for something like a meadow.

If you have an actual lawn I‘d recommend a manual lawnmower. You have to look what the quality product in your country is, sadly they’ve become cheap trash mostly. And you need to take some time to align the blades properly, but then these things are so much fun actually.

• Knipex Cobra and/or Pliers Wrenches. Unbelievably helpful, and they will actually last forever. The XS variants are popular as a pocket tool.

• Mora Companion knife. Srsly, if you need one utility knife in your life, it’s this. Dang cheap, good steel, easy to (re-)sharp, forgives a lot of abuse, and did I mention it’s dang cheap.

• Lundhags shell boots (e.g Park, Forest, Vandra). Best bad weather hiking boots. Basically indestructible, easy to maintain and repair. Waterproof, no GTX membrane that pollutes the environment forever but dies after a year or so. But be aware you need to take out the insole to let it dry and wear several socks. They’re waterproof from both sides… If you can live with that they’re excellent value, insanely comfortable, and will probably outlive you.

I thought science is funded by the ability to market it, what is it now, make up your mind 🤪

Einstein had a job at a Federal Department. Which is unusual, as a matter of fact (so be free take someone else if you like as an example), because – I don’t know if you have heard about this – usually science happens at something called a university. Which is payed by something called taxes.

And now please go and waste someone else‘s time, clown

Yeah, that’s just plain wrong. Science isn’t just engineering, you know. Again, outside of the actual „applied sciences“ (engineering, pharmaceuticals, etc) rarely anyone produces something that can be marketed, and even if so, it’s by chance. Einstein did not develop his theory of relativity to „market it“. Many areas are only producing results to further our understanding of the world, and we as a society pay them to do so.

Ah, patents, finally someone opens the next pandora’s box… 😅

Well, that’s a bit what someone else tried to argue with the idea vs implementation of an idea argument.

But it’s different here, you cannot have a patent on „science“. You cannot patent the theory of relativity or Newton‘s laws of motion.

What you can patent is a product or a process or a technology which uses science, so you can have a patent on some gps technology which uses Einstein‘s work. Nobody gave old Albert a dime for using his theory though (okay he was also already dead).

But how would you like to transfer that to music? Do you want to patent the performance but the composition (the science) can be „quoted“ by anyone? Not sure where you’re going with this.

And btw you are already paying someone to be able to use the colour pink. You cannot patent the colour itself, but you can patent the product and the process. Producing reliable colours is an industry, they’re not for free.

Edit: we also have many, many areas in science where creating a patent based on the results is not the motivation nor expected because in many areas it’s not even a possibility.

No, we absolutely do not need tougher laws, we already have ridiculously tough laws.

The problem is that people can not and probably will never agree on what is actually copyrighteable. And if you look into the respective laws you’ll always find rubber words, like „elements of originality“, in Germany it’s „threshold of creation“.

I pointed out two cases in some other comment here, but here are two more:

European newspaper publishers (lead, of course, by the Germans) established a EU law that it’s infringing their copyright if you take a snippet of a news article, even if you directly link to the newspaper in question. They were salty about google doing that, so they made it a law. Then google said, „well fuck off“ and threw them out. I don’t know what the current status is, I think the publishers realized they fucked up and now everybody acts like nothing happened or something.

Or: there’s a legal dispute going on between the German hip-hop producer Moses Pelham and the band Kraftwerk, about a 2 second (!) Kraftwerk sample Pelham used in 1997 (!). This thing ended up IIRC five times in front of Germany’s highest civil court, once in front of Germany’s constitutional court (freedom of art, you know), and a few years ago it was handed to the EU court, which handed it back and the last thing I heard is that they need to bring it to the EU court again because they still have questions… And all of this revolves mainly around the question „when is it okay to sample someone else’s work?“. For 25 years courts are trying to find a definition, and every decision is full of ridiculous money quotes.

Edit: I guess it has long passed the point of being a legal dispute, it’s become more like an extremely elaborate discussion of platonic idealism or something.

So, no, I disagree, we need less laws. And we can do that. Take science: yeah, we have creator’s right, but it’s treated as a moral failure to outright plagiarise someone without attribution, and you will lose your „scientist“ badge. Other than that reusing other people’s work is not just okay but a fundamental principle of science, you know, „standing on the shoulders of giants“, like that.

We could treat art the same, yet somehow we don’t.

you cannot copyright ideas

I don’t know about US law, but in Europe you certainly can, and it’s an issue over and over again ending up in courts.

simply mentioning Zaphod Beeblebrox doesn’t trigger anything to do with copyright

Yes it does. Fanfiction e.g. is considered infringement of the creator’s right, and that doesn’t extend to the exact verbatim text but to general plots, names, etc. It’s even infringement if you write a story about „Härrie Pötter“, since it’s immediately obvious that it’s based on Harry Potter.

Some years ago a German discounter sold a costume that was an obvious reference to the TV depiction „Pipi Langstrumpf“, a famous character by Swedish author Astrid Lindgren. Mind you, in essence it was just a really cheap wig and a dress somewhat resembling a tv character. The company owning the rights on the character sued and won.

Edit: oh! I missed the part where there were two courts that decided it was infringement but in the end the highest court overruled that and said it’s not: https://www.lto.de/recht/hintergruende/h/bgh-urteil-pippi-langstrumpf-romanfigur-urheberrecht/

Which only proves that all of it is completely arbitrary and just a matter of opinion. /Edit

In another case, someone took a photo of a soldier, cut out the soldier, turned it into an outline, and printed and sold t-shirts of that. If you took the shirt and put the photo next to it, it was immediately obvious it was based on the photo. Here the court had no issues, because in their opinion it was too far away from the original work to be compared with it. 🤷‍♀️

So, it’s quite impossible to draw a line between an idea and an implementation, and that’s why thousands and thousands of infringement cases are ending in front of courts, and in the end the only relevant factor is the opinion of the court.

Yeah, but honestly that doesn’t work too well either, does it.

In my opinion, in the majority of cases copyright only helps those who are already famous and the companies that own the copyright*.

I don’t know much about books (but from what I have read, authors here also get scraps), but the film industry is all over the media right now, so I think everybody is aware that even actors of really successful shows get literal pennies for their work: https://www.newyorker.com/culture/notes-on-hollywood/orange-is-the-new-black-signalled-the-rot-inside-the-streaming-economy

I do know a lot about (parts of) the music industry to confidently say: it’s the same.

Sure, you have some people who are doing well, extremely well as a matter of fact, but the vast majority of artists have a really hard time getting by. And I’m not talking about the local band playing in the pub with nobody listening, I’m talking about people who tour around the world and play in front of thousands of people.

And unless it’s some really major case of infringement (like taking a song and publish it as your own) they’re neither helped nor do they care much about copyright.

Who does care is, e.g., the German GEMA, a company who watches public performances of copyrighted work, so if you’re playing a song from another band, or playing copyrighted music in a mall, you have to tell them. Allegedly they’re there to ensure fair compensation of artists, in reality they only pay themselves most dearly.

*) This is a bit complicated for me to write about, because under German law you have a creator’s right, which you cannot ever sell or lose, and a copyright, which allows temporary or permanent reproduction of your work. „Stealing“ a song, as mentioned above, wouldn’t be a copyright infringement, but a creator’s right infringement.