You can do whatever the fuck you want, as long as you have an expensive enough lawyer who will "correct" you, when people point out what you're doing is illegal.
It's by design though. None of this is because of loopholes. What is happening is because the people in power wanted it to be possible.
I mean, I hope I'm wrong, but my point is that without more information, I would have to see some actual data to compare this stuff. I am however aware that we won't get reliable data until large-scale production is both possible, and profitable.
It's the same scepticism I have when a new building material says it's much better for the environment, but then it turns out it's either not possible to upscale to the point that it's actually environmentally friendly, because it uses a very limited by-product from a different production. Or it turns out they don't count the materials needed for the underlying construction to make it possible to use, because it's not directly part of the material.
I just want some proper articles about this stuff, with actual numbers and calculations made public, instead of a picture shared on some social media.
My thought process is that if you have to mimic a living environment, you still need to include most of what the natural environment needs. The one artificial meat I've read about had the meat growing in vats of some "solution" that mimics the natural environment of the meat (so like a body). Granted, the process in the post may not function like this, but if it does, that process would include:
These are all just speculations, please feel free to prove me wrong on any of them, and be sceptical of my list. But this is what I'm sceptical about with the very lacking information in the post.
I didn't find an answer in my very limited search for what is actually used to grow the meat, so depending on what makes up the "stuff" that brings nutrients into the growing part, we may still need a lot of farmers for something like this. There's also no way the growing environment, which seeks to create an artificial "animal", is energyefficient.
I'll celebrate the day we don't need farmers, and I'll celebrate the day it'll be at least environmentally equivolent, but until I see evidence of those things, I'll be very sceptical of this stuff.
What a god damn coward.
Sure they're increasing their defense spending. But not really in the interest of USA.
USA wanted european defense spending to increase for multiple reasons:
Denmark is currently investing heavily in seamines, ships to handle the seamines and underwater surveillance. Unfortunately I fear it's too little too late, but only time will tell I suppose.
No matter what, the best bet is to make the invasion so costly it won't be worth it for the US.
Then how the fuck else am I supposed to feel superior?
Sounds like a pretty good idea though to have airbags and crumblezones in something that supposedly can drive 162 km/h (101 mph), and accelerate from 0-60 mph in 6 seconds. You couldn't pay me to drive something as unsafe as this thing.
I assume it sucks feeling consequenses for the first time in his life. I hope he feels some more consequenses.
No doubt that'd be considered an act of war from the fascists. Then again, doesn't seem like they really need a reason to bring out the war-speeches.
My biggest issue with survival games is usually the lack of a goal. If Jagex treats this game the same way as OSRS or RS3 concerning quests, this could very well be a really nice experience. It could also very well be a very generic survival clone that adds absolutely nothing new to the genre.
It's also not the first time Jagex has fucked up games. It often seems like they have absolutely no idea what makes OSRS and RS3 as good as they are, and at least for OSRS, the dedication of the mods seem to be the only reason the game isn't dead.
I suppose we'll have to wait and see which direction they take it. I hope it'll be good, but I absolutely expect them to shit the bed on this.