LOL

Goat milk isn't just called "milk". Calling cow milk "cow milk" seems entirely reasonable.

And they fall under that first rule. As long as the word "almond" comes right before "milk" and isn't in tiny print or some other nonsense, it should be fine.

Unfortunately, that's often not the case, and it is likely intentional. The sorts of folks who make veggie burgers tend to be vegan, and there's a very definite subgroup of vegans whose not-at-all-secret goal is to get fewer people eating meat. So if they can fool people into thinking that they are buying meat without breaking the law, they will absolutely do it.

This is not true to the same extent for almond milk and coconut milk, both of which came into existence hundreds of years ago as localized substitutes for cow milk for cooking purposes in areas that had lots of coconuts or almonds and not a lot of dairy cows. They are highly popular for cooking specific kinds of foods that call for them, and they are both also popular among people who are lactose intolerant. Their relatively recent popularity among vegans is therefore almost *entirely* an afterthought, rather than the main reason that those products are made and sold, so you would not expect them to be marketed in a way that is misleading.

I agree. This law is a stupid law, IMO. That's not to say that there isn't a need for a law, just that this one isn't the right one.

The point is not that the harm is huge. It's that people were misled into buying something that they did not intend to buy, and that distorts the free market. That's literally why we have false advertising laws. It really doesn't matter whether we're talking about a $3 container of milk or a $10,000 custom motor scooter. Truth in advertising is a hard requirement for a functioning free market, and when companies play fast and loose with things in ways that actually mislead consumers, that's a bad thing.

So requiring that they be crystal clear that their products are not made of meat is reasonable. Requiring them to avoid certain terms is not, IMO.

The GP said "animal products", not "meat". Dairy is an animal product, because it comes from animals. And it is part of a carnivore diet, an omnivore diet, or a vegetarian (but not vegan) diet. Cats are obligate carnivores, but still love milk (and most can at least tolerate it in small quantities, despite inadequate lactase to consume it in larger amounts). So that part of the post seems fine to me.

I'm slightly more disturbed by the possibility that the milk is exactly like the GP's grandma used to make, but I'm probably misinterpreting that sentence. :-D

Same as the ones they have at work that are made with oat milk. I won't repeat the word in polite company. :-D

I'll grant you that the term "coconut cream" is pretty old (mid-1800s), and ice cream made with coconut cream predates my grandparents. I think the key is in how it is labeled.

If the packaging and advertisements clearly say "coconut cream ice cream", that's clear and unambiguous. Nobody should be confused by that any more than they should be confused by "almond milk" or "soy milk".

If the packaging just says "coconut ice cream", however, that would be massively misleading, because most people would expect that to be dairy-based ice cream with coconut in it (which tastes like coconut meat), rather than dairy-free ice cream made with coconut cream (which likely tastes nothing like coconut meat unless it also contains shredded coconut meat).

Using the word "juice" for coconut milk seems way more misleading. Juice is produced by (optionally cutting and) squeezing a fruit. As I understand it, when you cut and squeeze a coconut without doing anything else, you get coconut water, and not much else.

Coconut milk, could also be described as coconut *broth*, because it's what happens when you grind up the meat of a coconut to a fine purée and then liquify the fat with hot water so that it can be extracted separately. It is is a mixture of coconut oil and coconut water in somewhere between a 1:1 and 3:1 emulsion, possibly with a bit of dissolved solids in suspension.

Put another way, coconut milk is to coconut flesh as coffee is to coffee beans, give or take. Nobody would call it coffee bean juice.

As an aside, the term "coconut meat" dates back to at least the early 1700s, which is yet another example showing why this attempted redefinition of such terms to be exclusively for animal products is revisionist history, and arguably a form of corporate welfare, and runs contrary to the natural evolution of the language. This is not to say that package labeling isn't sometimes misleading, but that doesn't mean we should make it even more so to suit the vested corporate interests of meat producers. :-)

Locally, yes, but the moisture that is accumulating previously evaporated and went somewhere else. What will the impact be there? Very hard to say.

Give app developers the option to simply not offer their apps in Texas, rather than subject their users to this invasion of privacy around the world to appease a few fascist a**holes.

Yes, but it's a lot more expensive to float stuff on water and extract electricity from it. It *MIGHT* be worthwhile, but it would be more difficult.

There will be some. Every side has it's nuts. But deserts created by human actions can justifiably be remedied by human actions.

OTOH, ecology is complex. It's quite possible that this, which seems beneficial, may not be. That's not the way I'd bet, but I'd be a fool to deny the possibility. (But irreversible, in this context, is silly)

IIUC, that area was explored (by the US) during one of the periodic droughts, It ended. A while later another occurred, leading to "the dust bowl". Etc. And currently I believe they're pumping water from deep under ground, faster than it's being replenished.

It's quite possible that the best use of that land is buffalo grass and buffalo, as the grass has roots that go deep, but don't extract more water than is available on the average. (I suppose cattle are an alternative to buffalo, but buffalo can pretty much take care of themselves. Of course, they don't notice fences.)

It *should* be no different than showing a bartender. The problem is that we don't have strong data privacy laws in this country that prohibit retaining customer data beyond what is strictly necessary.

Those government IDs should have been sent as data directly to a printer along with the person's user ID, and a human being should have looked at it, pointed their phone at a high-density barcode or QR code or whatever, tapped "Approve" or "Deny", and then put it in the shred bin. Rinse, repeat.

There is absolutely no reason to retain that data for 60 seconds, much less long enough for it to realistically be compromised in bulk. After it has been verified, you no longer need it. A single boolean value is adequate. If a law requires more than that, the law is flawed and must be ignored for the good of society.

FWIW, watermelons evolved in a desert. They were domesticated BECAUSE they were a source of water during the dry season.

Now, granted, what we call watermelons have changed a lot from their ancestors.

They can list to you what the fees are. They can't necessarily list to [arbitrary person known by only a zip code] what the fees are, and doubly so to [arbitrary person known only by a 30-mile radius].

Of course, if they were being honest, they could say for $39.99 + $10.99 or less in taxes and surcharges and give a maximum price. Nobody is going to complain if the price turns out to be cheaper.

Honestly, this doesn't matter even slightly to me. As long as it is *only* government fees that we're talking about, there is no real difference between showing $x in government fees and showing a list of smaller fees. The important part is requiring that they disclose the final total, including the fees.

The only people who care about which specific government fees are involved are the Republicans looking for ways to reduce taxes. So arguably, from the left's perspective, this is is an improvement, because it means various governments can add taxes and fees without getting blamed.

Now if we see them start bundling non-mandatory fees or non-governmental fees, that's where we have a problem. But as long as we're basically just talking about taxes, I couldn't give a rat's you-know-what, and IMO, nobody else should, either.

By definition, what things sell for now is what they are worth now.