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. :-)

"Bleach will cure Covid!" could flood hospitals during a pandemic, making a bad problem worse.

I don't mind if people off themselves quietly in the woods where nobody will find their body, but if they fuck with our hospitals than their mistake becomes MY problem, and that's where their freedom ends. It's yelling fire in a crowded theatre.

IA likely has some assets in the EU that Belgium could touch through it's membership. Perhaps they could even get them shut down in the EU for failure to comply with laws.

So Mckinsey is wondering how to sell snake oil of firing all the employees and employers are eagerly buying it up, to fire all the employees.

I wonder what the employees think of that, or are doing about it?

"People have an instinctive reaction to what feels authentic. We recoil from what feels fake. That's why human creativity matters," said Lee. "AI doesn't dream. It doesn't feel. It doesn't make art. It aggregates it."

Sorry but that's not the case. If you tell people it's AI, or assure them it's not, then suddenly their perception of it is different. It's not that the piece has changed at all - their perception of it has changed.

Due to something that is extraneous to the piece itself.

Sorry but people are going to feel that AI art is authentic, and not recoil from it. Especially these days and on into the future where it just gets better and better. Not unless it's explicitly labeled as such. Which is basically giving them an opinion on the piece and not letting them develop one.

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.

Shit, now you tell me, but I did find them delicious.

Correction: "Americans", no apostrophe.

Americans cant punctuate.

Correction: in saunas.

Geezer moment.

He has unusually high levels of heat shock proteins, which prevent proteins from misfolding. Scientists believe his decade working in Navy engine rooms at temperatures reaching 110 degrees may have driven this accumulation.

Let's try soaking geezers on saunas.

Oh wait, I'm a geezer too.

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.