Actually, to make tofu tasty you need considerably more than just a few spices.
That is entirely subjective. You can make tofu extremely tasty with a short marinade in soy sauce. Fish sauce. Wine. Coconut milk. A dip in water or egg, bread coat, short fry, and you have the makings of a great tofu parm. Shred and mix into tomato sauce for a faux meat sauce. Cold smoke, dice, mix with rice, cheese, and you have the start of an excellent burrito/taco. Silken tofu can be used as a source of protein in smoothies, and any number of desserts. Or, lightly sweetened and served as is (as is commonly done in Japan).
I *am* sure that leftovers are nowhere near as tasty.
No, you aren't, you are assuming. Considering I just named several dishes that I'm pretty sure you had no idea even existed, you have no idea whatsoever those leftovers would taste like. Now, i'll be subjective too - chicken in the US is pretty darn terrible. In general, it tastes like cardboard (and this is by design - flavor takes time to develop, and when birds need to be slaughtered by 6 weeks that just doesn't happen). Go to France and try poulet de bresse and realize how truly abhorrent American chicken really is. It's not worth the animal suffering that goes into it.
Unless you live in a place where meat is very scarce, you only eat filet or ribeye every night, or insist on grass fed free range low stress hand massaged beef the financial impact of meat vs no meat is very minimal.
is seemingly unfounded. Unless you consider a 50% reduction in cost to be minimal, which I do not. Interestingly, the cost of 39 weeks of tofu ($139.23) is nearly a wash with the cost of only 13 weeks of chicken ($136.50). If someone is culinarily inclined, there are even cheaper options. Indian foods, beans, whole grains, etc.
You know, I see constantly people advising that you use a VPN when connecting with pubic wifi,
The last time I tried this, she slapped me.
I read a while back that a surgeon accidentally got cancer from one of his surgical patients:
So, it appears that cancer can move between hosts in a mechanical fashion.
I found a nastier one a while back: guy has tapeworm, tapeworm has cancer, tapeworm spreads its cancer throughout the guy's body as it wriggles around.
Here's the story. One of the interesting things was that the tapeworm tumors had differently-sized cells, so they were easy to differentiate from the host's cells. Now, that's not exactly cancer being transmitted, insofar as it wasn't his cells that were turning cancerous, but they were growing/multiplying and helped cause his death. It's like being infected with some other animal's cancer.
Among epistemologists the near-consensus is that belief is one of the necessary ingredients of knowledge.
Cite? I know lots of things I don't believe in. For example, I have quite a lot of knowledge about how magic works in various fictional systems. I find it much more likely that you're mischaracterizing the belief/knowledge of epistemologists than that they're really that stupid.
I feel the same way you do, but:
"There are three components to the traditional (“tripartite”) analysis of knowledge. According to this analysis, justified, true belief is necessary and sufficient for knowledge.
The Tripartite Analysis of Knowledge:
S knows that p iff
p is true;
S believes that p;
S is justified in believing that p.
The tripartite analysis of knowledge is often abbreviated as the “JTB” analysis, for “justified true belief”."
certainly reinforces at least a classical view that epidemiology claims belief is necessary for knowledge (with the proviso that there are modern theories of knowledge that disagree.)
The kicker seems to be in the use of the word 'justified', which I think I'd characterize as a weasel word on Wikipedia.
For example, the average person has approximately 1 testicle.
Whenever people trot out the tired statistic that 70% (or whatever) of drivers believe they're better than the average driver, to mock the idea of how well people rate their own abilities, I trot out the statistic that 99.9% of humans have more than the average number of eyes. We assume gassian distributions with no idea if that's actually representative of the results.
With that said, at least the air force example is a case of misunderstanding of how averages concatenate, which is a slightly more complicated poor understanding of statistics. (It doesn't take long to calculate 0.3^10 and realize that it's an extremely small number, but that's not intuitive if you haven't taken statistics classes, or, in my case, lots of chemistry classes: when you have a complex synthesis that has seven steps, each with 80% yield, you realize you're going to need kilograms of starting material to even measure your final product.)
I'm going to argue with the OP. Most retrofit cnc kits won't give you 0.002" repeatability because the lead screws are too sloppy. LEGO bricks are built to 0.0002". A Tormach 440 cnc, cost $5K, with ballscrews rather than leadscrews, still quotes positional accuracy at 0.0013". Prices rise quickly from there. The Haas minimill, at $34K, appears to claim positional accuracy of 0.0005", although it's not obvious that its repeatability is that high.
"When people are least sure, they are often most dogmatic." -- John Kenneth Galbraith