Right, but that is because it essentially was a necessity. Its fortification also aided in the developmental health of generations of children. Snark about it all you like; it was valuable.
People in fact don't eat dull white sliced bread in anything like the quantity they did. The majority of bread sold might be like that but we just eat less bread full stop.
But first, when you say "this godawful bread", what exactly do you mean? Chorleywood is a process, not an outcome. It's not just the template pre-sliced white/wholemeal/brown loaf thing from the three big brands. Quite a lot of bread you might think is not Chorleywood essentially is.
Go to even a larger French supermarket and buy a baguette, and that will very likely be a Chorleywood-based process. Much in-store-bakery bread is a modified Chorleywood process (if it is not, it is another similarly "ultra-processed" method, apparently called Activated Dough Development).
Most supermarket "sourdough type" bread, even some quite expensive stuff, is a modified Chorleywood process. Most ciabatta are.
I don't really eat "cut loaf" bread anymore for quite immediate health reasons — it invariably causes acid reflux and then skin irritation, so I gave it up a long time back. But I do still eat the odd part-baked bread roll and even some of those are Chorleywood process.
There is a good chance that if you're in a posh café you're still eating a Chorleywood-type bread. Because it is a way of making bread at scale; it is not a single product outcome.
Well they can generally void contracts at will and they can't have credit cards.
I reckon this will have been informed at least in part by a billing complaint somewhat like those "my kid bankrupted me playing games from the App Store" stories.
It can be good in the way that meals with green vegetables aren't consumed as voraciously as cheeseburgers and fries. It depends on the quality of what's in the feed.
On reflection I wonder if it doesn't drop more because it's a learned habit and it doesn't unlearn in the time of the study.
However, I suspect the other complaint — that chronological feeds get overwhelmed by corporate spam — is fully true.
It's one more regular reminder that none of these companies want to charge a couple of billion users a couple of dollars a month to give them exactly what they are asking for — a way to keep in contact with friends and meet new ones — because that's just not enough revenue for them, even if they charge for optional features.
We're all worth so much more to them if we are addicted.
I have this issue with cables between my Pi 4B and my slightly old 3D printer.
USB-A to micro-B cables, and the connection is tetchy beyond belief about which ones it will accept and which it won't, either with or without the theoretically-unnecessary-for-this-printer power wire blocker. I can see no rhyme or reason to it but now I have a cable that has a dot painted on it...
Yes — I get unreasonably upset when people nitpick holes in good analogies as if it is evidence of intellectual weaknrss, rather than working with and around them or suggesting overlapping analogies that address those limitations. And the hole in the analogy may even be the most valuable thing about it.
The fact of a hole in an analogy is not in itself information. Of course there's a hole.
The video is about congnition specifically, and not necessarily about communicating with analogies.
> I get unreasonably upset when people nitpick holes in good analogies…
What you’re describing is exactly why I strongly recommend avoiding analogy when communicating: Don’t tell me what a thing is like, tell me what the thing is. This forces really thinking about how to describe the thing precisely and succinctly. (Edit: The listener will make their own analogy.)
On the contrary, analogy is absolutely a foundational communication technique.
But you do have to choose an analogy that your listener does not need to consider first. They need to know the subject of the analogy without having to question your description of it.
I have had three mirrorless Sony cameras (albeit two secondhand), and I think they made what is one of the low-key best hobbyist cameras of its class ever [0], and I don't even much mind their current camera software, which I installed somewhat reluctantly.
But back on the distributable content side, this is a company that hacked customers' PCs with a rootkit. They are a big enough and clumsy enough company to make bad decisions regularly.
[0] the NEX-6, a true joy that I would recommend to anyone who wanted an old knockabout camera even now, though even fourteen years since it was released, its used prices hold up almost too well because I am clearly not the only person who thinks it is lovely
I guess it's worth pointing out that Sony (the conglomerate) isn't one company. It's a whole lot of companies. The gaming related part is called Sony Interactive Entertainment (headquartered in San Mateo, California). Movies are done by Sony Pictures Entertainment (headquartered in Culver City, California).
The ones making cameras are Sony Corporation (headquartered in Tokyo).
As far as my understanding goes, the Japanese part is pretty good, while the people in California have lost the plot.
> I have had three mirrorless Sony cameras (albeit two secondhand)
Wait wait wait. Secondhand you say? We need to dig into that now. Was it a purchase by a binding agreement? Was it an original camera or did the owner made a 3D-printed copy? We have more questions, hold on... :P
I have the receipts. I've always retained them for the deposition. :-)
(It is, of course, not really out of the question that the first sale doctrine will always completely cover things like subscription-upgradeable cars and cameras)
Sony broke the Canon/Nikon duopoly of professional, digital cameras. They put out a mid-level mirrorless camera and rode it out. Today, I see Sony kits everywhere like on sidelines, press pools, and studios. But I'm not a Sony investor, so maybe like you, there's not much personal interest beyond "Wow, they made a great business decision."
They did something really different actually: they put out a product that wasn’t ready and allowed the market to shape how it was used.
More or less the pure fantasy of digital cameras: a sensor in a box with a computer, screens and a lens mount. The nearest thing to no lock-in at all that doesn’t need to be mounted on another camera to work.
But the initial reviews of the first two NEX models were devastating because it was a very unfinished concept.
They had the sense to listen to complaints, implement decent focus-peaking as soon as possible, not to get too much in the way of people who were prepared to buy one to experiment with, and fix the product iteratively.
So now we have what even micro-four-thirds could not have achieved: larger and larger lens-mount-ambivalent capture boxes that don’t suck too badly.
They still IMO are not great sculpted finessed cameras, but somehow a couple of them have real charm.
The fact that the same brand is stuck to it as was stuck to digital media whose producer was so desperate to control its uses it would essentially commit crimes to do so, has always struck me as unusual.
reply