#communication efficiency

[freemicrotools]

Bulk Email Validator - Verify Email Authenticity

[unitedfrontvarietyhour]

More Elon slander bc fuck that guy.

(Pt.2)

[bonefall]

[ID: Ask from @storiesandsquirrels, transcribed in alt text]

also: link to Cow Lore

There's one major misconception here I've gotta correct before answering earnestly; Holsteins do need Super Duper Food. This is one of their major problems as a breed, you need to give them high quality feed for high quantity, low quality milk.

But! That said! These are valid questions that deserve real responses. In spite of the quick correction, I actually want to answer them as you phrased them because I think it would be more illuminating. I'm going to try and summarize them as I go along;

Question 1: "Why wouldn't we want to use The Most Efficient Cow?"

The simplest answer is disease. My ""prediction"" came true, and bird flu has mutated to spread extremely easily through the infected udders of Holsteins. No one has died of bovine-contracted HPAI yet, but with Brainworm Bobby and his love of raw milk in charge of the CDC...

well. my last prediction was prophetic. let's hope this one's not.

Minmaxing a breed for one specific purpose always means intensive inbreeding. Like I mentioned, 9 million Holsteins are genetically equivalent to 60 individuals. A more genetically diverse population is one that will be better at preventing disease outbreaks, and reducing their severity when they do.

And what even is the Most Efficient Milk Cow? If you're only selecting for pure milk production to drive down its cost, you get a breed of cattle that lacks every other important trait that would make it good livestock;

They get sick more often, due to inbreeding depression and lack of physical fitness, requiring more antibiotics and veterinary care.

They are bad parents who will need more human intervention to birth and raise calves

They won't be good grazers, meaning they need a specific food grown for them, increasing how much "functional" land is actually dedicated to cattle husbandry.

Their carcass won't yield as much meat, so more cattle have to be raised and slaughtered to meet demand.

Their bodies will burn out much quicker than a healthier animal, meaning you need to replace your livestock more often.

When it comes to living beings, "efficiency" is "fragility." It's not a stable system to begin with.

Even with the pure logic aside, just, step back here and look at the situation with a heart. We'd be making unhealthy, short-lived animals lacking critical instincts to lead good social lives. AND we probably haven't even fixed the "less land" problem, just shifted the land off-site.

For what? For more milk? We have SO MUCH milk we don't even know what to do with it!

Question 2: "Isn't an overabundance of cheap milk a good thing?"

no.

Under the infinite genius of Capitalism, thousands of gallons of milk just gets poured into the sewer daily because there's too much of it. Transporting it to a processor would cost more than it's worth, sometimes the processors turn milk away because they don't want to overproduce products, and even the US government can't subsidize every last drop; it still has 1.4 billion pounds of cheese in various caves and warehouses across the country.

The price of milk cannot get any lower because it's already being sold below the cost it takes to produce it, and yet, we're still here literally pouring it down the drain.

[photo from bill ulrich who photographed a farmer dumping milk back during the pandemic. this isn't even a recent photo. this happens every time there's a milk surplus. im using this photo because i like the farmer's cunty little pose. look at him. "just ain't right"core.]

And milk being dumped into the sewer is more than just wasteful. It's a biohazard.

Milk doesn't stop rotting when it's dumped. If you live downstream of a milkhouse, improper milk disposal reeks.

It's full of nutrients, too, which causes diatoms, cyanobacteria, and other types of algae to go into overdrive-- causing a Harmful Algal Bloom event in the water, or HAB.

HABs are horrific. There's HUNDREDS of different types. They can suck up oxygen and create "dead zones" which kills all aquatic life, they can poison the water supply for an entire town, and some can even cause toxic fumes that make it hard to breathe on land.

Now, listen, I don't want to scare you into never dumping out rotten milk or anything! It's that on an industrial scale, it's REALLY REALLY bad if a farm overproduces milk-- especially crummy milk that can't be made into decent cheese or other dairy products.

In fact, if we did produce milk on a smaller scale, it would be better for everyone! Unless you're a Milk Guzzling Fiend like I am, you probably wouldn't need to buy a whole gallon at a time. In countries like Italy, it's sold fresh and in smaller containers, and you're just expected to pick it up as you need it.

This is why milkmen used to exist, and still do in places that are cool; they'd deliver your supply fresh from the creamery. Less waste, less stress! The "subscription model" is actually sooooooooooo much better for milk production, since it helps to stagger out those "surges and drops" of demand that leads to milk dumps.

Question 3: "If the cow eats less, doesn't that mean less land for pasture, which is a good thing?"

There's a lot to unpack within this sentiment. It's actually based on a couple of common assumptions on a few levels, which are incorrect in fascinating ways. Challenging this means opening up your worldview on how complex keeping livestock actually is!

I'll start with the simpler part;

You could cut fresh pasture out of the equation entirely and shove a cow into a concrete pen with a food box-- but are you counting the land growing the fodder?

When you grow corn the way that we do on industrial farms in the US, it's unbelievably destructive. Unending oceans of monoculture. Fogged with pesticide, pumped full of fertilizer which causes HABs like dumped milk does, sprayed with thousands of gallons of wasted water.

When you look at this image, I need you to understand you are looking at a dead zone. Like a suburban lawn, just because it's green doesn't mean it's good. Nothing grows here but corn and pests of corn, which gets poisoned and dies without returning any of that energy to the ecosystem.

This is usually what is being given to "grain-fed cattle," either when they're sent to a feedlot to hit their slaughter weight, or when they're lactating so they need the extra nutrition. It's also so nasty it's inedible to human beings.

Now, a lot of cattle farmers will just supplement their cow's diet, doing a mix of pasture feeding (much cheaper) and grain feeding (quicker gains). But the facts on this are clear; pasture-kept cattle result in LESS emissions and need LESS total space than cows in confinement.

In fact, there were a LOT of benefits!

Overall gas emissions from the cows dropped by 8%

Ammonia pollution was down by 30%

Not needing to run farm equipment for fodder planting and harvest reduced carbon dioxide emissions by 10%

Rotated crop fields didn't sequester carbon; but the newly converted perennial grasslands store as much as 3,400 pounds per acre.

The outside cows did produce less milk volume, but the milk they did produce was higher quality. So, looking at all the benefits here, it's clear that pasture is actually something that should be embraced for ecological reasons, not rejected.

In FACT, it should be EMPHASIZED. Because, this is the mind-blowing part,

Pasture can ALSO be an ecosystem.

In fact, I'm a Warrior Cats guy who once did a deep dive on moorlands just so I could write WindClan better. There are entire biomes that only exist because of grazing, and British lowland heath is one of them!

Keeping cattle in a sustainable, ecologically sound way is going to look different depending on where in the world you're doing it. So many earnest, good-willed people have bought into the lie that humans are a problem, and that everything "associated" with us becomes a barren wasteland as if we are tainted. YOU are not the problem! The problem is, and always has been, exploitation. Unsustainable relationships with the land we're part of.

Indigenous people in Europe, Asia, and Africa have been keeping cattle for thousands of years. In North America, cattle can be used to maintain ecosystems that have been badly affected by the colonial eradication of the American Bison. In South America, Brazil specifically has been making incredible advances with highly efficient integrated crop-livestock-forestry farming.

Generally, pastures here in the US are not as intensely managed as an equivalent crop field. Some people fertilize them, or water them mid-summer, but absolutely not to the same extent as industrial corn farms. Cattle are typically rotated between pastures, allowing each to re-grow before they come back to graze again.

Obviously, yes, overgrazing can be an issue. Not every open space should be converted into a pasture, and the destruction of other environments to turn into cow land is a problem. But that is an issue of bad land stewardship, not the mere practice of keeping livestock.

Bottom line, though? Cattle who can graze and survive outside are better for the environment than cattle that can't.

...but hey, you know what Holsteins happen to be really bad at?

EVERYTHING. GRAZING.

They are notoriously terrible grazers. They can't do megan THEEEEE thing that cows are known for. Fragile frames, a lack of fat to keep them warm outside, increased demand for food, distaste for any rough forage, horrible mothering instincts, the list goes on. Holsteins are a NIGHTMARE to try and keep outside all year round compared to other breeds.

(especially heritage breeds, like the Milking Devon, Florida Cracker, or Texas Longhorn. Between these three, you'd be totally covered in 80% of American climates.)

I've already explained why it's not actually very good or important that we minmax milk volume, but even if that was actually something we should value, there are so many downsides that they would absolutely not be the dominant cow breed in a truly "efficient" system.

"Less cows means less cow food and cow land" is sound logic, but Holsteins are not the right cow for that job.

Question 4: "How could this be done in a way that doesn't increase cost of living?"

I'm not sure how to answer this question, simply because I'm not Bonestar, Leader of AmericaClan. Wish I was. I would rule tyrannically.

It's worth noting that Brazil is the second largest producer of beef in the entire world, AND the number one largest exporter of it, AND only puts 30% of its land to total agricultural use. The USA dedicates over 50%. And also Brazil is net reducing its amount of agricultural land while increasing output.

It seems clear to me that the USA actually has a massive food waste and resource distribution problem, to the point where the price we pay for stuff is actually wildly disconnected from the actual value of the goods and labor.

I think the way that us Americans tend to frame our conversations on these topics as "growth" vs "cuts" instead of asking how to minimize waste by making existing systems more efficient prevents us from solving problems. We're also just... really culturally resistant to the idea of anything being more "expensive," even if it ends up costing us a lot more money in waste or mismanagement later.

Penny wise and dollar foolish ass country.

Question 5: "What can we personally do about this?"

I mean, I wasn't making a call to action in Cow Lore, I was just explaining to one of my regulars why I don't like Holsteins LMAO. Since you're asking though...

I don't think we can change the wider trend in the dairy industry without actual government intervention and regulation, though, and that's very unlikely in the current political environment. they just sent random dudes to Ausalvador-Birkenau and when the Supreme Court said "bring this specific person back" they said "nuh uh." fellas I don't think we're getting better dairy regulations in the foreseeable future.

So I think the most productive thing to do is focusing on supporting small farms and heritage breeds. Get involved in your community garden or heritage society if you have one.

Not only is that generally a very rewarding thing, but it will be helpful to you in case The Situation Gets Worse. Knowing your neighbors and having real human connection is your best defense against economic recession.

Supporting the locals is always a great thing to do, which can be as simple as going to farmer's markets. You don't need to buy fancy food every day to make an impact on your community-- it can be a treat sometimes!

You could also subscribe to the Livestock Conservancy's free newsletter, where they talk about the work they're doing and upcoming events. If you're a knitter, crocheter, or any other kind of fiber artist, you could even join in on a challenge they're running where you make items out of rare wool for prizes!

Should you end up liking the work they do, you can become a member for 4$ a month, or go to one of their educational events.

Even just talking about the problem can do a lot! Did you know the Highland Cow was actually critically endangered in the USA within the past 10 years? It was the work of the Livestock Conservancy, plus a surge in their popularity, that helped to bring their numbers up. Word of mouth is a powerful thing.

All that said, remember, you can't solve every problem. It's a big world and there's a lot of them. Being made aware of an issue doesn't mean you have to drop what you were previously doing-- just care a lot about something that you want to improve, and let that guide you.

[benjaminallhope-fulltimemind]

Nearly 1 billion has been wiped from the "supposed" savings that DOGE has made, it's utterly chaotic and ridiculous that they can constantly claim shit only to eventually walk it back. Elon Musk promised to cut 2 trillion from the federal government under the Trump Administration. Does anyone support this shit anymore?

[oswaldthatendswald]

Day One of New Job: I seem to be the youngest person there by a wide margin. The single other employee who knows how to work the software I use wasn't in today, so they sent me home six hours early. (Technically, today isn't a work day for me, so I actually just came in for an orientation, but it's funnier to say I got to go home.) I have been given complete control over the materials room I manage and my hours are remarkably flexible. This could bode very well or very ill.

[himulrai]

ill get around to drawing this sometime but i was thinking: would sentinel allow 'defective' bots to exist?

i highly doubt he personally plucked the cogs out of every protoform forged from the Well, but i imagine he had some kind of cog-removal crew stationed by the Well to inspect the new protoforms

and if in their cog-removal manual (pretend that's a thing) i can see him decreeing that any protoforms with defects (e.g. fritzed vocaliser, misshapen servos, weak plating) should just... be discarded.

"they wouldn't be as efficient in the mines after all, so why should extra energon rations be wasted on them?"

[onlytiktoks]

The people are protesting, workers are speaking out, AGs are suing, but still the department is getting demolished

[burstingsunrise]

although it may come as a shock based on the content of my blog i am in fact a functional adult with a full time job in stem who is somehow entrusted to manage other humans.

and i have something very important i would like to express to any of my college-ish followers who may be entering the full time workforce soon.

think of the resume you submit when you apply for a new job as a fic you just opened on ao3. you see a wall of text, you zone out. you can't process any of it. you back out of the fic and find something you can make sense of.

the lesson is: please please please for the love of god do not apply for a job with a resume that's more than three pages long MAXIMUM. i can tell you from experience literally no one is reading all of that and all it does is make it harder to understand your actual skills and experience.

[mantisgodsdomain]

Every living bug has a personal scent - a blend of pheromones that generally acts as a personal "name", or "voice", in pheromonal communication. In social bugs, this tends to be stronger. As communication via pheromone is extremely species-specific, learning to manipulate them in more detail than some basic altering your expression of any given emotion tends to be something of a niche skill set, particularly among solitary bugs. It's most commonly learned for in-species communication, or by the bugs responsible for putting up pheromone signage in social-bug-heavy areas, but also has some fairly wide utility in less legal manners.

As pheromones are highly specific by bug, a bug of one species may have significant difficulty parsing the pheromones of a bug of another species. While social bugs in hives and colonies generally have something of an instinctive grasp of what various pheromones mean, and will often pick them up as part of communication among themselves, solitary bugs tend to be significantly less sensitive to them, and may struggle to distinguish between similar pheromone signals even if they know what both mean.

As a consequence of this, the vast majority of signage within a hive or colony can be wholly illegible to a solitary bug, even if it is perfectly clear to the hive's inhabitants. Bugs with reduced sensitivity to key pheromones used in social signalling can also suffer from this, particularly in places where pheromone signage can be important to operation. While these can be learned over time, unfortunately, it isn't always enough to make up for the social impacts.

Though it is possible to learn to suppress your personal scent, it isn't a widely distributed skill, and it's associated with criminals more than anything else - on a similar level to learning to lockpick, it's a cool trick to show off that also has a solid chance of getting your coworkers to ask you if you've stolen anything recently. Though suppression can make your scent more subtle, it can't eliminate it entirely, and most bugs who are seriously concerned about hiding their identities will wear some sort of masker to confuse their scent.

Monsieur Scarlet, due to a side effect of his personal flavor of mage, is capable of cutting off his own pheromone production entirely, or selectively shutting off specific pheromones. To other bugs, this will smell uncannily "blank". Since pheromones are still the main means through which bugs will communicate emotions, even beyond being a personal identifier, it's sort of like someone's face... slipped off, and there was just a void where it used to be.

Along with his short-range teleportation tricks, this makes him very good at slipping a tail, but also works against him in being an extremely distinctive trait that's very prone to freaking people out. Generally, you don't stop producing your personal pheromones until you die- but he's not producing a dead-ant smell, and he's very clearly up and moving, just lacking any personal scent. It's prone to tripping a sense that something is horribly, unnaturally wrong. Also, it's not very good for his body to stop making a bunch of major compounds. Generally, he'll opt more for things like cutting out stress pheromones than taking out everything.

[oysters-aint-for-me]

the bear has single-handedly saved my parents’ relationship by introducing the phrase “heard, chef!” into their communication vocabulary

[unitedfrontvarietyhour]

Trump Update: he's still stupid and evil.

(Pt.1)

[therealraewest]

I'm playing Shadow of the Tomb Raider for the first time and Lara and Jonah's relationship is very important to me just the parallels of

Lara at the beginning of the game: hey please stop being mad at me, wanna do a riddle?

Jonah midway through the game: hey please don't be sad, wanna do a riddle?

[yandere-daydreams]

How are you so fluffing funny and eloquent? Are you like that in person??

I'm not into half the characters you write about or answer asks about but I still read because I just love the way you write. You have such a smart mouth.

I hope writing is something you are pursuing because sincerely you got talent

thank you!!! and i very much do not speak like i write no T-T i have a kinda prominent speech impediment and a lot of social anxiety, so the words,,, they do not come easily. i'm simply so smart and funny and hot that the powers that be know i would be unstoppable if i could communicate a coherent sentence in any less than three tries. or say the word 'publicity'. it's a surprisingly common word okay.

[arihi]

I’m sorry I’m like this @swarmingbats this is my public apology as previously discussed

[thornswoggled]

i think i good overarching theme for a future arc would be chise having the opportunity to rejoin her birth family and choosing to stay with elias anyway. because "choosing" him was part of her forgiveness of him at the end of arc 1 but i feel like we could go further. as chise is now, she could pick up and leave if she really wanted or needed to - she has friends, money, and other trustworthy adults who would be willing to take her in. but shes still a kid, and her freedoms so far amount to elias "letting" her do things for fear of losing her favor. it would be nice for her to explicitly choose him as her family over another equally viable option, as opposed to him "choosing" her at the storys beginning

this is where we may be headed with the sprinklings yamazaki has given us. ch 98s "what will happen if chise desires something i cant provide" (ive also seen this translated as "what will happen if im not enough for her"), ch 107s "do you want a sibling/do you miss him." elias is very very afraid of losing her, but specifically that she will choose to leave him for a better alternative. he will crash out to the fullest extent if she even entertains the idea of reconciling with them. and i want to see it. and i want to see it blow up in her face and realize, oh, i already had a family i value the most

[adamghm]

Sharing notes