The annual consumption of ice cream in Japan was 6.7 litres per person in 2021 (compared to 10 litres/person in Canada and 20 litres/person in the U.S.). For all dairy, Japanese people each ate 94 kg in 2022.
They eat less dairy, but hardly none. I have heard people say that a scoop of ice cream or a glass of milk each day is not a problem, but more can be. Intolerance also seems to increase with age, so younger people can consume more dairy.
A 1975 study in Japan puts intolerance (unable to drink 200ml of milk comfortably) at 19% of the population. I would suspect that massive exposure over the past 50 years has lowered that percentage significantly.
I don't believe that there is a single case in world history where increased family income did NOT reduce the number of children per family. Likewise with improvements in child mortality.
We learned to use them in high school (in Canada) in the mid-late '70s. Electronic calculators were just becoming widespread, and not everyone had them.
I think I can do basic calculations with them, although I really haven't touched one in many years.
I'm sorry, but this comes across to me (obviously, from my first two words, also a Canadian) as saying, "I don't want the inconvenience of doing anything, but I'll pay some money to assuage my guilt".
You may not be able to vote, but as a resident you can write (on paper!) to your representatives to express your concerns.
You can get in touch with grassroots movements that are doing things (not just protesting!) to resist the rise of fascism.
You can look at ways to harness your clearly exceptional business/technical talents. Improve communications privacy for the public? Crowdsource information about ICE/CBP movements and activities? Expose people or corporations who are collaborating with undemocratic practices?
From your vantage point, you would have a much better idea what options are available.
Yes, there are personal risks and costs, but you have chosen to live in a society that has been creeping slowly but visibly towards authoritarianism. You have benefitted handsomely from your position, maybe it's time to pay back the people who clean your offices and pick your produce for (often less than) minimum wage.
The BBC said (https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cw4478wnjdpo) that in 30 years, private water and sewerage companies in England and Wales have extracted over 86 billion pounds (~USD $115 billion), while investing very little.
Meanwhile, consumer water rates in those areas increased by as much as 50% in the past year alone.
What is the number? It is a huge red flag if you see an article that cites a profits number without citing a number for capital invested. You literally cannot reach a conclusion either way without comparing the two numbers.
You cannot reach a conclusion. A conclusion is a rational thing based on comparing realistic alternatives.
As the user of the water system you do have to care about the return on investment. Because the alternative is to have the government take out bonds to pay for that work, and you’d have to pay the interest on those bonds with your tax dollars.
The conclusion in this case is very simple: 86 billion has been taken in profits, with very limited capital investment.
Now .. what to do about that? That's a bit more complicated, but we could at least start from the premise that had the water systems been public, that 86 billion could have been spent on capital investment without a single bond being issued.
> The conclusion in this case is very simple: 86 billion has been taken in profits, with very limited capital investment.
What is the number for the capital investment? You’re comparing a number to words. That’s a type error.
> That's a bit more complicated, but we could at least start from the premise that had the water systems been public, that 86 billion could have been spent on capital investment without a single bond being issued
Not without knowing how much capital has actually been invested to date. Because you’d be have paid out interest and principal on that over 30 years out of that 86 billion.
I'm the board of my local (rather small) water system. Most of our capital investment is done by spending what we raise from our members/customers, and we try hard not to require loans unless absolutely necessary.
A larger water system has bigger capital projects, but also a larger customer base (and they also likely charge more per liter of water than we do). So it is absolutely not a given that capital investment in water infrastructure requires bonds or loans (though I acknowledge that these likely cannot be avoided).
Issuing bonds is how virtually every large water system pays for capital projects. My county is very financially responsible (triple AAA bond rating), but it has hundreds of millions in debt outstanding for water/sewer: https://www.fitchratings.com/research/us-public-finance/fitc.... This is a small county with just half a million people.
Again, how much money did these UK water companies invest? What's the number? Without knowing that, you're in no position to say it's in the range of what a government utility would be able to pay out of operating surplus, without issuing bonds.
I wouldn't say more disturbing, really. But more "enlightening".
A shit umbrella is great to have if the alternative is a shit funnel. But how are you gonna appreciate the shit umbrella if it's pitch black, blocks everything at all times?
You're not gonna appreciate it. In fact, you might think some of the things your manager does are the "bad things", when in fact, it's just the umbrella bowing under all the shitload.
If the umbrella is (somewhat) transparent, you, as the manager, gain some legitimacy through transparency. You're no longer the manager that "sits around on his ass all day doing nothing". You're actually doing something for the team and they can "see" it, even though it doesn't affect them.
They eat less dairy, but hardly none. I have heard people say that a scoop of ice cream or a glass of milk each day is not a problem, but more can be. Intolerance also seems to increase with age, so younger people can consume more dairy.
A 1975 study in Japan puts intolerance (unable to drink 200ml of milk comfortably) at 19% of the population. I would suspect that massive exposure over the past 50 years has lowered that percentage significantly.
reply