Poop indirectly on crops. Systems like this or the Aztec chinampa system, basically try to keep nutrients in the loop with fish and other aquatic organisms. Obviously, there's a disease risk if you do it wrong, but that's also true for modern water treatment.

The background check agency probably uses data brokers, though. They would just only pass along what they are allowed to.

Elbows have always been allowed on the table. The rule for fancy dining was that you couldn't have elbows on the table during a course, i.e., when people are actively eating, but before/after, it's fine. That's a reasonable rule to be considerate of space.

Fold your clothes immediately after drying, while they are still warm. Also, dryers that can add steam really help if you've got a few things that need wrinkle removal. Also, handheld steamers are cheap.

Mostly, avoid needing to iron by avoiding wearing formal business attire.

Keeping the air dry reduces both the length of time microorganisms can live outside your body and the length of time that vapor particles can harbor them.

Pretty sure this is only true for some microorganisms. Well, I'm not sure about length of survival time, but I've definitely see studies that have shown that lower humidity causes respiratory droplet evaporation, resulting in more airborne virus particles and increasing spread. There is some evidence that this increases infection rates

Any info on surface roughness? I'm thinking shiny side would be smoother and therefore less sticky, though I don't know how much the passivation layer would affect it. Probably no where close to making a difference at the end of the day, but I'm curious.

You just gave me a flashback to a system I encountered as a student where my password got truncated, so I couldn't log in. I had to ask the teacher what to do, expecting her to have access to a reset or something, but she just told me what my password was. It was like 3 and a half words, clearly truncated and stored in plain text.

Sentry Safes aren't safes, they are fire boxes with a fancy lock.

Judging by the one I bought when I went off to college to keep some documents safe, they don't even have fancy locks. I misplaced my key, but I was able to open it in the same amount of time with a pumpkin carving knife as a jiggler.

Yeah, I definitely agree we'd be better off cutting land used for livestock. I guess it's a slightly different story in Germany because any land you're using for livestock (or livestock feed) is presumably land that could be used for human food. In America, much of the land used for cattle is ranch land not suitable for agriculture. We do still have massive amounts of land cultivating crops like corn and hay for cattle that is suitable for agriculture, though.

Just going down that pro and con list, though, it really does seem unclear to me. OA releases less CO2, but it also stores less CO2 in the soil. Lower energy use/higher efficiency per land area is great, but what we really want is lowest energy use per X amount of food. The "enhanced soil and water quality" part is also debatable. this study shows a higher eutrophication potential from OA, so worse for water. It does seem to be dependent on the crop, and the impacts of beef are so insanely higher than plants, that it almost seems irrelevant how you farm crops.

It's somewhat like saying that a suburban block is better for the environment than a city block. It's true, but only if you consider just that plot of land. A city block is way more efficient in terms of per person effect on the environment.

I think the crux of the problem is that the original tenets of organic agriculture were set by some scientists a hundred years ago, but also people like Rudolph steiner who was an occultist. There's still a mix of actual science and hippy pseudoscience mixed in to this day. For example, the focus on only "natural" pesticides means using compounds that have higher runoff, persistence in the soil, and broader impacts to insect life. I wish that there was more flexibility for OA standards to change to the best evidence that we have.

This is going to be different country to country, but organic farming can still use pesticides. I posted a link below as well, but organic farming is also not conclusively better for the environment. It has lower yields, and therefore requires more land. You have to balance the effects of converting more land into organic farmland versus the benefit of, for example, less fertilizer runoff.

At the end of the day, "organic" is a marketing term, not a statement of health or ecological benefit. Most complaints about conventional agriculture (and GMOs) are actually complaints about industrialized agriculture as a whole.

I wish there was a good, regulated term for food that was produced with the best known processes (and perhaps there is for specific foods), but "organic" is not it.

There is not conclusive evidence that organic food is better for the environment. Obviously there are facets of the environment impact that will be better than conventional agriculture, but there is a ~19% reduction in yield, and lower soil carbon in organic agriculture. A reduction in yield means more land must be cleared for agriculture, so the other facets of organic ag would need a to be substantially better than conventional to make up for it.

Is cbd regulated there, though? THC is illegal in the US, too, but since it comes from the same plant, and there's no regulation and this study found 20% of cbd oil had THC innit