I live in an area where there are plentiful eagles and I never heard of anyone eating one. I kayak around some islands in a nearby river where eagles nest and frequently encounter people at boat landings inquiring about eagle feathers. The laws around that stuff are pretty harsh - I always figured them to be under-cover Feds.
Sandhill cranes are omnivorous and have the nickname "ribeye of the sky." I've never tried myself as I no longer live in the US, but I've heard they are very good.
I've shot tons of film over a great many years and I have a sizeable collection of cheap and expensive 35mm and 120mm film cameras covering the period from the late 1800's to the 1980's. I stuck to film well after digital cameras got cheap enough for my tastes and I still love to shoot film - I have about 25 rolls of exposed color film in my office waiting for me to develop, so I still shoot a fair amount on film. I also feel more of a connection to my film cameras since they have a personal history and are works of art.
One regret I have about the film era is that, starting out as a teenager, I scraped to afford film and, recently, it struck me how large the gap is between the memories I have now and the memories I captured on film back then. Once I had a job and could afford to take more photos, I seemed to have decided that photography was for travel and special occasions and I, sadly, took photos of little else.
Now I shoot a full-frame mirrorless digital (mostly so I can use my old lenses and also, I hate cell-phone photography ergonomics). I carry my camera everywhere and shoot quite a few photos on any given day. I am learning so much more about photography now that I can freely experiment and the equipment allows me to capture things that were only rarely possible before.
That being said, I encourage everyone to try film for whatever reasons strikes your fancy. The more people into film, the more options we'll have for film stock, chemicals, and cameras.
This is also really common in the audio space. Sampling, amp modelers, etc. are really great for rapidly prototyping without either requiring the full band or a money/time sink to get the right sound.
Personally, I don't shoot enough to justify new equipment. Photography is a minor hobby of mine, and I actually really enjoy the limitations of film. Just the other day I was on shot 33 of my last 35mm roll. It hits a bit different to say "well, I've got three shots left, I better make them count." I was doing a shoot with some friends and another photographer was there shooting on continuous, snapping a dozen frames while I took one. Their shots were partially edited by the end of the night and I'm trying to find time to get to the lab.
It's just a different experience. Like I said, I like the limitation that requires more planning and intention. Things don't always work out. I'll have a whole roll that's massively under or overexposed. I'll have rolls that never loaded properly and get nothing but a clear negative after development. It's all part of the story for me.
Would you mind going into a bit more detail about your late 1800s-early 1900s cameras? I’ve recently gotten into film photography, first with a cheap, slightly broken AE-1 and more recently with a family member’s passed-down Canon F-1. Even though this equipment is more than sufficient, I find myself lusting after 1930s-1940s Barnack Leicas and the wide array of Barnack clones from that era. I’m curious what it’s like to actually shoot with those cameras.
Maybe find a way to inspire in the rich the kind of philanthropy practiced by Andrew Carnegie. He wrote his views in, The Gospel of Wealth - not having read it, but having long heard Carnegie's name as an example of wealth turned to good, I'm planning to give it a read.
Unfortunately with a political system wholly owned by the wealthy (US), I fear that there may be more truth than I want in my father's admonition that things will never get better in this country until we have another revolution. I've been around a bit and so much of today seems to be a rinse and repeat of the issues I experienced when I was young - not the world I wanted to see for my daughter. Hopefully the next generation has a stronger backbone - mine and the couple after seem to have surrendered our dreams to greed and consumerism.
Subsequent to the agricultural revolution, big cities have been more economically efficient than suburban and rural areas. The productivity of cities massively subsidizes small towns and cul-de-sac neighborhoods.
Hedonistically, everyone wants to live on a big lot on a low-traffic road... with friends, family, and work/shopping/services a short distance away. If everyone does have that kind of housing, then - quickly - no one will have it, because evetything will be too spread out; you need to drive a big, polluting car fast through someone else's low-traffic neighborhood to get to yours.
The costs of concentrated habitation are less than the benefits - there's enough tax base and density to support roads and (emergency or mundane) services and businesses. The costs of distributed habitation are higher, and don't work if the entire nation switches to that kind of housing.
>big cities have been more economically efficient than suburban and rural areas. The productivity of cities massively subsidizes small towns and cul-de-sac neighborhoods.
Environmentally and sustainably speaking, the "productivity" of big cities is zero.
Cut from the outside, a city like New York would die in a few months when food dissapears, with people eating one another. Cut from urban centers, rural towns and villages will continue to be able to drink and feed themselves just fine.
They only exist because the people living there are subsidized, for water, food, and other such essentials, from outside. Even factory production lives outside those cities.
That's how they started actually, when the rural production because so larger, as to be able to sustain not just itself, but also a parasitic, mediating and administrating, urbal class.
>If everyone does have that kind of housing, then - quickly - no one will have it, because evetything will be too spread out; you need to drive a big, polluting car fast through someone else's low-traffic neighborhood to get to yours.
There's nothing inevitable about this, it's just how US suburbs were designed, to be car-centered.
In decentralized suburbs with local walkable distance shops (walkable as a stronger condition as opposed to merely "a short distance away"), and with local jobs and more extended work from home, it doesn't matter if they "spread out", because you don't have to drive a "a big, polluting car fast through", as the need to go elsewhere is less frequent: work, socializing, shopping is nearby.
Add a good public transportation service, and you don't even need a car.
It's not parasitism, it's mutualism. If the country nurtures, the city pays the bills. I would not want to live in a country without both. Heck a country without cities probably would not last long except as a vassal.
Once you let your kid name an animal, it is a pet.
I have a bit of experience with this since we have been running a chicken retirement community for the past four or five years as our chickens, now beloved pets of my teenage daughter are well into their senior years. We get eggs, but they are very expensive eggs given the feed cost/egg ratio is changing significantly as egg production wanes and feed prices are on a continuous trajectory upwards.
We do have limits - my daughter has accepted that I draw the line at vet visits. If a chicken is sick enough to need a vet, it will be allowed to die peacefully or be euthanized if there are severe injuries.
I still have great memories laying on the living room floor reading volume after volume of the Encyclopedia Britannica during family TV evenings. The set came with a language dictionary covering 5-10 languages; I spent endless hours "learning" Russian and Arabic from that book. I still have those books and the cabinet they were sold with.
I'll take this one. The vast majority of COVID risk is stratified in the very elderly and/or those with diseases of modernity / metabolic syndrome type conditions. Both of those categories (age & diseases of modernity) are much more present in wealthy, fat first-world countries than they are 2nd and 3rd world countries. Thus the utility of reducing COVID mortality is much, much lower in those less "advanced" countries.
I'd also add that even if the absolute death weren't lower in the 3rd world, the relative death would. Being able to be freaked out about an average of .3% chance of dying of COVID if infected is a luxury that those countries struggling with malaria, rampant malnutrition, and insufficient non-COVID vaccination don't really have.
I searched for two podcasts; one failed with an error ('Error: could not handle the request) [No Agenda]. I tested another one, [eggchasers], and that worked reasonably well. My main criticism is that, when a search returns something meaningful, there is not a lot there to compel me to create an account and drill in deeper. If I were designing this, I would seed the 'sign up' presentation to new users with some relevant bits from the conversations which are happening on your site. If there are no current conversations, then some message which would spark my desire to start one.
Also, what value does the acast privacy link for each episode provide that wouldn't alternatively be provided by some header element?
There are some issues, as have been pointed out, but one very real incentive to figuring those things out is the opportunity to reduce the number of problematic interactions with the police.
