They certainly give the impression that it is though!

[0]: https://www.theguardian.com/business/article/2024/jun/11/fou...

[1]: https://www.sustainweb.org/news/dec23-lidl-sourdough-sourfau...

kwhitefoot is correct and the vast majority of bread in the UK is not what you think it is.

The bread in these two stores is mostly baked in a factory and then delivered to the store where it may be heated for a golden crust (at most). The ancient grain sourdough is (likely) just mostly wheat bread [1].

In my personal experience, I was always suspicious of the "fresh sourdough bread" at Tesco. It was far too soft to be real sourdough bread and now I think it was a straight-up lie- sorry just a marketing label.

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/business/article/2024/jun/11/fou...

[1] https://www.sustainweb.org/news/dec23-lidl-sourdough-sourfau...

I find it hard to believe given global markets that it is more than half of the cost in more than just a few extreme parts of the world.

It is the closest phone to what I have been after for a while. I particularly like their long software support and their support for right-to-repair. It runs stock Android, however I'm not sure whether that means Google is still fully entrenched into all aspects of the phone by default including through Play Store APIs, notifications, etc.

(If anyone would shed some light on the software side, I would appreciate it because I'm not familiar with modern Android.)

Even if it were suitable I would not be in a position to buy it for a while, hence I am still plodding along with my iPhone but just keeping an eye out for good alternatives.

Edit: I re-noticed you said it runs postmarketOS. That's awesome and I'll need to look into it - I know very little about it. Though it seems many aspects of the hardware are not supported on even the Fairphone 4.

Everyone should be able to run whatever legally-obtained program they have on their device without needing to pay someone, and without needing the permission of someone else.

In my opinion, that should be law. (I think that would be net-beneficial to society and so worth the restriction on profits for a couple of humongous companies or whatever.)

However, over the years there have been more and more instances where Apple decides what I can do with my phone. From restricting APIs to give their first-party apps advantage, to, most recently, not having any (local) method to move voice memos off my Apple Watch.

I've realised they are orchestrating their hardware and software to build a truly solid wall from within which they can extract continuous rent from their captives.

I don't own my device because I cannot freely run the software I create on it (without paying Apple and gaining their approval, which is impossible in some cases).

I'm done with Apple... but there are no acceptable alternatives. Android is bad in other aspects.

This is not a free and fair market; it's a duopoly.

I genuinely pray weekly for a phone like the Framework Laptop, where I can run my own software (Arch Linux) and repair and replace the hardware as needed.

Make music - I know that birds sing, and a quick Google search shows whales and seals seem to make "music" as well

Theorize - Depending on what you mean of course (but I agree with you about e.g. scientific hypotheses to be tested), but as an example apparently birds "theorize about the minds of others", again by Google search

Writing - Definitely a stretch here (and so I agree with you) but animals do leave chemical markings for others

Large multi-national profit-focused companies are responsible for your food. (To be more precise, something like 60% of calories consumed by western nations is produced by a small number of international companies... I think my point is clear enough.)

Their overriding goal is to make money. It is not to make healthy food.

They do not comprehensively test new ultra-processed ingredients before using them in foods. This is partly why there is a cycle of "oh no, X is bad for you" and "don't worry, we can fix all of this by using Y" and "oh no, Y is bad for you". The test is live, on everyone, happening right now.

There are no general regulations preventing them to do whatever it takes to reduce the cost of "food", so long as they are not obviously killing people. There are many "slightly bad" side effects of this that will pass unnoticed until investigated with great effort and cost.

That's what this review is.

You are finding out now, after the fact.

Don't misjudge the cause though. It's not the ingredients. It's the system that underpins the entire (food) industry.

I was so annoyed that I actually cancelled my subscription.

The answer is that the technology is advertised as not dazzling oncoming drivers only.

Further, the little explanation of the technology I could find stated it worked by detecting headlights and taillights of cars.

The remaining area will be lit with modern high-intensity beam.

Thus, I conclude that the pedestrians and cyclists will be blinded.

Pedestrians?

- Arrow's theorem does not apply to first past the post

- Arrow's theorem does not apply to proportional representation

- Arrow's theorem only applies to ranked voting systems.

Arrow himself said about US elections (FPTP), "The first thing that I'd certainly do is go to a system where people ranked all the candidates."

So yeah… I’m still maintaining FPTP is less fair, as the evidence you supplied is not applicable.

Here's an example of a news organisation that does not take money from advertisements: https://bylinetimes.com/about/

It's part of the reason I switched my subscription to The Guardian over to them.

I think there are alternatives that should also be encouraged. I want to spread awareness of Byline Times and Private Eye. I recently switched from a subscription of The Guardian to Byline Times.

I think local papers are also important.

I agree with you that FPTP is democratic, and that you get groups who are over-represented (such as your example with SNP).

I respect your point about deficiencies with alternative voting systems as seen in other countries in Europe, and do distrust anyone that promises a panacea in general.

I couldn't agree more about being well-informed and actually voting.

I also agree with your earlier points that I didn't mention in my other comment, about other recent anti-democratic measures (specifically Voter ID), and your particularly prescient point about a partial driver of Brexit.

That last point is something that I've thought about a lot, and I think it's worth pondering more.

Consider various definitions of democracy, they're usually along the lines of:

> Democracy is a system of government in which laws, policies, leadership, and major undertakings of a state or other polity are directly or indirectly decided by the “people,” a group historically constituted by only a minority of the population (e.g., all free adult males in ancient Athens or all sufficiently propertied adult males in 19th-century Britain) but generally understood since the mid-20th century to include all (or nearly all) adult citizens.

https://www.britannica.com/question/What-is-democracy

Put simply, democracy is a government by the people.

But in the elections I referenced, we see that some groups of people are underrepresented in government. Their opinions are not contributing to decisions as much as other people's.

It's similar to gerrymandering. Keep the same voting system, but distribute electoral areas so that a certain group of people will never have political power. Wouldn't you say that's less democratic?

So why would you say that taxes would harm poor people? I think I know why.

In practice, the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government, and the media have been almost completely captured by the wealthy to disproportionately benefit themselves.

Wealth is essentially zero sum game despite what many would say. Power is certainly a zero-sum game. When you have power over another, they have less power over you. I believe wealth is another form of power, a little indirect and not perfect, but the correlation is strong enough.

This means that there is no practical solution that won't harm poor people. This includes your proposal where you would like the government to "benefit everyone".

The market has failed to fully price the external effects generated by some economic activities, thus the government must step in and impose a tax on all water use so that they can correct the negative externality.

At the simplest level, the government can use the proceeds to buy the water themselves and distribute it to those in need. For example, to reduce bureaucracy during a crisis, they could pay for the first 5 litres of daily residential water use for each individual directly on their bills.

The problem is again: the resource is not being priced correctly.