this post was submitted on 19 Dec 2024
34 points (97.2% liked)
New York Times gift articles
608 readers
78 users here now
Share your New York Times gift articles links here.
Rules:
- Only post New York Times gift article links.
Info:
- The NYT Open Team. (2021-06-23). “A New Way to Share New York Times Stories”. open.nytimes.com.
- “Gift Articles for New York Times Subscribers”. (n.d.). help.nytimes.com.
Tip:
- Google "unlocked_article_code" and limit search results to the past week.
- Mastodon: Use control-F or ⌘-F to search this page. (ref)
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Because dipshits gonna dipshit.
Crunchy types who think ultra bacterial/viral milk is health beneficial and that bacteria free (pasteurized, as in, flashed with some heat) is terrible for their health, will go out of their way to continue consuming it. Remember, “I don’t wanna” is a predictor of human behavior.
We also have the premier dipshit, RFK, heading health, and a CDC that doesn’t do pandemic work (see: Reveal podcast’s 3 part series on the COVID project), so it could be that California is treating this as one of many things states have to do themselves, by themselves, going forward. My read of the post election news is all 3 west coast states plan to do for themselves, as independently as possible, since Trump won. This action fits that narrative and theif GDPs, CA especially, do make that plausible. As such, OR and even WA may follow suit if more cases appear.
Newsom is also gunning to run in 2028, assume we have democratic elections instead of Putin style elections going forward.
I was wondering if it was only going to affect people who drink raw milk, but other articles are reminding me that it still affects the farm workers themselves (which I thought protective gear was shown ro be sufficient there, but I don't recall how certain that is).