It's funny that you mention co-op and lidl.. neither of them actually have "bread fresh baked on premises including stuff like ancient grain sourdough" [0].
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.
I’m not sure about that, but I can tell you that the UK has been regressing in: healthcare, policing, education, road infrastructure, rail infrastructure, immigration control and social care for the last 10-15 years amongst other things. The median disposable salary has also been decreasing.
Thank you. I did actually come across this a few weeks ago as I semi-regularly search for new phones in my despair!
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.
My tolerance for Apple's walled garden expired with what they've pulled in reaction to the Digital Markets Act. It's become blatant (to me) they are landlords of their digital empire seeking to squeeze rent from everyone. I wouldn't mind paying for their expensive and yet still-profitable hardware if not for the antics they pull on the software side.
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.)
I don't. This is a stark realisation that I have had over the past few years. I would once staunchly recommend iPhones for their strong security, in particular app isolation, on-device AI, and physical device security.
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.
Wear clothes - I know that hermit crabs wear shells
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
You need to look at the real incentives in a system, not pick out what you would like to happen.
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.
To add to the discussion of the The Guardian, I think it is borderline. It is certainly much better than the majority of entertainment / media / "news" which is billionaire-owned.
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 we actually agree a lot and I appreciate your reflection on voting systems and democracy.
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.
First Past the Post is less democratic than other systems of voting.
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.
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?
Taxes don't have to push the problem onto poor people at all. For example, the proceeds can be directly given to everyone equally which will usually disproportionately benefit poor people.
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".
During a water shortage, if most of the water is being taken up by few wealthy individuals, then there are negative externalities being created: people dying, falling sick, being hospitalised, protests and violence that takes policing resources, etc.
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.