livus

livus, 1 month ago

@alvvayson where does it say there's none in Bangladesh?

There's even more sugar in Nestle formula in Bangladesh than there is in India.

livus, 1 month ago

One of Nestle's main evil plans in the Low Income Countries is to aggressively tell mothers that formula is better than breastfeeding, have doctors suggest it, or even give free formula until the mothers' breastmilk dries up.

Humans evolved to crave sugar which is scarce in nature.

Babies will naturally prefer milk with higher sweetness i.e Nestle Cerelac. This will help convince the mothers to breastfeed less, buy more formula, and/or let their milk dry up.

Edit: here's UNICEF on these evil marketing practices in Bangladesh.

livus, 1 month ago

No, don't try to pass the buck. Wealthy nations are the ones responsible for what their own citizens get up to. Corporations are made up of people and should be regulated by their host nations.

• Low Income Countries usually lack the resources to test imported products properly. This for eg is why all the poison cough syrup deaths globally.

• They also lack the resources to finance enforcement of their laws.

• They are also bullied by the World Trade Organization or threatened with lack of trade in necessities if they try to go against large international corporations with lobbying power.

livus, 1 month ago

Maybe a class action?

livus, 1 month ago

This is the one.

@permit54, as soon as you start to justify argue explain or defend your position to her, that implies you acknowledge she has a right to question your methods.

She doesn't. She's not the boss of you and you don't need to engage with her preferences.

livus, 1 month ago

That's really underhanded and manipulative.

livus, 1 month ago

That... sort of is what happens. Are we in the matrix?

livus, 1 month ago

@FfaerieOxide good to know. Why less green filter?

I think you're mostly right about the "Hulbata" theory. I don't think audiences had to be disaffected per se but the first Matrix is high concept in all senses of the word; it's asking philosophical questions and much of the diegetic worlds it builds are hypothetical - sketched in, as a sort of framework for the bigger questions. A hell of a lot of gimmes that didn't really matter.

Add that to the peak late 90s style and what were cutting edge fx and it was really new.

But you're right, because of that we could project whatever we wanted into it. But then the sequels were fleshing out and codifying it all and making more laws and rules, and it became too literal. Zion was an ideal of humanity in the first film... in the second film it actually appears, and it seems to be a kind of irritating drum-hippy dance party.

If the first movie had you thinking about, I dunno, Baudrillard or something, then you meet the Architect etc and it's suddenly a lot more like Jainism meets the Masonic lodge, whether you like it or not.

livus, 1 month ago

I don't know where to begin but I'm saving this palimpsest of a comment of yours to explore during my next bout of insomnia. <3

I'm incapable of reading Simulacrum in the original but I have read Welcome To The Desert Of The Real so I let myself off the hook.