For the best experience on desktop, install the Chrome extension to track your reading on news.ycombinator.com
Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | history | yesfitz's commentsregister

Got a source for "last month of life"?

Penn State University Extension says "...approximately 95% of the cattle in the United States continue to be finished, or fattened, on grain for the last 160 to 180 days of life (~25 to 30% of their life), on average."[1]

Oklahoma State University Extension also cites a study that compares "growth and carcass attributes of calves finished for 98 to 105 days in a grass system or a legume system"[2]

That puts us between 3 to 6 times longer than you stated, and gives us the context for how much of the average cattle's life that is. (USDA Prime, Choice, and Standard are all 30 to 42 months. Select is under 30 months.[3])

1: https://extension.psu.edu/grass-fed-beef-production 2: https://extension.okstate.edu/fact-sheets/finishing-beef-cat... 3: https://www.ams.usda.gov/grades-standards/slaughter-cattle-g...


The world is bigger than US. A minority of the world is US.

Not a minority in terms of beef.[1] Only Brazil produces more.

But if you have any sources about cattle finishing practices in other countries, I’m keen to read them.

1: https://www.cattlerange.com/articles/2026/04/global-beef-pro...


Yeah, but outside the US there are also a lot of grain fed cows.

Around me, 90-120 days on max 60% field corn. If it weren't field corn, it'd be another cereal.

It's specifically referencing the central idea of the book mentioned in the first sentence of the paragraph.

> Did you get to read the Liu Cixin’s second 3-body-problem novel? - The Dark Forest. Well some of you did …

The author of this post then provides a good summary of the idea in the next few sentences, but remember there is an entire book around this premise (and a first book that sets it up and a third book explores it even more).


How much did your beef end up costing?


It's a matter of taste, but your original writing is way better. Your writing has your voice. Like dropping the "I am" from your first sentence, using parentheticals, couching your point in understatement (e.g "sometimes" meaning often instead of just saying "often").

The AI comment might be clear, but it sounds like a press release, not a person, and there's nothing to engage with.


Reduce consumption of farmed animal products to zero.


The BBC's Annual Plan for 2025/2026[1] is an interesting read.

They spend a lot of money (billions) on making and delivering content, but that's still not much compared to other large for-profit media companies[2].

The TV License has been the model since World War II[3], and the entire mass media landscape has completely changed since then.

The proposals to replace the TV License with ads or subscriptions are enshittification. The BBC is not a for-profit media company and should not be treated like one. It is a soft-power organization (cynically: propaganda arm) for the British government. There isn't anything inherently wrong with spreading your government's/culture's messages, especially when it's as obvious as the BBC, but it should not be expected to make money. How much is it worth that Britain stays relevant throughout the Anglosphere and beyond? Or that British points of view are available everywhere with a shortwave radio or VPN?

So fund it like it's defense spending. Maybe if the next leader of a foreign country has a fondness for Del Boy or Red Dwarf, negotiations will go a little more smoothly.

As an American, I think I'd prefer having an official propaganda arm like the BBC instead of whatever quiet public-private partnerships (cynically: backroom deals) we have instead. I'd hate it, but it'd be good to have something concrete to direct my criticism at, instead of constantly wondering if NPR is really presenting unbiased facts or the movie about our Navy jet fighters being the best, most freedom-loving planes flown by handsome rascals is just a good time.

1: https://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/documents/bbc-annual-plan-...

2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21st_Century_Fox#

3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_Un...


The BBC operates independently of the UK government. It is an autonomous entity that is publicly funded. It is not a “propaganda arm” of the UK government in the manner of state television.



One album is the price of an entire month of streaming.


But that album then costs you $0 per month, forever.


But I listen to a hundred albums a year and I'm only going to live another ~400 months.


With light CRM, Staffing, and Banking tools, it seems like Square's strategy is to be best-of-suite for small businesses rather than best-of-breed.

I've never seen Toast outside of bars/restaurants (although they are ubiquitous in that segment). Every other service or retail shop has been Square, especially farmers markets and craft fairs.


Not to understate the terrible conditions of "Artisanal" mines, but the Cobalt Institute says "Due to market surplus, ASM [Artisinal and Small Mine] production has reached a record low, with ASM accounting for an estimated 2% of total cobalt supply from the DRC in 2024."[1]

Which conflicts with the NPR article, "In his new book, Cobalt Red, Kara writes that much of the DRC's cobalt is being extracted by so-called 'artisanal' miners..."[2]

Unfortunately, nowhere in the NPR article does it give a hard number to compare like the Cobalt Institute, but as of 2024, JP Morgan analysis said "ASMs... contribute up to 30% of the DRC’s cobalt supply..."[3]

So, what can we do?

Mining and battery production don't require pseudo-slavery, so maybe the best answer is to work towards improved conditions in ASMs in the DRC, develop battery reuse/recycling, and searching for alternative sources of the conflict minerals so that the industy can vote with their wallet.

Unless you have another solution?

1: https://www.cobaltinstitute.org/responsible-sustainable-coba...

2: https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2023/02/01/1152893...

3: https://web.archive.org/web/20240704040321/https://am.jpmorg...


Vendor management is a risk that every business deals with to some capacity. What keeps Microsoft from charging more for Windows licenses? Linux, MacOS, even Chromebooks. A business who puts all their eggs in one vendor's basket without any exit strategy will either have to pay up, sell, or fold, but that kind of behavior from a vendor will have their other customers looking for a door.

Launching competitors? Maybe so, but this too has existing analogs pre-AI[1]. The fact that many start-ups today are created with the explicit goal of being acquired rather than growing organically or existing in perpetuity tells me that the only thing that may change is the cost of Sherlocking a startup will come down below the cost to acquire. But if the cost of creating a start-up and using a lawyer-bot to protect its intellectual property also come down, then the math isn't settled.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherlock_(software)#Sherlocked...


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search:

HN For You