MBech

Nothing surprising really. Hopefully when people start to die at a high rate from completely preventable diseases and start getting sick from poor food quality, they realise what has to happen to fix it.

Fucking finally! It's been like forever at this point!

I suppose a percentage based on multiple factors could work. Like, just spitballing numbers here.

• 50% would be based off of ownership. If the ownership is completely european, the product gets 50%
• 50% would be based off of manufacturing location. If 80% of the product is from Europe, then the product gets 80% of 50%, so 40%.
• Final score, 90% european. Label the product with this percentage, and you'll possibly have an advantage over your competitor if your percentage is higher.

It would however be quite expensive to make the documentation for every single product sold, but Denmark already requires something more convoluted and detailed with construction materials and environmental impact, so I suppose it wouldn't be impossible to implement. Just a matter of will.

Edit. Fucked up the percentage stuff a bit, made it make sense.

Some of them are, sure, but the people working and producing the products in a different country will also pay taxes to that country.

Even if we ignore the workers' taxes, if I was to buy an ingredient for my product from an american company, they will pay taxes from the money I paid them. This is why what Salling is doing is at best a bit useless and at worst completely misleading. I will have no clue wether or not something has been imported and repackaged, had ingredients imported, or is 100% european produced with the labeling. In essense all it tells me, is that the person who sold the final product is situated in Europe in some capacity.

may very well be, but my point was more that even with labelling euro products this way, you're still not guarenteed not to support american corporations.

It's a bit of "the enemy of good is perfect", or however that goes, but it's still worth taking into account.

The problem with how Salling does it, is it's only based on ownership of the product. Someone could for example produce and manufacture 100% of the product in USA and then ship it to Denmark, but if the owner is european, then it'll be marked as a european product.

My biggest issue with survival games is usually the lack of a goal. If Jagex treats this game the same way as OSRS or RS3 concerning quests, this could very well be a really nice experience. It could also very well be a very generic survival clone that adds absolutely nothing new to the genre.

It's also not the first time Jagex has fucked up games. It often seems like they have absolutely no idea what makes OSRS and RS3 as good as they are, and at least for OSRS, the dedication of the mods seem to be the only reason the game isn't dead.

I suppose we'll have to wait and see which direction they take it. I hope it'll be good, but I absolutely expect them to shit the bed on this.

You can do whatever the fuck you want, as long as you have an expensive enough lawyer who will "correct" you, when people point out what you're doing is illegal.

It's by design though. None of this is because of loopholes. What is happening is because the people in power wanted it to be possible.

I mean, I hope I'm wrong, but my point is that without more information, I would have to see some actual data to compare this stuff. I am however aware that we won't get reliable data until large-scale production is both possible, and profitable.

It's the same scepticism I have when a new building material says it's much better for the environment, but then it turns out it's either not possible to upscale to the point that it's actually environmentally friendly, because it uses a very limited by-product from a different production. Or it turns out they don't count the materials needed for the underlying construction to make it possible to use, because it's not directly part of the material.

I just want some proper articles about this stuff, with actual numbers and calculations made public, instead of a picture shared on some social media.

My thought process is that if you have to mimic a living environment, you still need to include most of what the natural environment needs. The one artificial meat I've read about had the meat growing in vats of some "solution" that mimics the natural environment of the meat (so like a body). Granted, the process in the post may not function like this, but if it does, that process would include:

• Heating, because the meat is actually meat, and the cells require heat to function, which still isn't all that efficient.
• Getting rid of the artificial meat's dead cells and natural waste.
• The "solution" itself I imagine is a funny chemical mix of some sort. So getting those chemicals extracted from their sources. (This one is a bit more iffy, I have no idea what the "solution" is, could be demineralised water with beef stock mixed in for all I know).
• I can't imagine keeping the "solution" as clean as needed for food safety laws around the world is an easy feat coupled with the other points I've listed.

These are all just speculations, please feel free to prove me wrong on any of them, and be sceptical of my list. But this is what I'm sceptical about with the very lacking information in the post.

God damn that's an ugly fit on the panels under the window that seemingly haven't fallen off yet.

Jamen fedt jeg kunne hjælpe