They’re marketed as being recyclable along with the cans that might appear at a picnic. Whether they actually get recycled is another question; I’ve seen more picnic shelters with recycling bins, but certainly not all.

Some buyers in their online reviews said they were washing and reusing the cups instead of recycling them. I don’t know how effective that is but assume it’s fine. They would be a better choice than glass at places like pools where glass is prohibited.

I mostly see them used for 1/2-gallon milk and small juice containers in the U.S. I’m in Canada right now and see them being used a lot for large juice containers also. I could see glass used for those (as they were in the past) but with the higher risk of breakage it’s not as ideal, but have a harder time picturing aluminum being used for milk and at least some of the more acidic juices. Does aluminum work with those beverages?

You seem informed on the subject: I’ve recently seen aluminum single-use cups advertised, targeting the same market as red plastic cups commonly seen at picnics. Those plastic cups are rarely recyclable, so I’m assuming the aluminum kind are more eco-friendly assuming they get recycled, even with high energy usage?

It was so similar I always assumed they still had to pay for rights to the original song

Are you a native English speaker? This isn’t quite an idiom, but the phrase “counts [something] among [a larger set]” doesn’t convey quite the meaning you seem to have interpreted. It merely highlights a featured part of a larger group. In this case “counts” simply means “numbers” not validity.

It’s not nearly as much sugar added as I expected. Jif, which seems to be the most popular brand, has 2 grams of added sugar in a 33 gram serving, for a total of 3 grams of sugar (peanuts seem to naturally produce some sugar). Comparing that to Costco’s Kirkland Select natural peanut butter, which only has peanuts and salt for ingredients, a 32 gram serving has 1 gram of total sugar. So the total sugar Jif adds is twice as much as would naturally be present, but still makes up only 6% of the serving. It’s sweeter, but not dramatically sweeter. It’s not like it’s been turned into Nutella, which has 19 grams of added sugar in a 37 gram serving, or 51% of the serving.

I think they’d have a hard time defending some but not all of those. I’m sure many of the Redditors heavily involved in those subs, including the mods, have no idea, though!

That’s a good point since I think the lactose intolerance becomes an issue in the intestines. The person you’re replying to might want to consult with a doctor.

Lactase enzyme tablets are relatively cheap and easy to carry at least a few around at all times

That one did work in Mlem

Neither link is working for me in Mlem

My immediate thought when I saw that headline elsewhere

Potentially cheaper and uses more abundant materials than lithium ion, but not as energy dense, so not ready yet for automotive purposes. They have a much higher cycle life and faster charge/discharge rates, though, so good potential for applications that don’t need to move like data center power backups.

This was a fascinating read. It’s funny to think that 50 years ago western engineers would’ve been very interested in reverse engineering this unit, whereas nowadays it’s purely for historical interest.

It’s also interesting that its limitations were being felt fairly quickly and the cosmonauts were pushing for a replacement but that didn’t come until 2002. I suspect that’s a reflection of the financial situation of the Soviet space program in the 1970s and especially the 1980s, and then the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

Just because it’s patented doesn’t mean it can’t still be released for the benefit of humanity. It does mean it will be harder for some for-profit entity to claim the process for themselves. This may be naive, but I feel like a public (state-owned) nonprofit research university will be a better steward for the patent than a private entity that’s seeking to maximize shareholder value. I would expect that they would either license the patent freely for humanitarian benefit or at a reasonable cost to support the university’s ongoing research efforts.

glad that our generation 1 product even has a chance against a $457.18 billion industry

we capture even 1% of that and we win

I mean, yeah, just about any product should be able to celebrate if they were able to hit $4.5 billion in sales. That’s still a big number. But here’s the thing: capturing 1% in that market still will be really hard. Getting 0.1% would be something to celebrate for a first-gen product from a startup. Getting 0.01% should probably be something to celebrate, and if that’s too small of a number to be celebrating then your company’s probably going to fail.

My wife would technically be Gen X while I’m a Millennial. We’re 6 years apart but there’s still a lot of overlap in life experiences.

Ehh, maybe too soon with two confirmed dead and four still missing, presumed dead. Those families are still in the peak of grieving.

That’s not…

You know what, yes, that’s exactly how it works. If you don’t look good in pictures that definitely means you look amazing in person!

I’ve really never seen someone who looks good in video but not still images or vice versa. The only way I could really see that is if someone only has one or two good angles but looks odd in the rest, so video would be more likely to reveal the bad angles.

I was in college for TV production almost 20 years ago, and this was the same time Facebook was just launching and only available to college kids. Between pictures on Facebook and looking at videos of my classmates in our projects, I was surprised to discover that the girls I thought looked best in person didn’t usually look as good on the monitors, and the girls that looked best on screen usually didn’t look as good in person. This carried through to my TV career. I noticed basically no one looked quite the same on screen as they did in person; some were better on screen, some were better in person, some looked good in both but they still looked a little different between the two of them.

I’m not sure what exactly causes the difference but suspect there’s a bit that comes from lighting, makeup, and angles, but mostly it comes from the lens. There’s a distortion that comes from the lens depending on the angle of the lens (wide-angle to telephoto) but also there tends to be a flattening of features through the lens. A lot of times the people who look good facing a camera have very pronounced features (prominent cheek bones, longer nose, lips that protrude more, etc.) but they don’t look pronounced in the image, they look pretty normal. In real life, though, they often look a little odd because the features are so pronounced. Conversely people who look good in person often seem to have flatter features in an image, which can look a little dull.

Some of that can be addressed with lighting and makeup, to help show better depth, but that takes a lot of time and equipment and especially for TV news that often isn’t available. A still photographer might have more options for that, so maybe that’s where someone could look good in a photo but not a video.

The only other area I could see someone being better in a photo than video is someone who looks good with the distortion of the extreme wide angle of a phone’s selfie camera. If they’re mostly taking pictures with that they might not seem as good in other media with more normal lenses.

All in all, it made me discount pictures in trying to decide if someone’s attractive or not. I’d rather look better in person than in a photo, and I’d rather be with a partner who looks better in person than a photo.

I’ve never seen someone who looks good in photos but not videos, but I suppose it could happen if they only have one or two really good angles. Most people look different through a camera lens or in real life, though, some better in one or the other, some good in both, but still different.