Most foreigners I know are incredibly skeptical or opposed to the idea of consuming meat while in America, as it has a pretty bad global reputation for not being good quality and/or safe.
I’m sure fans of BBQ will argue this, but I’d say the average person who is travelling just for BBQ is not really a standard foreigner.
I’ve even had co-workers visit from Ireland and Germany who only trust McDonald’s while they visit, or a local pub.
Just a general note on quality and herd practices really.
US beef has only just reached Australian health & safety standards* after being banned for import into Australia for two decades.
* perhaps it's more the case that Australia has only just bowed to US tariff pressure to accept US meat that isn't up to Australian standards for herd health tracking.
I've had both and American beef is mediocre compared to Australian or NZ beef (which is usually grass fed).
If you want BBQ, go to the US. Else for just a normal steak, just source good ANZ beef and pay for it. Cheaper Indian beef (mostly buffalo - you can get cow meat but that's mostly tougher) can also be mostly grass-fed but it's harder to source.
Grass-fed beef isn't necessarily better. It tends to be comparatively leaner than grain-fed, and a richly marbled rib eye is for a lot of people (myself included) just about as good as it gets.
Australian wagyu is, for my money, the best beef in the world (yes, better than Japanese wagyu, which really is too richly marbled), but American Prime is no slouch either.
Yes, my bad. I think the correct term I should've used isn't grass-fed (a flimsy marketing term) but free range. ANZ cattle isn't generally cooped up in feedlots and factory farmed, although this is now changing rapidly for the worse.
Australian wagyu is actually the worst offender in this regard, since it means that cattle spend 1-2 years in a factory farm feedlot.
Western cooking tends to prefer having rich fat marbling on the beef and let it cook in its own fats, but in Asia, we tend to prefer leaner cuts for our cooking, mostly because beef isn't usually eaten on its own as a steak.
My hot take on the American steak allure is more about the “cowboy” big portion fantasy that’s fairly engrained into pop culture globally. Otherwise, I wouldn’t say American cattle are superior in really any other way, and are not the best cuts globally either.
Switzerland I cannot speak to, but having had meats from Australia, Britain, Ireland, Spain, Italy, and Japan - a lot of places around the world have great and superior quality meats.
Poultry isn’t even in the conversation here, American poultry is off putting by nearly any person you ask who didn’t grow up with it.
> My hot take on the American steak allure is more about the “cowboy” big portion fantasy that’s fairly engrained into pop culture globally.
I remember a conversation in a Dallas hotel bar with an increasingly crestfallen cowboy as we talked about how the King Ranch "wasn't a particularly large ranch, all things considered". Initially, confusion. "What do you mean, it's the largest ranch in the world?" No, the US.
And then we talked about Australian cattle ranches, where Anna Station is over seven times bigger than King Ranch, bigger than Israel, and that if King Ranch was in Australia it'd be only be, at best, the 70th largest ranch in the country (and more likely only just scraping into the top 100).
Everything is not always bigger in Texas.
I despise American poultry - factory farming, copious saline injection, bleh.
Every single person I know here in europe that is a meat lover is always including either some Texas BBQ or some large tomahawk steaks in their visit and the size and quality of US meat is perceived highly. And it's not like people will go to the US to have a steak or BBQ but definitely nobody who isn't a vegan is "opposed to the idea of consuming meat while in america", that's ridiculous.
That's interesting, every single person I know in Europe that is a meat lover is opposed to some Texas BBQ and against large portion American-style steaks in general, where the quality of US meat is perceived quite poorly.
And yet Americans are the victim of food-borne illnesses at no greater rate than Europeans. I wonder how much of that is farm lobbies trying to keep out imports. US growers do the same thing when the don't want to compete with South American imports.
Animal welfare is a big thing in some Euro countries. Which let's face it nobody in the US or Argentina cares about.
And then there are concerns about human rights, rain forests, genociding Amazonian tribes, corruption and dictators. Now I will admit it is all hypocritical everyone of us happily buys stuff from AliExpress but that is the condition of man.
Yep. Growing up, I always defaulted to the "enlightened centrist" perspective that antitrust law and IP law and trade law were failing to help the median person simply due to the difficulty of the problem, that insofar as our regulation was inadequate it was inadequate because it had to balance multiple crossed incentives and stay ahead of world class sprinters who had a systemic resource advantage because the economy will always be larger than the regulators. But the more I learn about the history of these subjects the more I realize that the levers were understood, they did work, and that the present outcomes were entirely intentional.
Reagan and the Chicago school intentionally shifted antitrust and IP law into monopoly mode (Bork and Bowman+Posner). The Consumer Welfare Standard is an obvious fig-leaf over Robber Baron talking points as defeated earlier by Brandeis, the Nine No-Nos (lol) indicate that the failure modes of modern IP policy weren't just understood but contained, and then containment was turned off. Trade is a messier story but Triffin articulated the distributional problems in the 60s so nobody gets to claim ignorance.
The bad news is that there is more corruption that I thought, but the good news is that the problems are more solvable than I thought.
They are pretty good in the comment sections online.
In the real world, they choose to engage in wars that provide political power for the underlying party in power, without having a clear goal or objective on how the war would benefit the average U.S. person. This becomes more and more apparent as they continue to lose, until it’s viewed as a “success” by an invented exit criteria at the 11th hour.
You’re underestimating how much Apple Legal goes after anyone and everyone they feel a slight wrong sniff about.
I know some insane stories that will never be publicly disclosed for one reason or another, and…it’s not a legal team I’d ever want to cross paths with.
It’s also not the first time Apple has cried wolf at employees leaving the company to do bigger and better things, while trying to take responsibility for their successes.
Oh, in that case, I just happen to have some insane stories that will never be publicly disclosed, and every one of my stories rebuts every one of your stories.
Then share some of those insane stories with sources I guess. Because this seems to directly contradict my understanding of Apple (post-Jobs in particular).
I do not love Apple, as I said another comment I am so far from an apple fanboy, but frivolous lawsuits against other companies is not really typical for them. Also, these accusations are far from frivolous and they either have proof or they don’t. It would be very strange for them to file this thinking they would win with some sort of gray area argument
You’re not allowed to celebrate how prepared for the future the UK is over nearly every other country in the world. You must get angry about current high energy costs due to the investments and war that are happening, just ignore anything positive.
In fairness, it is very difficult to look at the last 16 years of British governments and hold the belief "these people have well prepared the UK for the future".
I agree there’s no shortage of misses and embarrassments, though I would argue there’s still a lot to be proud of. A lot of progress has been made - especially when you zoom out and compare to peers. The HN crowd these days seems to have it out for Europe, and only sees headlines about doom and gloom in policy.
If anything, the past 16 years has taught me personally that everyone in the UK wants change - too much change possibly.
The UK was the first G7/G20 to cut carbon emissions by 50%, we just ranked [0] 3rd globally large in part to setting up for the future with green energy.
I don’t even have the energy to get into how cherry-picked this entire post is. Bad and inaccurate comparisons, false tourism claims, lame tropes, ignoring extreme and amazing progress while pointing at why some numbers may appear how they appear.
