Agregador de canales de noticias

The chocolate industry has problems. Twenty years after promising to phase out the “worst forms” of child labor on cocoa plantations, chocolate brands still haven’t succeeded. In Ivory Coast, where a third of the world’s cocoa is grown, rainforests are plowed down for cocoa plantations; in the last 50 years, the country has lost more than 80% of its forests, mainly to cocoa production. By some estimates, the carbon footprint of chocolate isn’t far behind meat and dairy, making it worse for the climate than most foods. Climate change is also making cocoa harder to grow.

But what if a chocolate bar could be made from other plants instead? QOA, a Germany-based startup now part of the tech accelerator Y Combinator, makes cocoa-free chocolate using “precision fermentation” of other ingredients. Over a little more than a decade, the company hopes to fully replace the cocoa used in mass-market products.

Cofounder Sara Marquart, a food scientist who previously worked at another startup creating coffee-free coffee, began working on the project earlier this year with her brother, an entrepreneur who wanted to find more meaningful work than his previous consulting firm. “We started making chocolate in my brother’s kitchen,” she says. “We bought seven Thermomixes and set them up on my brother’s table.”

Along with a tiny team of scientists, she started analyzing the flavor of cocoa. “Pretty much every food has a fingerprint, like a human has a fingerprint, right? It’s very unique,” she says. “We analyze the fingerprint of raw cocoa, fermented cocoa, roasted cocoa, to understand what is making cocoa this unique little bean that has so much flavor?” Then they did the same analysis of byproducts from food production, such as the residues left after pressing sunflower seeds to make oil. By fermenting a handful of these ingredients, they were able to “extract the building blocks of the flavor,” she says. “And then we reassemble that in a big brewing tank. You can think of it like beer brewing, in a way.” After fermentation, the final product can be roasted and dried like conventional cocoa.

The flavor took time to get right. In taste tests of an early version, the sample chocolate got low scores, with an average rating of 4.9 out of 10. “One of the people commented that she had to brush her teeth three times,” Marquart says. But as the team reworked the formula and sent new samples out to the same random group of testers, the ratings doubled. The team then went to chocolate sensory experts at a research organization called Fraunhofer, who said that they couldn’t distinguish between the startup’s version of chocolate and conventional chocolate. “Then we were like, okay, now we’re ready to launch,” she says.

They’ve now started talking with major chocolate brands. “The best feedback that we got is that from a person who was super skeptical, like, ‘Yeah, you can never never do that,’ when we first talked to him,” she says. “And then he tastes it and he wrote us an email the next morning saying, ‘Hey, guys, how can we collaborate?”

The startup plans to also launch its own brand to help make more people aware of issues like child slavery in cocoa production. (In a common case, children living in Mali might be recruited for work and told they’ll be well paid, and then trafficked across the border to Ivory Coast, where they’re forced to work without pay for years, and isolated from other child workers.) “I think only a few know about the child labor, and even less know about the climate impact,” she says. They’re working with a Michelin-starred chef, for example, to showcase how the chocolate can be used. But the primary goal is to replace the cocoa in mass-market candy and other chocolate products. Pilot tests with bigger brands are likely to begin next year.

By using byproducts as ingredients, QOA can shrink the carbon footprint of chocolate. But produced at scale, the cocoa replacement can also be less expensive that the real thing. The intent isn’t to replace sustainably-produced single-origin chocolate. “We love chocolate, we love cocoa, and we love the product that is produced in a sustainable and just way by small-stake farmers,” says Marquart. “The only problem is that it’s not a scalable approach to make chocolate for the global consumption of chocolate. We’re just wanting to offer a solution for mass market chocolate that we can skip the CO2 footprint and the child slavery.”

Lockdown Created 1 Million New Alcoholics In England

Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit News,

Official data shows that England’s lockdown caused an extra 1 million people to become addicted to alcohol since the start of the pandemic.

Before the pandemic began, government polling indicated that there were around 1.5 million alcoholics in the country, meaning people who drank at least 50 units every week.

“But this jumped to just shy of 2.5 million this summer, which experts have blamed on the endless cycle of virus-controlling restrictions,” reports the Daily Mail.

According to alcohol abuse expert Dr Tony Rao of King’s College London, “The impact of the Covid pandemic on alcohol use has been devastating. The latest data, taken together with the highest number of alcohol-specific deaths on record, is a stark warning for the Government.”

Alcohol charities are warning of a crisis “that is happening now” after Public Health England revealed that “deaths directly caused by alcohol soared by 20% during the first year of the pandemic.”

As we highlighted earlier, young children’s cognitive development during lockdown was also severely impaired as a result of a lack of human interaction and mask mandates.

The true impact of lockdowns on the health and well-being of both young and old won’t be properly known until years into the future.

However, studies already undertaken into the devastation it will cause are chilling.

A data analyst consortium in South Africa concluded that the economic consequences of the country’s lockdown would lead to 29 times more people dying than the coronavirus itself.

As we previously reported, Academics from Duke, Harvard, and Johns Hopkins have concluded that there could be around a million excess deaths over the next two decades as a result of lockdowns.

Back in June, Stanford University professor of medicine Jay Bhattacharya warned that in years to come lockdowns will be looked back upon as the most catastrophically harmful policy in “all of history.”

*  *  *

Brand new merch now available! Get it at https://www.pjwshop.com/

In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch. I need you to sign up for my free newsletter here. Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown. Get early access, exclusive content and behinds the scenes stuff by following me on Locals.

Tyler Durden Mon, 08/16/2021 - 02:00

World’s biggest miner in negotiations to combine petroleum business with Perth-based group

World’s biggest miner in negotiations to combine petroleum business with Perth-based group

Incumbent Edgar Lungu accepts results as Hakainde Hichilema sweeps to victory

Trading -

Cada día, en directo a las 8:35 h, el analista independiente Ramón Bermejo, repasa las claves que marcarán la jornada bursátil.

Muy entretenido, con comentarios sobre Paradox y Nintendo, entre otras compañías del sector.

iVoox Hablemos sobre el sector del Gaming

Escucha y descarga los episodios de Hablemos de Inversiones gratis. En este capítulo Krevix e IcariaCap hablan sobre la situación y perspectivas del sector del gaming. Compañías como: -Embracer -Paradox -Cd P... Programa: Hablemos de...

When I founded Pipeline Equity in 2017, one of my first priorities was finding the right people for the right positions. Geography wasn’t going to limit my search, so I decided we would become a remote-friendly company. Today, we are 100% remote with employees spanning six time zones. They live in urban centers, small cities, and suburbs. You can find them on the East Coast, West Coast, and everywhere in between. And regardless of their geography, they earn equal pay for equal work. At Pipeline Equity, we believe pay is a function of value. As such, people should receive wages based on the value they provide to the organization, not based on their physical location or time spent in the office. Here’s why. 

Knowledge workers deserve equal pay for equal work, regardless of location

Let’s start with the basics. What does it mean to pay someone fair and equitable wages? Many organizations struggle to answer this question, and we know that because we see it in the data. 

Recently, on August 3, we recognized Black Women’s Equal Pay Day. It represents the extra seven months and three days into the 2021 calendar year that Black women had to work to earn what non-Hispanic white men earned in 2020. They make 63 cents on the dollar. Latinas experience even greater pay inequity. This year their Equal Pay Day, which falls on October 21, meaning they earn just 55 cents on the non-Hispanic white man’s dollar.

Breadwinner moms (who support 40% of U.S. households with children under the age of 18) face some of the deepest intersectional pay gaps. In fact, my research found that Black breadwinner moms have the largest gender pay gap of any women in the U.S. They earn 44 cents for every dollar earned by white breadwinner dads.

If we keep digging, we find evidence of pay equity across all education levels. Despite making up 50.2% of the college-educated workforce, women receive an average of 26% less pay than their male counterparts in comparable jobs. As educational attainment levels rise, so too does the severity of intersectional pay inequity. Women with bachelor’s degrees earn 71.4% of what men with bachelor’s degrees earn, whereas women with graduate degrees earn 69.1% of what men with graduate degrees earn. 

If you think you’re not affected by pay inequity, think again. Pay inequity is more than an individual issue of fairness. When companies don’t pay equitable wages, they stifle economic growth and business performance. 

Pay equity stifles economic growth for all 

Intersectional pay inequity costs the U.S. economy $512 billion. And that’s not all because wages have both supply-side and demand-side effects. 

Wages determine everything from the level of healthcare you receive to the quality of food, education, and housing you have access to. It impacts your ability to save for retirement, pay down student loans, open a business, and run for political office. 

These household issues flow back into the larger economy. Our economy takes a hit when people don’t receive the income they deserve. In addition to strengthening the U.S. economy by $512 billion, closing the intersectional gender pay gap would: 

• Lift 50% more working women out of poverty. 
• Cut the Social Security shortfall by 35%, or $4.7 trillion. Higher wages earned during working years put more money in women’s retirement accounts. 
• Reduce dependence on social welfare programs. Women head 72.9% of households enrolled in Medicaid because their lower wages inhibit their ability to afford healthcare.
• Reduce student loan debt. Women make up 57% of undergraduates yet hold 67% of all student debt. 
• Strengthen the middle class. The share of breadwinner mom households has increased by 166% since 1970. Middle-class families depend on the wages of breadwinner moms.

Business performance suffers from pay inequity

And let’s not forget that consumer spending drives 70% of the U.S. economy. Businesses rely on healthy wallets to hit performance targets. Plus, from a labor supply perspective, it’s advantageous for businesses to pay employees equitable wages. 

After all, women are the most educated cohort in the labor force, and 72% of them said they would not apply to work at a company where a gender pay gap exists. Moreover, “slow salary growth” was the third most common reason women gave for leaving a career in STEM. (In first place was “lack of career growth.”) Companies risk alienating at least half the talent base by failing to pay equitable wages. 

Which brings us full circle. What does it mean to pay people equitable wages? It means paying people based on the value they bring to the organization. Not their gender. Not their race, ethnicity, or age. Not their proximity to leadership. And certainly not their zip code.

Location-based compensation opens a Pandora’s box 

By paying workers regardless of their location, companies can reduce the amount of surface area for bias to creep into compensation decisions. They can also reduce the amount of complexity that goes into making these compensation decisions.

For instance, how do you measure the cost of living? We need a standard, equitable system for calculating the cost of living—not one based on the whims of exclusionary indexes. Besides, people don’t allocate their budgets identically. 

Some people enjoy dining at high-end restaurants. Others appreciate home-cooked meals. Some people spend money on luxury cars. Others are content with public transportation or ride-sharing. And what about the number of dependents someone has? An employee with four children will spend more money on education than an employee with no children. How does that factor into the cost of living? 

What if someone moves from a high cost-of-living location to a low cost-of-living location? Must they take a pay cut? And what if some employees want to work remotely while others don’t? Will those who decide to stay remote see their income drop as a result of choosing what’s best for them?  Already it appears Google employees who choose to work from home permanently could face a 15% to 25% salary reduction. 

Paying people based on the value they deliver to the company—not geography—is the equitable and easier way to go. 

Pay equity for remote workers is win-win, not a zero-sum

As more companies adopt remote and hybrid work arrangements, it’s important to underscore the financial upside of giving employees the autonomy to work from anywhere. In one of the most comprehensive studies conducted on the topic, Global Workplace Analytics found that the average U.S. company can save $11,000 per year for every remote-hybrid employee. 

For a company with 1,000 employees working remotely, that’s over $1 million in savings per year. These massive savings stem from a combination of increased productivity, increased business continuity, reduced office costs, reduced absenteeism, and reduced turnover. 

Employees can save upwards of $6,400 per year by not having to allocate budget on transportation, work clothes, or meals. Plus, 73% of employees say they are very successful working from home and report greater well-being under these arrangements. 

Allowing knowledge workers to work remotely—and paying them equitably for doing so—makes sense. It’s time we reimagine what work and compensation look like in the digital economy. Geographic location shouldn’t determine an employee’s worth. 

Katica Roy is the CEO and founder of Pipeline Equity. 

Last reply by AndiTheBarvarian on Mon, 16 Aug 2021 05:22:53 +0000

Just got this ancient Grizzly 16" band saw for fairly cheap with the idea I need to replace just about everything to get it up to speed again. Right now I'm trying to get the wobble out of the machine (seen when running) and the first thing I'm gonna replace are the 2 drive belts. I've heard about a new (to me) type of replacement belt that is supposed to turn more smoothly and is adjustable with links in it. Not sure what they're called but would they be an appropriate replacement part for this saw?

Attachment 463081

Attachment 463082

Attachment 463083 (.-.)

Is my dividend income safe if a stock market would happen tomorrow? Check out the top 10 stocks in my portfolio and their financial health.

The post Financial Health analysis of my top 10 holdings | Is my portfolio safe? appeared first on European Dividend Growth Investor.

Buenos días, quería preguntar acerca de la conveniencia (en términos de rentabilidad) de usar una cuenta denominada en dólares para invertir en empresas estadounidenses estilo buy&hold con reinversión de dividendos. Es un tema que he visto mencionado en distintos hilos mencionado pero creo que no se llega a concretar. Estoy tratando de decidir si pesco en USA desde mi cuenta ING o abro otra en otro trader pero que esté denominada en dólares. Gracias!

This past week while recording a podcast, the host asked how I would advise someone trying to challenge their company’s return-to-office plans. It’s a simple question with a complicated answer, which we keep trying to solve in a binary way: either work hybrid or in the office. This oversimplification misses the opportunity to evolve company culture.

Many toddlers have a toy that is a box with openings cut out for different shapes. Circle, square, star, and diamond blocks are to be pushed through each respective opening. Children can spend hours trying to unsuccessfully smash the square through the circle opening before finding the right shape. 

That feels a bit like the time we are in now. Employees are the blocks and employers keep trying to push them through the openings with their return-to-office plans. Companies assume employees are the same shape they were in February 2020, not recognizing the changes of the past 16 months. Through a transformation of personal and professional values, the shape of their nonnegotiable demands is remarkably different. Trying to force the shape into the wrong opening just doesn’t work. 

Let’s say you cross paths with a colleague you hadn’t seen in 10 years. You wouldn’t automatically assume they had the same knowledge, skills, experience, and motivation as they did 10 years prior. You would recognize they had evolved and would want to learn about who they are today. 

Some employees had many years’ worth of transformation and growth in the past year and a half. Values were sharpened, behaviors refined, and clarity was gained. Yet leaders are making assumptions that employees and teams are the same shape as they were in February 2020 and missing this opportunity to evolve. 

Both employees and companies are midair between two trapeze bars. Employers are trying to define return-to-office strategies so employees can plan for the months ahead. Employees are looking at their nonnegotiables and defining their point of no return. We’ve released the first trapeze and are in motion towards the second, unable to go backward. There are two options. Try to grab the second trapeze and evolve approaches to work, or experiment with different options, and trust the safety net. Still, many leaders are kicking to turn back and grab the first trapeze bar because of five culture myths.

Myth 1: We can ‘fix’ culture

This makes culture sound like an initiative with an endpoint. Culture continually shifts and is reinforced or discouraged through the actions of each employee. You are never done shaping culture. Healthy cultures are agile enough to make real-time adjustments to support the employee and business outcomes.

Myth 2: Virtual or hybrid work erodes culture or causes the loss of culture

Remote work doesn’t kill company culture. If your culture isn’t working, it is a symptom of larger issues. There were already things not working in your culture before February 2020. You just either didn’t notice or didn’t experience enough discomfort to make changes. They will surface again until you address them. 

Myth 3: There is a perfect organizational design

Companies spend millions every year making changes, only to change them back a few years later. Focus less on the design and more on equipping leaders and teams to be agile across a variety of circumstances. There isn’t one perfect working location that will solve all problems. Instilling healthy behaviors of frequent check-in conversations and tools to embrace constructive conflict helps leaders navigate a variety of challenges.

Myth 4: Leaders have to see their employees to control their work

Control results in worse performance and will likely cause your employees to quit or disengage if they stay in their job. If leaders have to physically see employees, their company hasn’t equipped them with expectations or skills to be effective. Great leaders recognized the pivots needed to keep each team member engaged and performing, and intentionally dedicate time to replace informal interactions. 

Myth 5: If we send out a culture survey now it will be negative

Leaders want to avoid, delay, and peer between their fingers at culture survey results when they think it will be negative. Culture surveys shouldn’t be sent to only provide positive responses. Withholding sending or sharing results only erodes trust. You should be listening to your organization with increased frequency in times of challenge.

What leaders can do now

Don’t solve complex problems with binary options. Work location decisions are being made at the company level in an attempt to be equitable. However, not everyone is the same shape. Either/or decisions miss the exploration of nuances. Companies can equip managers and teams to make these decisions at their individual levels. 

Embrace experimentation. The safety net is there to catch you as you try different things. Not everything will or should work and that is okay. Evolution and performance come with experimentation. Test different configurations of work location at the team level. Collectively reflect on what worked and didn’t and decide the path forward.

Reframe your problems into “How might we . . .” I’ve heard the protest: “People in the office will have informal interactions that give preferential treatment in career advancement.” Reframe that as a problem to solve and ask: “How might we ensure everyone has informal interactions and career opportunities?” Instead of listing obstacles, explore how you might solve for each circumstance. 

Take a hard look at your meetings: Your average employee is only authorized to approve a few hundred dollars, yet anyone can schedule a meeting that costs tens of thousands of dollars in time. Teams should protect meetings for discussions and decision-making, not updates. Give each team member 100 points to allocate across their weekly meetings in terms of value. Review and discuss the distribution to see what shifts or cancellations are necessary.

The reverse offsite: Some teams are holding an in-person day-long meeting once or twice a month. They find they are able to cancel many standing meetings and use technology in between for updates. They maximize their time together and minimize their time spent in ongoing virtual meetings.

There is no perfect design or location for work. However, this is an opportunity for each team and company to explore new and better ways of working to improve performance.

Karen Eber is the CEO and chief storyteller of Eber Leadership Group, a talent development boutique. She is also an international consultant, keynote, and TED speaker. 

Análisis sobre las mejores opciones para saber dónde invertir ahora y cuáles son las inversiones más rentables del momento.

Noticias bolsa EEUU -

Los analistas de Wall Street siempre han sido muy optimistas sobre el mercado, pero hoy en día hay ciertos factores que podrían preocuparlos.

Hi
I was wondering if anyone would be interested in buying Gypsy castings? I had a set made for myself and the foundry has more made. I bought the prints from John Chenery about 4 years ago, and he said he will sell the prints but not the castings. I have tried to email John again, but he must have changed his email address. If anyone knows how to contact him I would appreciate it.

Sharp rise in Covid cases threatens to undermine recovery, analysts warn

In reply to Financial Samurai.

Would you suggest buy cali muni bonds directly or purchase through an ETF such as the vanguard cali intermediate or cali vanguard long term muni bond etf?
If you buy direct, how do you pick which cusips to invest in, and think about short term vs long term?