Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)A

abraxas

@ abraxas @sh.itjust.works

Posts
0
Comments
93
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • Locked

    Eating Meat Is Bad for Climate Change, and Here Are All the Studies That Prove It

    Jump

  • The problem is only 9% of the beef production and 30% of global sheep and goat production are feed using grazing

    The rest so most of them are feed using some form of human edible plants and they would not be replaced by wild animals

    These two statements exclude the middle. There is grazing. There is feeding animal edible foods. And then there is feeding animals inedible waste. Your same source organization (FAO) points out that 86% of animal feed is inedible by humans. Realistically, a very high percent of that would be destroyed in a landfill or in burning if they were not being fed to animals.

    Of the remaining 14% of feed that is edible to humans, they are the worst sorts of calories, empty and non-nutritious carbohydrates. And they are largely fed to the animal intentionally at certain parts of the feeding process (the end) to produce the highest quality of meat. Why? Because it's a waste of money to give animals feed that you could sell to humans if you have no good reason.

  • Locked

    Eating Meat Is Bad for Climate Change, and Here Are All the Studies That Prove It

    Jump

  • He was actually unfairly charitable be looking at global figures. Unfortunately, the "meat problem" is largely Africa, India, and China. Yes, about 20% of US meat comes from those regions because it is cheaper. But it is entirely sustainable for countries like the US, one of the largest meat consumers, to produce all the meat we consume and stay well within reasonable greenhouse gas footprints.

    Your reply to him unfaortunately made the same mistakes his statements did. If you laser-focus at the countries where most vegans are pushing to make changes, it takes bad-faith analysis of figures to see the meat industry as anything but entirely sustainable.

    People who want meat-eating to stop have an agenda. People who want to farm meat have an agenda. You have to look through TWO agendas, not just one, to find the real answers.

  • Locked

    Eating Meat Is Bad for Climate Change, and Here Are All the Studies That Prove It

    Jump

  • No one is telling you what to do, but the studies are undeniable

    The studies have studies and experts denying them.. The rebuttals are a gamut of:

    1. pointing out that the "eat less meat" conclusions are fraudulent misrepresentations of the facts
    2. pointing out that only way cutting out meat in most developed countries would be good for the environment is if we also start ecologically re-engineering for a lower natural footprint than our regions ever had, since the livestock footprint nearly resembles that of pre-colonial days (here in the US, methane emission is within 20%)
    3. pointing out that most attacks on meat-eating make the mistake of mathematically treating marginal land as if it could support a forest, when it cannot
    4. And finally, pointing out that improvements in cattle diet shows dramatically more real-world promise than this contrived idea of forcing or coercing all humans to stop eating meat, with far fewer risks and side-effects to availability of balanced nutrition

    Even if the oil industries weren’t such a massive environmental disaster, that wouldn’t change the wild levels of inefficiency and waste in animal agriculture

    ...in some countries like India. Here in the US, the cattle industry is fairly efficient, in a large part because it is highly profitable to be efficient. In my area, cattle is largely locally fed. That local feed will just as largely end up in a bonfire if we decided to wipe out the cattle population, and there would be a large increase in synthetic fertilizers that are themselves terrible for the environment. If we decided to keep the cattle population without eating them, you might be surprised to note that it would be worse for the climate than eating the cattle we have.

    As a whole the meat industry is unsustainable

    If that were true, it would be dying instead of dramatically improving in both margins, efficiency, and climate footprint in most countries.

    whataboutism doesnt change the facts.

    No. Whataboutism doesn't change the facts. On that, we can agree.

  • Locked

    Eating Meat Is Bad for Climate Change, and Here Are All the Studies That Prove It

    Jump

  • Anything someone feels forced to eat against their will is "shit". You'd have every right to call meat shit if someone made it the only food available to you.

  • Locked

    Eating Meat Is Bad for Climate Change, and Here Are All the Studies That Prove It

    Jump

  • That won't work because a <$0.01 tax on steak relative to the impact caused by meat-eating in most countries won't change anyone's mind. If everyone went vegan, the world still fails. If nobody went vegan but the businesses went carbon neutral, we're all fine.

    In the US point of view, we only produce 20% more methane emissions than in the pre-colonial days, and the only way these changes will actually be a meaningful net positive is through anti-natal terraforming to lower animal population than was ever really natural.

    I'm ok with some countries bearing more weight to help than the harm they cause, but only if it will actually make a difference. 100 million people in my country choosing to stop eating meat suddenly (or being forced to at gunpoint) doesn't change anything.

  • Linux reaches new high 3.82%

    Jump

  • What's Ubuntu's "particular madness"? They used to be a little FOSS-only, but they've chilled out on that.

    I agree on the other points, though, with one caveat on both.

    No matter how many games run on linux, it won't be enough because there aren't ever going to be linux exclusives. Without linux exclusives, there will always be more games that run in Windows than Linux, even if the majority of them run in linux AND run better than in Windows.

    Office sounds like a big deal, but Apple managed to prove you don't need it. The real problem Linux has with office is that it has no well-marketed office suite. There's nothing wrong with Libre- or Open- except the complete lack of advertising and passive training to its nuances that we get from MS and Apple office products.

    It's not that linux can't win on games or office. It's that the game is rigged against it on both. It took me a few years back in the early 00's, but I quickly realized that there will never be a "year of the linux desktop" regardless of how good Linux gets at games, office, user-friendliness, or anything.

    And that's ok because MY life is easier when I use linux.

  • Linux reaches new high 3.82%

    Jump

  • I don't know if we know it's shrinking back for sure. With the exception of Q1'23, there seems to be a balance around 19M sales per quarter. There's a way to read it as shrinking, but there's also a way to read it as stabilizing. There's just not enough samples to be certain.

    What we have to remember is that we're finally reaching a turning point in GPU pricing. Laptops that were in the $2000+ range a year or two ago are closer to the $1000 commodity price. There had been a "value stall" that just broke, where a new computer used to not be a significant upgrade on an old one, and so people might hold onto their current computers a year or two longer.

    I mean, I sure I pulled a few discounts out of my ass, but I just landed an i9 laptop with a 4090 for just over $2k as a replacement to a computer that died. Two years ago almost to the day I bought a middle-of-the-road gaming machine with a 3070 in it for about the same price.

  • Linux reaches new high 3.82%

    Jump

  • I wonder at the various nuances of that. My wife and I have 4 phones and 3 tablets between us between home and work. It would seem any multi-person household would be likely to have more mobile devices than PCs due to the variety of the former. So that chart seems to be that there are more mobile devices per person, but perhaps no reduction in PCs.

    In fact, PC sales rocketed up in Q3'20 for very obvious reasons, and have largely not come back down to pre-COVID levels.

  • I tried. It was exhausting. I'm better now.

    Jump

  • According to this comment, YOU should be downvoting yourself for your previous two comments.

    You straight out suggested we should be diplomatic with the Far Right.

  • Cities: Skylines 2 "absolutely cannot" have the decade of DLC features that the original game added

    Jump

  • As one of my favorite baduk streamers puts it, "the mistake was earlier".

    Using dozens of DLCs to get B2B-grade revenue out of a game sounds like a great business strategy, but as Paradox is EOLing all those games that people have spent hundreds on, I think there is this reaction of "why should I prepare to spend hundreds again?"

    I genuinely believe this is a "short term revenue" thing, and will ultimately cost them against a subscription-from-day-1 model. I mean, I doubt I'm the only person who can't bring themselves to even LOOK at Crusader Kings 3. I never touched Sims 4 until it was free. And if EU5 comes out? I'll act the same. Paradox already has more of my money than Blizzard, so more power to them, but how many people like me aren't going to consider buying sequels? It's not about the money, it's about the investment of money. If I were in $500 from subscription fees, I'd feel less harmed than $300 in DLCs for a now-out-of-print game. We humans are a complicated psychology

    For me, I'll try em when they're free or when they go full patient-gamer. Which is a shame because Paradox makes excellent games. They just keep making people like me want to wait to pull the trigger.

  • Starfield's lead quest designer leaves Bethesda to join other RPG veterans making a new open-world game

    Jump

  • I had all of one complaint about that in all of New Atlantis. There's a tiny convenience store that's behind a loading screen. Everything else seemed ok/expected to me.

  • Starfield Paid DLSS Mod Creator Hits Back at Pirates, Threatens to Add 'Hidden Mines' in Future Mods

    Jump

  • Several reasons.

    • Paying customers are footing the bill for that anti-theft
    • The guy is making over $500k off someone else's product with a couple days' work. I'm no Tankie, but you don't have to be a high schooler or a pothead to have a problem with capitalism's more toxic extremes. People have been conditioned to forget this, but piracy is a counter-leverage to prevent product pricing from going out of control. Just look at the average prices of Switch games vs PC games. The harder it is to pirate a product, the further the price of that product is from a value consensus.
    • These types of anti-thefts tend to false-fire for the paying customers (who footed the bill). This is especially true because he builds his mods against a closed-source product that behaves in ways he cannot always predict. Published modding interfaces are never perfect.