deleted by creator

Life

IMHO the harm-ROI for veganism is pretty huge.

I believe that you believe that, its also possibly true, I’ve not looked in to it enough to form an actual opinion in it.

I’m also fairly certain out perspectives on comparative options in this regard is going to be different.

It’s neither super difficult nor costly to become vegan and all the knowledge about food and nutrients that you may learn is a helpful skill in general.

This, i’ve argued against a few times now (in other threads), the level of knowledge and access you have to the things needed for a healthy and sustainable vegan lifestyle are not universal, by any stretch.

I’m not arguing that it isn’t relatively accessible to some, just that the level of ease is very subjective to circumstance.

I always think of vegan as a spectrum, (many of the best things are a spectrum).

With sliding scales in there for stuff like morals, ethics, culture, circumstance etc.

Once you hit a threshold of vegan traits you’re a real™ vegan.

My judgement on this is also suspect, so ymmv.

Less harm is better than more harm. It’s also impossible to walk around without ever stepping on insects, but just because some harm is inevitable that doesn’t mean I should walk around and slaughter everything that I can find.

Agreed, it then becomes a decision about the cost/benefit ratio of how you spend your time/energy trying to reduce harm.

That doesn’t mean that veganism is ‘perfect’ in all aspects. Who knows - maybe in the future we’ll find ways to produce healthy and delicious food straight out of air and electricity without any involvement of living organisms and thereby further reduce harm. But for the moment doing what we can would be a huge step forward.

Veganism might not be the maximally effective activity from an ROI point of view.

I personally see it as a “doing what we can live with” as opposed to “doing what we can”, the difference being the impact personal decisions have on the choice of harm reduction activities.

It’s borderline pedantry on the face of it, but the distinction is important for me.

If accurate (the idea, not the numbers), that sounds reasonable.

I’d argue there’s much more to it that just calories in/out though.

Harm reduction should ideally account for as much of the system as possible.

ah, that’s my bad for not properly phrasing my question.

Like how, “bacon = not vegan” and “cheese = not vegan” and “honey=controversy, for some reason”.

Is there some sort of ruling passed down from the vegan starchamber that says “animal fertiliser grown plants = not vegan” or is it not a common enough consideration to have an agreed upon consensus?

So like a harm reduction thing?

Hmm, i know this is probably sarcasm.

Real question though, does animal based fertiliser have an actual impact on vegan choices ?

I hadn’t even considered it until just now.

OK, I’ll bite, how is it an argument in favour of veganism, I’m genuinely not seeing it?

i agree with all of that.

Genuine question though, is it propaganda?

I mean it’s essentially:

“Police install draconian system to to target the crimes of the peasants, while continuing to ignore the rich, system working as intended”

Edit: wait no, actually i just saw the ‘Address fears’ section, they are clearly pretending this is the only problem.

A specific subset of crimes reduced, i wonder what the demographic of those criminals is.

Not to say you shouldn’t be arresting criminals, but they should be arresting all criminals, they don’t need a 1984 style facial rec system for a 10.5% drop in crime.

Well, i say that , but equal opportunity crime prosecution isn’t really what the police are for, so…

Actually arrest and prosecute the many many known criminals in the government and corporate world, no capital outlay in camera networks required.

Pretty sure that would give you a solid reduction in crime numbers as well.

TL;DR;

Why developers are abandoning Postman and its clones?

Enshittification

yeah, like most of these patents, it seemed to be more about the chilling effects than the actual enforcement.

There were a few variations in games over the years.

Still salty about that “Sanity System” bullshit patent by …surprise surprise…nintendo.

I think they are kind of like a production house with an additional kickstarter backing thing, or small individual investors of some other kind, i’m not sure.

Here is the wiki

Their programming is pretty faithy, have a look at the lineup and you’ll see from the titles.

I don’t care much for that genre, but i don’t see it as that much different than any other genre, it’s just not for me.

What i will say is that their productions are the faith based equivalent of straight to vhs action movies.

It’s generic dross with meh writing and some reasonable production values.

but that’s just my opinion, perhaps it’s worth a shot if you’re into that kind of genre.

these logo’s:

Though i will say the production value on the latest daily wire show was really high, probably the absolute fuck-tonne of money they spent on it.

All of that is nice, and tbh should be standard for everyone anyway (in a controlled, non-public setting), but it doesn’t address the actual issue of sloperational overload.

Firstly, an unattended gated CI build step for the public is a terrible idea from a resource point of view, you’d have all of the same people submitting their unchecked hallucinated code to be run by your CI build, eating resources.

If someone in the project has to manually check the code before allowing it in to the CI build then you have the same problem as now.

Low effort sloperators will just ask the hallucination machine to generate test code to do what you specified, a likely outcome is it generates something that fails in the pipeline step.

it’s probably going to be pretty obvious if they keep pushing a PR many times until it passes.

This is important, because it’s an easy enough step to configure your local agent/harness/whatever it’s called now to use the CI build as an input to measure success, so now you have automated generation loops eating CI resource.

All this does is move the bottleneck from people resource to compute resource and the outcomes could be even worse.

The concept itself is fine, but the resource issue would stop it from being viable pretty quickly.

It might work if there was some way to prove a successful CI run using the submitters resources…somehow.

Move the compute penalty to the submission side.

Firstly you’d need a way of guaranteeing the CI run was functionally identical to the one run by the project and then you’d need a way to guarantee the results weren’t fudged, probably more things as well.

I’ve not heard of such a thing, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

The best solution i can think of right now is social, like a trusted contributors list, people who have proven they can work within the bounds of the project rules and guidelines, possibly a recommendation system.

It’s not a great solution though and still eats resources in managing such a system.

I don’t disagree with the post you are responding to, almost all of that is reasonable.

Your overall argument would be more convincing if it wasn’t you doing the exact same thing you are complaining about.

As for specifics , the “Just a tool” argument is meh, not all tools are equal in potential benefit and harm.

Asbestos (while it is a material) was a “tool” used to insulate from heat.

Was it good at that, sure, it probably saved many lives, was it also harmful as fuck in the medium to long term, yes it was.

It can be a useful tool and also be a detriment, those things aren’t mutually exclusive.

The danger of a tool can also be mitigated with adequate safeguards that come from experience gained over time.

The argument then becomes risk vs reward, which is an entirely different conversation.

It was not set up to succeed, either.