I believe that, in which case “that’s not from Trump” is something they’re in no position to say matter-of-factly; they’re just guessing (and I think poorly, at that). It’s just palm-reading the post and then giving a definitive, with no caveats, “Nope, Trump didn’t write this.”

I linked to the article because trying to definitively say Trump didn’t write something definitionally has to be reserved for fake posts, not real ones that come from his account with no disclaimer and no later admission.

Sure, and if you want to argue “a staffer did it”, then “staying on point”/“generally cohesive” is a stretch to make the argument work. This has extremely jumpy flow, and trying to move the standard further back and say “bUt NoT fOr TrUmP” just turns this whole thing into an unfalsifiable hypothesis facilitated by an infinitely movable goalpost. I can point out why it’s so jumpy (any literate person should be able to), but I’m confident it’ll be met with, again, “tRuMp StAnDaRdS tHo!!”.

Edit: More importantly, though, saying confidently that “it’s not from Trump” is hilariously unfounded. I’m not arguing it is or is not from Trump, but rather that saying anything definitively like that is absurd.

Rosechu has no connections to 4-cent_garbage.com, so quit asking.

You say that with such effortless confidence without even having bothered to check, and not one of those 10 people who upvoted tried to check either. golf clap

Since the graphic is showing ballooning land use for agriculture:

• “If the world adopted a plant-based diet, we would reduce global agricultural land use from 4 to 1 billion hectares”.
• According to a very robust meta-analysis by Poore & Nemecek (2018) (full access via ResearchGate): “it takes 50 to 100 times as much land to produce a kilocalorie of beef or lamb versus plant-based alternatives.” (quote by OurWorldInData)
• Also per Poore & Nemecek (quote by BBC News): “Producing a glass of dairy milk every day for a year requires 650 sq m (7,000 sq ft) of land, […] more than 10 times as much as the same amount of oat milk”
• Animal agriculture’s extensive land use is creating a “carbon opportunity cost” by not allowing reforestation, per Hayek et al. 2020.
  • Per the linked study: “Animal agriculture across all continents and income categories represents a profound trade-off [emphasis mine] when compared with potential GHG mitigation.”

People who resort to “not every type of land can support plant-based agriculture” simply fail to realize the enormous difference in scale.

I could keep going, but I instead recommend reading the two linked studies and/or the OurWorldInData article which uses them among others as sources. I’ve never bothered to compile land use sources, so I apologize this isn’t more thorough. Needless to say, however, the effects are catastrophic.

That’s a crazy adorable name. ❤️

The sheer existence of this acts as a warning and hurdle for politicians

This will never be seen by federal or state-level legislators or executives. If you visited the website, you saw the unanimous support in California for the age verification bill. In the event it’s sent to legislators as a link, there’s almost zero chance they’ll visit, let alone read it through. In the narrow chance that, like, one out of thousands actually reads it, it will not act as a warning to them, let alone a hurdle. It doesn’t materially threaten anything they’re doing – not in a technical sense and not in the sense that anybody but an excruciatingly tiny minority will actually adopt it.

Niche communities like this wildly overestimate their reach and influence among the people outside of them. I don’t like it either, but I try to be mindful of it.

See also:

I don’t agree at all with adding age “verification” parameters to Linux (in reality, the parameters just exist; I don’t think you ever have to interact with them, so they verify nothing, but I hate the creeping surveillance anyway). This “project” nevertheless just seems like impotent dick-wagging preaching exclusively to a tiny choir and doing nothing useful technically. It comes across as petulant prattle from an LLC otherwise uninvolved in the Linux community and selling merchandise.

It wasn’t intended to be “if you live here, then hi!”. It was intended to be “if you live here, and hi!”. Could’ve been clearer, but the semicolon did its job of replacing “, and”.

Just wanted to cut through the bullshit and remind myself that when they said I think “all sides bad and ignore geopolitical context”, they were definitely also referring to among the most reprehensible authoritarian regimes on Earth that they support.

Like it’s some ridiculous, hand-wavey stance to think the US and North Korea (and obviously Iran, but that doesn’t fully illustrate how depraved their worldview is) are simultaneously bad.

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Sounds a lot like: “We broadly support North Korea, but that’s too embarrassing to say directly, so we’ll just shitpost about it like a neo-Nazi would when asked a direct question about their abhorrent beliefs – afraid of frightening away the normies by revealing their ‘power level’.”

It’s comforting to me that you have to carry the level of shame that your beliefs are unspeakable in spaces dominated by sane people – and are barely even speakable in this deranged hellhole for fear that your monstrous beliefs will surface above the irony poisoning and scare away the few people with functioning consciences who stumbled into this from the front page.

Quick username question: opinions on North Korea? Since we’re on the whole “shitty ethics” thing.

Not even a little surprised that tankies – the fucking cognoscenti of rhetoric that pretends to care about a bad thing, masking that the real goal is for “their side” to have a monopoly on the bad thing – lack consistent ethics when it comes to destroying the planet and flooding out human-made media for shitty, braindead, dubiously effective propaganda.

The first time I saw three-in-one shampoo/conditioner/body wash that brands are pushing these days, I scoffed. Then I realized that this was hypocritical – I had been using two-in-one shampoo/conditioner for years. I figured that if I thought three-in-one was a ridiculously stupid jack of all trades, I could at least try using separate shampoo and conditioner.

Been using it for a while now, and it’s much better. Some of that might be because I have to get slightly more expensive conditioner since so many of the major brands straight-up do not sell men’s conditioner on its own, but man, my hair looks and feels so much nicer now. Highly recommend it; it’s worth it.

copy–pasted the words into the text editor Kate

you […] pasted them into a word count website

QED

counted

Correction: copy–pasted the words into the text editor Kate in five seconds.

And sure I could’ve guessed, but I wanted to rub in exactly how stupid and self-owning your insult was.

For all this big talk about “maybe you should get off the Internet”, you sure do fucking suck when it actually comes to conceiving of a way to find basic information.