Wrong place, my bad
This mix of "things that are possible/reasonable" and "things that are wildly speculative" is interesting.
Producing beef is the most inefficient way to produce food, in both use of space and water, and energy.
Reasonable/possible
We don’t need to impose things on people if humanity reduces its beef consumption.
Wild speculation / nonsensical.
This is not at all how large societies have worked, in any time period, ever.
While it might be technically true, it's missing a whole bunch of steps in the middle for it to be a practicality.
If we cut beef consumption by half, literally oligarchs would not have an economic reason to deforest the Amazon, because of the price drops. But no one wants to do that.
- Palm Oil
- Real Estate
- Mineral Speculation
- Wood
And that was just off of the top of my head.
Oligarchs gonna oligarch, removing one revenue source isn't going to suddenly kill interest in the amazon, with it's abundant resources and space.
hmm, i have mixed feelings about this.
If PRs arent being reviewed for hours or days thats a management problem.
This i agree with totally.
Whether or not it's human resource based or policy based, it's usually a failing of process and that's generally a fault with management. in my experience anyway.
No amount of unit tests are a replacement for another set of eyes.
This though, while i wouldn't compare PR's to Unit testing in the first place there is some overlap in quality control.
If you have robust enough testing suites it can reduce the PR burden in a variety of ways, though most of them come down to automating away the need to catch so many logic and regression bugs.
That's not to say reviews aren't needed, they definitely are, it's just automated testing does have an overlap.
Notice that i said testing suites though, that's not just unit testing, that’s the whole CI testing caboodle.
Oh damn i didn’t realise there was something comparable already in there.
Do you have the associated laws that precipitated those changes, i can't seem to find any reference to them ?
hmm, a somewhat narrow definition, but in that case, sure.
In theory they are supposed to pay a commensurate amount of taxes.
Unless you're encrypting them yourself (and even then), there is no such thing as private user files in the cloud.
Especially with any of the big corps.
As with a lot of things, it's contextual and subjective.
In my , personal experience, it depends partly on what of therapy methods will work for the current you and partly on chemistry/connection.
Like aromantic dating, you might hit it off immediately, you might go through x number of potentials before you find one that works.
I currently seem to respond best to conversation partner dynamics, like brain rubber ducking with add-ons.
Previously i've not responded well to that at all, and purely analytical detached professionalism was the way in.
so TL;DR;
For me it's:
- General Vibe
- Perceived competence (actual competence is important, but it's no help if you don't believe they are competent)
- Actual Competence
- And further down the line, results.
In that order.
Each one is required to get to the following stage.
As for how it actually feels, i got nothing, that's partly why the therapy in the first place.
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.
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.