Ignisnex

Just an observation, humans aren’t able to navigate heavy snow and disorganized traffic any better. We guess where the road should be, what the conditions are, and where other cars are, and commit with full confidence in our lack of knowledge. It works OK, but there are infinity examples of it not working. Literally any logic behind navigating these scenarios is better that what we can do with our feeble meat suits.

Of course, I see your point, and I see the disconnect we have here! To simplify my stance, I wouldn’t want to rule out animal by-products as a food category, as those can be valuable calories to people in places where farming might not be feasible for all their nutrition needs. That said, and to your point, traditional animal by-product might not be included. As you mentioned, industrial egg production, milk production, or honey production (in places that don’t naturally support honeybees) are not likely candidates for sustainable food sources.

Ah, I see I didn’t say the silent part out loud. I didn’t mention animals specifically because meat production is stupidly bad for the environment, so incorrectly assumed that was a given. I was specifically saying veganism isn’t inherently better than a vegetarian diet, not eliminating technical animal by-product like honey. I suppose there isn’t a term for “things that vegans won’t eat because technically an animal by-product, but still not terribly bad for the environment, at least not any worst than growing other vegetables on an induatrial scale”. Think things like cricket flour. Not vegan, but not ecologically bad either.

Is nuclear a bad option? Only downsides I’ve heard are basically optics problems. Barring facilities that catastrophically failed on top of horrid safety policy negligence, they seem perfectly suited for baseline power production.

Veganism isn’t inherently better for the environment. You’re looking for sustainable agriculture. End goal would be a hydroponic grow tower, powered by renewables. Perfect growing conditions year round with little to no runoff. Doesn’t work for all crops currently, and takes a ton of power to operate, though.

Animal trials are important in medicine and science as a whole, and casualties happen. We have ethics standard to minimize suffering and loss. Especially when doing primate trials. They are generally treated as humans would be in an emergency experimental procedures. If you lose a few, it’s acceptable, so long as suffering was suppressed, and all reasonable avenues to save the animal were explored. Also, primates are hella expensive, so you generally can’t afford to kill them on a whim.

No, animal trials aren’t the problem. It’s that the company basically disregarded these practices. Last I heard (and this was last year), they burned through 15+ primates out of 23 test subjects. These creatures suffered fungal and bacterial infection, were left to tug at the implant leads causing damage to their tissue and the device, had the device fail during implantation and had broken pieces lodged in the primate brain for over a week before deciding to euthanize. Absolute carelessness, and disrespect for these poor creatures.

I appreciate that you did some earnest calculations. Normalizing for McDouble calorie counts is a decent way to do lateral comparisons. I did think about it, rather than napkin math, but then the CRM exploded at work, so I got distracted.

If it helps your calculation, CAD is the appropriate currency, and food prices are not pulled from logical sources. Best of luck.

Sure, a lettuce sandwich costs $0.79.

I’m certainly not eating the onion like an apple lol. But, to your point, a sandwich is exactly what you just said. Pick up an onion, some bread, some lettuce, some tomato, some mayo, some mustard, salt and pepper, deli ham (or roast chicken), some cheese. Buying those ingredients would be… What $40? And you’d be able to make 8 sandwiches. Maybe have some leftover cheese and mayo. Perhaps a chicken carcass for stock.They’d be pretty good sandwiches too, but without bacon because we wanna keep it budget. Or you could get 20 McDoubles. By caloric value, 20 McDoubles will give you more food. You’ll die from malnutrition over a period of time, but not from lack of calories.

I don’t think it matters. An onion costs me $2. A McDouble costs me $2. I can get a whole processed burger for the price of a condiment on a sandwich I’d make at home.

Not sure, this seems to be exactly what vasalgel is. At first, I thought the innovation was that they just squirt this stuff into your sack and call it a day, and that would have been different. But nope! Same injection site too. Maybe it’s more effective or something.

UPDATE user_data SET deleted = 1 WHERE ID = you.

Done. Data deleted. All gone forever. Definitely doesn’t just hide it from the user.

Servarr Suite. Netflix interface, piracy backend. Operates over Usenet. Can handle movies, tv, music and ebooks. I’ve been told there are viable workarounds for televised sports, specifically F1.

Wow that’s a quick way to find out if someone pronounces it “Rooter” or “Rowter”

Yea my dude. If your food containers get hot in a microwave, they are not microwave safe. Could melt your plastics or shatter your earthenware. Or just burn the shit out of you too I guess.

Cold, everytime. Eating something cool or at room temp - when that thing was at one time perfectly delicious before being chilled - means the flavour is still delicious, just not the right temp. You are never getting that steak back to medium rare after a 2 minute nuke. Plus you can eat it without the fear of burning your mouth.

Change needs to be made somewhere. Gas isn’t the answer, so sticking with it… Kinda stupid. The “saves on maintenance” part is actually a really big deal that was just glossed over. You don’t need oil changes. You don’t have a transmission. You don’t need radiator fluid. With regenerative braking, you’re not wearing down brake pads anywhere near as much. Not to mention the gas emissions reduction. These are all highly toxic materials that are not being consumed and distributed into the atmosphere. And which mines are being operated in third world countries? If you’re referring to lithium, the largest producers are Australia, the USA, Chile and China. You know, some of the wealthiest countries on the planet… And Chile.

Understandably, hand waving “public transit” as the answer does make sense. Designing urban centres in such a way to make public transit preferable makes sense. The problem is that these changes are slow. In 20 years, you’ll have a few new suburbs built with these practices in mind. The majority of everything else will still be the same, because it’s not feasible to bulldoze existing infrastructure to replace it. It’ll need to be aged out, and climate change isn’t gonna stop for 100 years and wait for us to get our road placement juuuuuust right. Further, adding more public transit is expensive, with a high up front cost, plus a high maintenance cost ongoing. Unless you dump enough money into it such that it completely replaces the need for private vehicles, there will always be private vehicles regardless.

But the greatest benefit to EV is the pollution is centralized. Making vehicles will always suck for the environment, full stop, but EVs allow the production and majority of the pollution to occur at a relatively small number of places, which can be contained much easier.

To be absolutely clear, I don’t disagree with your point, but the answer won’t come overnight, and we’re on a time crunch. We need lots of innovation, and early adoption of incremental gains. One day, public transit and better cities will be part of the solution. But until then, we need solutions, and this is the direction to progress.

Different strokes for different folks. You do what you gotta do to enjoy life, and if you want to read or listen to audiobooks, I wish you all the best! My particular neuosis centers around definitions, and it’s insane, and I know it is. For me, the whole “I want to read more so I listen to audiobooks” statement just hits me like “I want to eat bacon so I eat lettuce”. Sure, they’re both crunchy, but it’s like… A totally different thing. If you want something crunchy (a metaphor for a good story or something), then say that, then the format doesn’t matter! This is a strange hangup to have haha I’m going to bed.

No hate for audio books, but I think it’s not comparable to reading. They are fundamentally different ways to get things in your brain, and they are handled differently. It’s a different thing. Granted, if you want to experience a narrative or story, fine. But it’s not reading. If you want to read, you look at words on a page. If you want to listen to an audio book, you do not want to read.