imw
imw on Hacker News
In my experience, what does work is to lead with joy. I've found so much new life and enjoyment in my cooking since I went vegan. Cooking delicious food and sharing it with people is sometimes the best we can do.
It doesn't reflect well on your argument that your quote doesn't appear in the source.
"Results estimate that livestock consume 6 billion tonnes of feed (dry matter) annually – including one third of global cereal production – of which 86% is made of materials that are currently not eaten by humans. In addition, soybean cakes, which production can be considered as main driver or land-use, represent 4% of the global livestock feed intake. Producing 1 kg of boneless meat requires an average of 2.8 kg human-edible feed in ruminant systems and 3.2 kg in monogastric systems. While livestock is estimated to use 2.5 billion ha of land, modest improvements in feed use efficiency can reduce further expansion."
Even the source you are citing agrees that after massaging the numbers as much as possible it's still 3x less efficient to produce calories for human consumption by feeling animals.
77% of soy
beans are used as feed in animal fattening. The basic biology and ecology of trying to push calories through a lossy (25x!) step in the food cycle doesn't work out.
If anyone wants to engage with the consequences of animal agriculture, this is a great starting point:
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/climatechange/doc/FAO%20repor...
Fascinating. I've spent a fair amount of time in/around pro-livability discussions, and I've never really come across what you're describing. In my experience a solid portion of the folks advocating for more human-friendly cities are urban dwellers who spend significant time in nature and/or wilderness.
I honestly don't see how you get there. To me it seems much more like an argument that newspapers should not be printed on parchment, or in 128pt font. Seems pretty reasonable to me.
But they say right there!:
"Reinkstone is a professional and responsible company based around people." ;-)
Ultrawideband cooperative/cognitive free space communication. We're stuck in a paradigm of radio communication (clear channel) that is 100 years out of date.
May I introduce you to my friend and colleague, Hardening Guidance?
Not everything needs to be financialized/transactionalized. In this case I am not really sure what it would solve.
The capital costs of building networks like these, when you factor in the know-how and time required to build and scale a WISP, are really far beyond the bandwidth costs, which appears to be all that Althea accounts for. Passing the hat to cover gateway costs seems like a fine approach to me.
These sections really stood out to me:
"there is a significant difference between serving ads based on a Google search and working with the Chinese government on artificial intelligence or hosting the applications of the Saudi government, including Absher, an application that allows men to track and control the movement of their female family members."
This is a stark and honest way to put what Google is doing. These are actually fundamental values at stake. Not just 'privacy'.
"Although the causes and the implications are worth debating, I am certain of the appropriate response. No longer can massive tech companies like Google be permitted to operate relatively free from government oversight."
So FMAGAN companies are weaponzied in the geopolitics. This sounds good when dropped over the wall, but when you try to play this out against the current state of the USA, it seems near certain to me to go horribly wrong.
I would much rather break them up - all the way. Whatever that means.
Does anyone know if there is data on the effectiveness of handwriting on paper, versus a tablet, e.g. the reMarkable?
To be clear, I don't think parent commenter is a horrible person. I think they are misapplying their talents and hurting society.
I do understand your concern. Dialog is critical. But dialog only seems worthwhile if it is honest and open.
There's a lot of interesting physics in building thermonuclear weapons. Doesn't mean you should do it.
Your talents could be used to help the world. Instead, they are being used to enclose common spaces and pull apart the fabric of society. Get a better job?
"He added that users would be able to remain anonymous or pseudonymous, at their own discretion—including the ability to keep their digital wallets separate from their Facebook profiles."
Imperial march plays in background, dark patterns flood through every interface.
"Indeed, that’s why Calibra, the wallet software that will hold Libra Coins, was made a subsidiary of Facebook—“to ensure appropriate separation between social and financial data and to build and operate services on its behalf on top of the Libra network,” as the white paper explains."
Is this some cruel joke? 'See! We made it a subsidiary! Can't get more arms length than that!' Being a subsidiary generally means that Calibra will take and toe the dictates of Facebook. There is no separation here.
It honestly feels like this is a last chance to pull away from the enlightenment value killing death spiral that is surveillance capitalism.
Honestly, I find this horrifying. Why take one of the few decently commons-producible information goods and enclose it with a pay-for-play economy? What is the possible benefit to society?
While I agree with your point about client-side vulnerability, I think the central issue you highlight has reached a tipping point.
The use of zero-knowledge arguments of knowledge, such as the zk-snark, allows for anonymous, but still verifiable voting systems. These could be decentralized (via blockchain or similar), or built according to a more traditional architecture, but I do think that such a tool would represent a genuine advancement in voting systems.
If the STEM disciplines weren't rife with sexual harassment, would we have lost the insights of countless women?
Lead author is CJD. cjdns == cjd network suite
Aligning one's interest with the broader public makes sense because we are part of the broader public. What benefits the broader public benefits us individually, too.
You have the appearance of agency. That agency is mediated and curtailed by a profit-motivated intermediary that ultimately has almost total control.
The degree to which your likes and dislikes influence what you are fed is hidden in Facebook's proprietary codebase.
For the most part, feed algorithms are tailored to show you whatever will keep your eyeballs on the screen. The idea that your conscious desires prevail in the realm of allocating your attention has been pretty well debunked by psychology and cognitive science.
Special snowflake, 'triggered!', elitist, pussy, pinko, queer, and so on. The difference is that the labels you point to as 'ad hominem' when used by liberals aren't really ad hominem. They are about ideas and behaviours. Calling someone 'nasty', or saying that they are a 'special snowflake' is much closer to the idea of an ad hominem attack as I understand it.
This logic only holds if you take an extremely narrow view of what constitutes self-interest. If you broaden that understanding to include the benefits we receive from wider social progress, then doesn't this chain of reasoning fall apart?
The mere fact that people have appealed to the basest human instincts throughout history doesn't, of itself, mean we haven't turned some invisible corner. This seems to be essential to how cybernetic systems work.
It is true there has always been an appetite for trash. It's also true that the forces of industrial psychology and sociology have never before been so mobilized to maximize consumer behavior and minimize critical thought.
It's not one or the other -- it's both.
Just because they're numerous doesn't mean they're not a lunatic fringe.
This should not be privately owned. It should belong to the entire human race. Otherwise it will be more of the same fallacious drivel that landed us in our current predicament.