which one?
95 karma · joined September 30, 2014
I switched to fish because for most interactive use case it’s so much better, without requiring any new muscle memory. I tried zsh at first but it winds up slow to get even close to where fish is out of the box. I still end up scripting in bash or sh for portability.
nu-shell won’t be available in as many places, and it looks to me like it would change paradigm in a way that would hinder working with bash or zsh over time. That’s just my 2c though as I have only briefly glanced at it and haven’t truly considered using it.
For my first we were basically threatened and coerced for near zero medical reason to get "interventions". Before we got to the hospital we were promised one thing, but when we got there it was break her water or find a new provider and potentially have our baby die.
We trusted the doctors even though we both felt coerced and lied to. It all culminated in an unnecessary C-section 12 hours later because the doctor was already woken up for someone else. She said our baby was going to have a much worse outcome. That we would just have a c-section anyway so we might as well just do it.
I think we both deal with the team from that still.
Just remember to interview your doctor's and find local patient outcomes. We wish we had the first time.
The second went with minimal intervention and, fingers crossed, the third will go the same.
Also it's not that we are against needed intervention or chosen intervention. We simple want the best outcome for everyone. Intervention imo should be a last resort or as needed for patients like my wife.
We don't need ads for schools or politicians a person should make their own choice based on impartial data and public debates. Movie trailers in and of themselves are not bad, but as advertisements they only drive people to consume. I can't say that they give positive aspirations.
Why do we need to be socialist or a utopia to ban most advertising?
- It is the main revenue source of most mentally harmful products like social media. A replacement created for the good of the world paid for by taxes with open data would be much preferred.
- Has masked how the world really functions via out-right lies and deception. Coke makes you happy, Happy Cows come from California, Diamonds must be given to show love
- Allows people with the most money to have the most likely chance of getting elected.
- Uses your personal information so that they are more likely to sell you things.
- Drug should not be advertised. Why the would a doctor want their patient to ask them for a specific drug???
- Convinced people that single use garbage should have a place in our society.
I am sure there are many more negatives, but for now I think this will suffice.
Perhaps with enough regulation many of these things could be changed, but I don't see it happening. Advertising can be used for good, see anti-smoking ads, but in its current state it is all bad. I can't think of an aspiration an ad has given me which gave me a problem to fix instead of a reason to consume.
Even if I was optimistic about farming being able to have animals leading happy lives, it would still ignore many negative factors dealing with animal consumption:
1. The environmental impact from animal consumption would increase if all animals lead happy lives and consumption stayed the same.
2. Dairy products could no longer be produced as that would lead to unhappy animals
3. The sustainability of eating animals, we produce feed for them, and then we eat them. It would make much more sense to only produce feed for us.
So you would choose to live a happy 15 years and then die. Unfortunately most animals that we farm cannot and do not live happy lives, and they don't get a choice. You would more realistically be living to 15 until slaughter with torture, rape, and your children being taken away to further the cycle. Never existing seems better. There is another option though, not raping, torturing, and slaughtering for humans to consume. Humans won't wither away without animal products.
In the not so distant past slaves were given "happy" lives by there owners. They were lesser beings so they should be happy to be alive at all right?
Its not about the crazies on reddit by the way. It starts off a bit rough talking about controversial article written by mens rights activists, but just keep watching, I swear they explain it.
(Sources: https://sites.google.com/view/kgssourcesmeat/startseite)
So even if FAO got it wrong, I just don't see beef not being a problem.
* "fake" christmas decorations (trees, wreaths) often contain lead
* Garden hoses almost always contain lead