p0pcult

>the more I was shopping in the store I found myself with a similar amount of non-recyclable waste and much more food waste

Then buy less food? the perishable stuff (fruits, veggies, meats) can either be bought in smaller portions, or the meats can be frozen.

Actions, meet consequences.

>Why should people have to drive and spend their time at the grocery store

Because they chose to live somewhere stupid that doesn't have one of life's necessities, food, nearby? Or maybe they haven't figured out how to bundle trips, like going grocery shopping while little Ryder is at soccer practice?

>I think I'm willing to take more time to get a better meal.

Then these services aren't for you.

>You are better off because the government is helping, and so are all of the people in the country who need to work for a living and need companies to work for. You can't let the banking system collapse and expect it will only hurt the people you don't like.

The only problem with this line is that a ton of people on here are explicitly against social safety nets. Now that they need one, all kinds of equivocation and hand waving.

Safety nets for all (or none)! FWIW, I prefer the former.

...and the shallower nerds.

:D this made my day.

Love the visual map. What does color mean? Any way to do a 3rd PC, and put the visualization in a cube one can toy around with?

While i completely agree with you, we should remember that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

>it's just cops being cops

Tell me you need police reform without saying it.

In this thread: majority of commenters pointing out this was well known.

And one crank.

If you don't give entities the chance for rehabilitation, there is no will to change their behavior.

It's simple: Americans have the political attention span of a fruit fly. Of course, it doesn't help when both parties decry everything besides puppies and apple pie to be the end of America as we know it, and the news media amplify it so that they can sell more advertising.

Is anyone actually surprised by this? When you have qualified immunity, you use it. Absolute protection corrupts absolutely.

Edit (to the downvoters):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unarmed_African_Americ...

Tell me you know nothing about economics or policy, without telling me you know nothing about economic or policy.

Thats correct.

In your goofy provocation, their housing is assumed. That's what you're caterwauling about, yea?

And yes, all people deserve shelter, education, and food.

Yes, we should expect the legal minimum from all entities! Especially the wealthy ones!

Because with free education, you bend their interests toward that of the US.

Whats your alternative? Force immigrant children into an undereducated class? Lets see how that works for you in 2 generations.

Not everyone wants wealthy assholes either, but unfortunately they tend to be able to pay more lawyer fees.

Are these situations really the same thing?

This was true at my private, for-profit employer too. I have since changed jobs, as I was getting severely depressed from having to continually fight with my boss (the Chief Research Officer) about being unwilling to "fudge" results.

The amount of pure speculation in this post is surprising, coming from a logicalmonster.

Are those activites illegal in China, or just in your mind? If it is not the former, then your point collapses like a two legged stool.

Right, i forgot. Meat is the cheap nutritional option.

/s

Wow, that's so completely fucked.

Having building mats delivered frequently would be a good reason to have a work vehicle.

In walkable places, you can just walk down and get that day's groceries as needed, or maybe you do it on your way home from your walkable job, etc. It's more flexible, fresher, requires less mass consumption, less packaging, as well--lots of ancillary benefits.

More food for thought: I've heard a saying (attributed to Norwegian/Scandinavian folk wisdom) that goes like, "There is no such thing as bad weather, only inadequate clothing."

You keep (mostly) repeating yourself, so I think you missed my point.

I agree with Mr. Cock's points about industrial-scale, monoculture livestock being a fertile breeding ground for novel pathogens. Makes a lot of sense to me. Let's go, let's recognize it as an existential risk, let's do something about that.

>stopping eating meat is a logical position to take

Oh, I'm out.

No thanks.

There is certainly an accelerationism at work in your logic, as the professor merely suggests reducing meat consumption. Which you take to the mat, and think we should stop eating meat. Do you see the difference? Van Oosterhout comes across as an academic. You come across as a scold, and no one wants to listen to a scold. And this is from someone who eats meatless a couple days a week, and when I do eat meat, it tends to be a sensible portion size. I'm all in on the Beyond/Impossible stuff too. In other words, I'm pretty open minded generally to the idea of reducing meat consumption.

"Meat" and "animal product" are not the same.

Wut.

A lot of India would like to have a word with you.

I think you would actually achieve your goal of advancing vegetarianism more effectively, if you left off the whole last paragraph.

You had me very convinced in the first half, because i recognise the risks discussed by Van Oosterhout, but the second you pivoted, you lost me. And probably others.

And yeah, maybe that contrarian streak makes me an asshole, but I am sure that I am not the only contrarian on HN.