tassl

Wait, why would having a non-Apple store being allowed in iOS affect you? If people want to install non-Apple approved apps from their own devices, it doesn't imply you have to do the same.

Actually, engineers in big companies have more control than it seems. After all, privacy is not only about intent, but also execution, and care needs to be taken at every level.

Privacy requires engagement from all levels, and I'm this case Facebook seems to be doing the trigger thing after f*** things up quite a bit in the past.

> we can do our best to get as many as possible unnecessary deaths to end.

What if the best way to decrease (unnecessary) deaths is to consume animals?

> (...) while crop deaths may happen, it is not a requirement that it does.

Wait, so just because you consider that it is not a requirement, it is ok? The reality is another and veganism could be ending the world and you would be defending a best case scenario that doesn't exist?

> Statistically it is not significant

Have you ever worked in fields? I haven't spent significant amount of time there, but I have spend weeks in a farm owned by relatives. I don't know what you call significant, but the meat processing that happens there is not "not significant". Rodents, snakes, even foxes. And all that without counting insects.

> These are all super common arguments against veganism and easily disproven

I don't think so. You are just using some higher moral ground to defend your position: "I don't want deaths; yes they happen but they are not a necessity for my beliefs".

All that without considering the damage we could be making to the human race. We don't know the impact of large scale veganism on long term health.

> The peer-reviewed science we have suggests that higher soy consumption correlates with increased lifespan and positive health outcomes.

Couple of things here:

(1) Correlation is not causation (2) Garbage in, garbage out -> referring to most observational studies.

> Can I hazard a guess that you think MSG is bad for your health too? These are antiquated views.

I don't know if it is bad for my health long term, even though I guess yes. I don't think there are good studies pointing in either direction. It is definitely not healthy short term for me, since I get bad headaches and flushes when I eat something with MSG.

The problem is that there should be good studies when adding something humans don't consume into their diet. Humans have consumed meat for hundreds of thousands of years, yet now it is the source of all evil. We haven't consumed rapeseed at all yet its oil is labeled "healthy". In my book skepticism is a virtue.

Let me doubt that assessment. That would be true if (1) the 50-to-1 was true (doubt it); (2) what we feed the cattle is human-grade food and (3) 1 calorie of a plant was as nutritious as 1 calorie of meat.

Not because of deforestation, but because threats to orangutans.

Most of the food animals eat is not human-grade, and a big part of it are by products of food for human consumption it would not be used anyways.

No, even if most of livestock feed was soy (I am pretty sure it was corn, but whatever), most of the food they are feed as dry matter is not edible by humans: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S22119...

I would like to see where that 98% really comes from, the links you posted talk about 70% (and most of that being consumed by poultry, not cattle). And even that seems excessive [1]. I would love to see a clear separation between the soybean. meal (leftover from oil and soybean grinding) and explicit feed grade soybeans.

[1] https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/coexisten...

It does not make any sense, no matter how you look at it.

Sure, you can see those "articles", but don't forget that those are going to be based on IQ tests, and those are correlated with intelligence and... wait for it... education.

If I was of the superior caste that's what I would try to make people believe: "we are superior, and we are here because we are smarter than you. Best of luck in your next life".

> Livestock agriculture is the leading driver of climate change AND biodiversity loss.

I am pretty sure that's not correct, not even close [1]. Transportation is the main driver of gas emissions (28%) followed by electricity production (27%) and industry (22%). Agriculture (livestock and crop) is <10%.

In most countries, livestock can graze in areas where cultivations cannot happen (Australia is a good example iirc) and can help with soil health.

> Additionally, if we would let nature reclaim the land that's currently used for livestock agriculture, it has the potential to capture >100% of the CO2 emissions until 2050.

Most of the food livestock consume are leftovers of human-grade crops. So we would still "need to" have that cultivations going and throw the leftovers anyways. Or most likely some company would find a way to feed humans that.

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...

It is not as simple as you think, and there is quite a bit of people cannot be healthy with such diet.

> Many are also passionate about it because there are other benefits that come with it - no longer needing to kill sentient beings (you probably wouldn't eat your dog, so why eat a pig who is of equal awareness and intelligence?)

Plenty of "sentient beings" are killed for crop farming. I am not even sure meat eaters cause more deaths than most vegans, specially if they are not pbd.

I am pretty sure Amazon deforestation affects the rest of the world too.

While I don't completely agree with the need of deforestation of the country, I upvoted you because I agree with the rest of the message. Specially, I agree other countries are using the moral superiority card after getting a early start causing the current climate crisis.

Most of the benefits you mention come from weight loss, and almost any intervention that can cut weight during the first years would report similar improvements.

Plenty of people lose weight, drop blood sugar and drop blood pressure by going keto. And some with a more extreme carnivore diet.

The real comparison here would be to have "2 people like you" 6 years ago and have two interventions. One going vegetarian and another going keto or carnivore, and see where there are now.

As unethical as eating soy from a deforested area. Or eating mostly anything with sugar, canola oil or palm oil. But people don't ask those to be in non deforested areas, and they don't ask to increase the price to make sure soil is not destroyed by monocrop cultivation.

> How much could this reduce the total environmental food print of cattle? I.e. including all the energy used to grow the crops they eat, the deforestation to make room for the crops + cattle, the waste the cows produce.

Quite a bit. Most of the deforestation you are mentioning happens for monocrop cultivation, from which livestock consume (mostly) the leftovers. That's usually hidden in data by using total weight, but the reality is that 86% of the dry matter consumed by livestock are not edible by humans [1].

[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S22119...

>All improvements are good, but I'd like to know if this is more than a distraction to make people feel better about continuing to demand products they know are damaging the environment (e.g. Amazon deforestation).

Both are compatible. You can be against the Amazon deforestation and pro-reduction of emissions of current cattle. Most of the beef consumed in the US (~90%) is raised in the US.

> Industrial farmed animals aren't eating grass, they're eating crops like soy. If you find soy milk and soy-based meat alternatives decent for example, consider eating those directly instead of products from soy-fed cows - it'll be vastly better for the environment with seaweed or not.

Ahhh... No, thanks. It will also be vastly worse for my health.

>t might work if intelligence wasn't important for members of lower castes but was for higher castes, perhaps due to the nature of their culture or work. Then low castes wouldn't select for intelligence but high castes would. Not saying that's what actually happened but it shows that selective pressure could still exist without inter-caste mobility.

This makes absolutely no sense, unless the "not so smart" were not considered for reproduction or were eliminated. How are you selecting for IQ if the only thing you need to get married is to be in that cast? Arranged marriages don't help with natural selection; you just need to exist in the right family.

And we know how that has worked in royal families across Europe.

In any case, your analogy was not this one in the first post, unless you are saying that higher caste meant higher IQ from the beginning.

That's a false analogy. Genetics can beat training but discrimination cannot be overcome without intervention. I'm a strong believer in equality of opportunities, but I feel that's constantly misunderstood.

If your family can pay you a tutor, you're given more opportunities. If you don't have to work after school, you're given more opportunities. If your family is educated and can give you guidance, you're given more opportunities. If your parents can pay for electricity, yes, you're given more opportunities.

We can keep going, but the privileged trend to think everything they got is due to their effort. Somebody that has a lower score than you might deserve access to a better university that you.

I was "privileged" growing up. We always had food in our plates; we couldn't dine out but my parents loved me and I could study at night. I had to work while studying but it was not the worst that I have seen. I was the first of my family going to a university but at least my parents understood that education was important and reinforced that in me.

The Onyx Boox 3 max is great for that. the main function I use (articles and books) is the split screen with notes in one side and book/article in the other. The main downside is the price (~$800). It is also bulkier than other options.

I have worked at a few orgs and I've heard so many time the "because we are Google" to explain why a product will be used. I've never understood that mentality; I've never understood people being proud basically about a product somebody else built 20 years ago.

I do believe leadership is failing Google, and their lack of vision is starting to affect the company. There was quite a bit of inertia, but I fear search might drop in the next 5 years and there will be nothing ready to replace ads.

This is completely misleading. Even if his first company was the first self driving vehicle project ever (which was not) or the only piece in the puzzle (which it wasn't either), there were other cofounders of that startup. This is glorifying one person using other people's work.

I guess this is going to be controversial, but shoes are not preventing running injuries because most people ran farther and with worst technique than they should.

Farther because running injuries increase with the distance run, specially when distance is added too fast [1]. This is important, because there are mostly 2 main factors that most people change when running: distance and pace. Pace is more difficult to change so people tend to increase distance, which increases injuries, specially stress-related injuries [2].

And worst technique because people rarely train technique: people go out and run, stepping multiple times in that wrong position that might not hurt immediately but will cause some compensation issues later on. Or the knee to hurt because of overuse [2].

The question that I would ask to people, because I don't fully understand it, is: why is the tendency to increase the distance? Why people have as a goal running a marathon, for example?

In my view, running faster makes sense from the health perspective. Running more distance doesn't. Running intervals makes way more sense that running continuously for X hours. Here I am not trying to be empathetic, but I believe that people should be told that, in some cases, they should not run X distance, that it is bad for them and that running X is not something to be praised or proud. I didn't said it (strongly) in cases where,I should have; too late now after a couple of hip and knee surgeries.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25155475 [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3497945/

And if you run a 400m once, you will have PTSD when you are on the blocks getting ready to run the next.

I'm not the OP, but I mostly agree with his comments. I have trained track and field for years, and bad running technique is highly correlated with injuries.

I don't understand this mentality of running longer and longer distances. Most people should not do that; even with proper technique you're repeating over and over the same motion, same impact on the same areas. In most cases, injury is just a matter of time. Stress injuries are extremely frequent [1] and all this is part of this mentality that with suffering I'll accomplish more. And, longer distances usually equate to more injuries [1].

Strength [2] and fast twitch fibers are the first ones to be lost while aging, so it is way more effective to train those and run shorter, more explosive distances. And even more effective learning proper running technique.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2465455/

[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3940510/

[3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15462613/

Edit: added [1]

Most would vote Yes to independence. Most would rather have a different relationship with Spain and yes, a big chunk of people would have liked to remain in Spain with increased autonomy. Since this seems impossible and the direction Spain is taking is the opposite, with strong repression, people that were not pro independence would vote Yes in a referendum.

> Why is the tyranny of the majority wrong (this is what most people would call democracy) but you see no problem with the tyranny of a minority?

Tyranny of the majority is not what you think it is. It happens when a some minority is part of a larger group that limits their freedom because of its larger number. This minority is usually focused on a specific region, and one of the the tools used by the majority to restrict this freedom is centralization and uniformity.

A good example of this are the 32 laws the Catalan government tried to push that the Spanish government sent to the constitutional court to be banned [1]. As a reminder, members of the constitutional court are selected by the main Spanish parties.

[1] https://ca.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Llista_de_recursos_o_sent%C3...

> The population in Catalonia is 7,5 millions, and the people that voted independentist parties are 1,6 millions. Have you consider the possibility than not all those "inexistent" people are independentists?.

7.5 million including kids and people who don't vote. 5.5 million people that can vote, ~4.3 that voted (2017 numbers). Over 2 million votes that voted explicitly pro-independence parties [1].

Those are the real numbers.

> Lets assume that some strangers would appear at your door requiring politely you to leave your home and work and go away because you aren't in the right kind of thinking and your bloodlines are Spainted. Oh, and you are not a US citizen (or a german citizen, french, whatever...) anymore.

That's sci-fi. It hasn't happen. It won't happen. If Catalonia would become independent, why would they kick anybody out?

> If you really want to educate yourself, a simple search in youtube will provide you with plenty of data that debunk this idea. Think about it.

Go to Barcelona, report back if that's a war zone or not. The problems/fires have been extremely focalized.

[1] https://eleccions.ara.cat/parlament-21d

> The infrastructure of catalunya (high speed trains, ports, highways, etc...) have been paid by all spaniards during many, many years. Like ways, may people from all over Spain live and work in catalunya and viceversa.

That is not true. Most of the investment in trains, port, highways in Catalonia started as private investment, mostly because it was one of the first places where they were being built (roads and train are the best examples).

And in the more recent years, and considering public investment, Catalonia is clearly under invested (specially Rodalies, according to most news and friends in the area). The budget for transportation is lower than the GDP and population in average, and most years less than half the budget is executed [1][2]

In terms of airports, 1/2 of the revenue of the airports in Spain come from Barcelona's airport [3].

The more I look at the numbers, the more clear it is that Spain's interest in Catalonia is $$$.

[1] https://cincodias.elpais.com/cincodias/2018/10/02/companias/... [2] https://www.lavanguardia.com/economia/20190120/454182028060/... [3] https://www.elperiodico.com/es/economia/20150327/el-prat-aen...

Ugh.

> Trust me, in this case will be war

Sorry, after reading your text the one thing I can't do is to trust you.

> At difference than Norway, there is a silent majority in Catalonia that is fuming.

I would love to see data on that; right now, pro-independence parties are majority in the parliament and have had 10x times the amount of people on the streets (without the need of bringing outsiders). That majority is not silent, is inexistent.

> Now they can't exit home without finding a burning barricade and the pavement vandalised (...)

All that is false. I have multiple friends in Barcelona and protests have been focalized in a small area (spanish police station in Via Layetana).

> It does not really matter because they will not find a local job anymore in the 5000 companies that have quited the area by this permanent climate of confrontation

That is also false. There were some movements of the headquarters address that didn't really affected the business. The part that should be scary to all democrats is how the Spanish government created a law specifically to facilitate this change of address and how the king of Spain started calling companies to do that change.

> The rest of Spain will take some popcorn and enjoy the carnage and backstabbing on TV

This is pretty disgusting and telling.

> Because we know it's not the cleverest idea in the world and therefore we don't want to play that game.

This awfully sounds like:

"We know better" "Hey Catalans, you guys don't really know what's good for you, so we are taking decisions on your behalf"

All your argument can only be explained from the right of conquest.

> Anyway, they level of independence that Catalonia has had in the last decades is much higher that before that “annexion”.

I am sorry to say, but this is the misleading part. You can't compare the situation hundreds of years ago with today's standards. Politically, Catalonia has less level of independence than 300 years ago. After all it had its own political institutions, courts, laws and coinage of money; all of them separated from the Kingdom of Castile.

The annex I was referring to was political, economical, legal and monetary unification after Catalonia defended a different candidate for the crown. And this is the level of autonomy that some Catalans wanted to regain.