I always think of vegan as a spectrum, (many of the best things are a spectrum).
With sliding scales in there for stuff like morals, ethics, culture, circumstance etc.
Once you hit a threshold of vegan traits you're a real™ vegan.
My judgement on this is also suspect, so ymmv.
Less harm is better than more harm. It’s also impossible to walk around without ever stepping on insects, but just because some harm is inevitable that doesn’t mean I should walk around and slaughter everything that I can find.
Agreed, it then becomes a decision about the cost/benefit ratio of how you spend your time/energy trying to reduce harm.
That doesn’t mean that veganism is ‘perfect’ in all aspects. Who knows - maybe in the future we’ll find ways to produce healthy and delicious food straight out of air and electricity without any involvement of living organisms and thereby further reduce harm. But for the moment doing what we can would be a huge step forward.
Veganism might not be the maximally effective activity from an ROI point of view.
I personally see it as a "doing what we can live with" as opposed to "doing what we can", the difference being the impact personal decisions have on the choice of harm reduction activities.
It's borderline pedantry on the face of it, but the distinction is important for me.
If accurate (the idea, not the numbers), that sounds reasonable.
I'd argue there's much more to it that just calories in/out though.
Harm reduction should ideally account for as much of the system as possible.
ah, that's my bad for not properly phrasing my question.
Like how, "bacon = not vegan" and "cheese = not vegan" and "honey=controversy, for some reason".
Is there some sort of ruling passed down from the vegan starchamber that says "animal fertiliser grown plants = not vegan" or is it not a common enough consideration to have an agreed upon consensus?
So like a harm reduction thing?
Hmm, i know this is probably sarcasm.
Real question though, does animal based fertiliser have an actual impact on vegan choices ?
I hadn't even considered it until just now.
OK, I’ll bite, how is it an argument in favour of veganism, I’m genuinely not seeing it?
i agree with all of that.
Genuine question though, is it propaganda?
I mean it's essentially:
"Police install draconian system to to target the crimes of the peasants, while continuing to ignore the rich, system working as intended"
Edit: wait no, actually i just saw the 'Address fears' section, they are clearly pretending this is the only problem.
A specific subset of crimes reduced, i wonder what the demographic of those criminals is.
Not to say you shouldn't be arresting criminals, but they should be arresting all criminals, they don't need a 1984 style facial rec system for a 10.5% drop in crime.
Well, i say that , but equal opportunity crime prosecution isn't really what the police are for, so...
Actually arrest and prosecute the many many known criminals in the government and corporate world, no capital outlay in camera networks required.
Pretty sure that would give you a solid reduction in crime numbers as well.
TL;DR;
Why developers are abandoning Postman and its clones?
Enshittification
yeah, like most of these patents, it seemed to be more about the chilling effects than the actual enforcement.
There were a few variations in games over the years.
Life