So......not a comparable situation then, ok.
but hey, if you want to argue with yourself about a slippery slope no one mentioned, who am i to stop you?
It seems you are having a good time with it, congrats.
edit : salty downvotes aren't a replacement for a coherent argument, they are however, entertaining.
That seems like a particularly shaky foundation for a blanket statement like that, given the current state of police forces across the globe.
A nice idea though.
ah, so questions about logic aren't good questions?
or just that one ?
edit: i replied before your edit.
I’m....not sure how much better i can phrase that question ?
It was concise, contained all the information needed for an answer, it could even be a single yes or no.
If you have an example of how that could have been asked in a better way, I’d be interested in seeing it.
There was no reference to my thoughts on the overall theme, the question is only loosely related to that theme.
If it helps, i don't care at all about the overpopulation classification or anything to do with it.
Is it easier if i remove all references to the theme? Let's try this :
Doesn't directly proportional mean both metrics being compared need to track each other?
I'm not the same person btw.
Genuine question, wouldn't a directly proportional link require that sustainability efforts go up in a direct mirror to population?
edit: a downvote isn't particularly helpful here, is that a downvote of "yes, but i don't want to admit it" or "no, because reasons" ?
If you’re going to cherry pick at least cherry pick from the text being mentioned.
Your whole comment was :
If we cut beef consumption by half, literally oligarchs would not have an economic reason to deforest the Amazon, because of the price drops. But no one wants to do that.
and wasn’t the comment to which i was responding.
Beef is the major factor in the amazon, by a large margin, as in my original comment. Palm Oil is not a significant part in Brazil, nor real state. Mineral is mainly in Roraima, but not as big as beef, because it’s based on small operations, there are a lot of sources on this for gold mining and the local Yanomami indigenous population that fights agains this (as this is done on their land).
Cool story, still irrelevant to my point which was:
Oligarchs gonna oligarch
Create a revenue vacuum (like removing the biggest value stream in a region) and oligarchs gonna oligarch right in and expand another value stream to make up the difference.
I’m not advocating for this to happen, I’m saying that expecting beef reduction to remove oligarchs from the amazon is unrealistic.
edit: dammit, real-time updates kicking my ass
Wrong place, my bad
This mix of "things that are possible/reasonable" and "things that are wildly speculative" is interesting.
Producing beef is the most inefficient way to produce food, in both use of space and water, and energy.
Reasonable/possible
We don’t need to impose things on people if humanity reduces its beef consumption.
Wild speculation / nonsensical.
This is not at all how large societies have worked, in any time period, ever.
While it might be technically true, it's missing a whole bunch of steps in the middle for it to be a practicality.
If we cut beef consumption by half, literally oligarchs would not have an economic reason to deforest the Amazon, because of the price drops. But no one wants to do that.
And that was just off of the top of my head.
Oligarchs gonna oligarch, removing one revenue source isn't going to suddenly kill interest in the amazon, with it's abundant resources and space.
hmm, i have mixed feelings about this.
If PRs arent being reviewed for hours or days thats a management problem.
This i agree with totally.
Whether or not it's human resource based or policy based, it's usually a failing of process and that's generally a fault with management. in my experience anyway.
No amount of unit tests are a replacement for another set of eyes.
This though, while i wouldn't compare PR's to Unit testing in the first place there is some overlap in quality control.
If you have robust enough testing suites it can reduce the PR burden in a variety of ways, though most of them come down to automating away the need to catch so many logic and regression bugs.
That's not to say reviews aren't needed, they definitely are, it's just automated testing does have an overlap.
Notice that i said testing suites though, that's not just unit testing, that’s the whole CI testing caboodle.
Oh damn i didn’t realise there was something comparable already in there.
Do you have the associated laws that precipitated those changes, i can't seem to find any reference to them ?
Indeed, which is why it's an ever evolving suite of tests, as and when you come across problems and things that were missed, you add automated tests for them.
It's not magic, you only get out what you put in, but it is automated, which means that if you do a reasonable job you have a lot less to worry about from that particular issue in the future and now you have a much quicker way of checking for it.
Also agreed, and automated testing is a way to partially formalise that knowledge into something that can be checked quickly and deterministically (if you are doing it right).
As i said before it's not magic and it's not a replacement, it's more of an augmentation to relieve some of the cognitive burden.
As with any other approach, it also has it's downsides, there are ways to go about it that can be actively detrimental.
In my experience a well done (and maintained) automated suite is a boon to ongoing development.