I don't think that anyone in this chain of replies has argued for flat out ending all animal meat production. Sure, plenty of vegans are motivated primarily by animal ethics and thus want to categorically ban growing animals for food, but here almost everyone seems to be talking about the sustainability aspect of modern mass animal agriculture, myself included. Although less ethical scruples is a welcome byproduct in my opinion.

I'll take lab grown meat seriously when it's been proven to be financially competetive and most importantly scalable. Technofixes have a bad track record of turning out to be mostly just investor bait. Kinda like all the bullshit high-flying transportation concepts as solutions to problems where just slightly better urban planning and prioritizing public transit, cycling etc. would work wonders.

Plant based food on the other hand has been most of what we have been eating for most of history. It wasn't that long ago when meat was still considered a relative delicacy, back when scarcity necessitated efficiency. That's the kind of efficient, sustainable, healthy and local (so logistically simple) food production system we should try to strive for in my opinion.

Our economic systems only work with infinite growth because otherwise what would be the point of lending money if it won't grow interest. It's essentially a giant pyramid scheme. And that requires new blood to provide labour and consumers. This is incredibly dumb on a finite planet with limited resources, but that's mainstream economics for you.

Also if the population shrinks too fast, then the pyramid becomes unstable with not enough younger people to take care of all the old people (while also maintaining the economy).

That resource and logistics management problem is a direct result of people eating so much meat, the production of which is inherently inefficient for the purposes of feeding people. Of all the resources that we spend on maintaining and growing an animal, we only get back what goes into growing its muscles. The vast majority is wasted in maintaining the animal so that it doesn't shrivel up and die before slaughter. Scale back meat production and you get a lot more food for a lot less resources, energy and land. You can't get that efficiency otherwise. It's precisely about what we eat.

I'm almost impressed by how much completely unsubstantiated ad hominem you managed to cram in there. Personally I couldn't have guessed any of that from the comment you replied to. But if you wish to be taken seriously, maybe focus instead on the actual arguments next time.

Wii fit meditation game

5. Always remember to have fun!

It's the experience of a toothbrush collecting data about your daily routines to sell for profit.

I think its basic courtesy to put even a little effort to something as important as a breakup. Not doing it face to face or at least in a call removes the interaction completely. It's taking the easiest possible path in a situation that will certainly affect the other person in a significant manner. It's cold. Using a LLM for said text like in the meme is even lower effor and leaves the recipient feeling utterly worthless. Basically the same thing as getting fired via email.

Polaris is the one start that doesn't rise. It's always at the same height at the same spot. Learning the constellations of Ursa Minor and Ursa Major is a great first step into observing the night sky.

Finding the big dipper (the seven bright stars of Ursa Major) is usually very easy. Then you just follow the line formed by Merak and Dubhe until you find Polaris.

Adhering to the treaty would result in there only being half as much anti-personel mines for civilians to step onto after the war, so it would still be doing something very positive. That being said, I do understand the reasons for withdrawing from the treaty. I miss the optimistic world where the treaty was drafted up, when it briefly seemed that most issues could be solved with multilateral international cooperation :(

I was thinking AI. The road markings and the patch of grass make no sense and the background is very nondescript.

Maybe they snipped some off of the sheeps every night and sewed it together. I'd be more concerned about the ears.

Impulse is the integral of force over time, but I get what you're after.

When pecking at a tree, the maximum force exerted is what pushes the wood beyond its breaking point. That maximum force can be increased by increasing the impact energy as a whole (wasteful and costly) or shortening the impulse. A woodpecker isn't trying to do soft blows to shake some branches, it's trying to shatter a small portion of the trunk, much like someone looking to shatter their opponents nose would choose bare fists over boxing gloves.

IIRC this theory was debunked some time ago by a study. If you think about it, any dampening within the skull would lessen the force of the pecking and the bird would have to hammer away harder.

Edit: Link to a study

I remember seeing some posts by that user. Genuine schizoposting.

Ai slop

... becoming even more detached from reality? There really is no good solution, is there? Well, apart from the one.

Don't know if this is only taught here, or if you just forgot it:

Fourth one is to always know the state of any gun you're handling (Loaded or not, safety on or off and so on).

And the fifth rule: Always have fun! /s

I don't agree with the conclusion that Mickey makes. Yes, our senses can't be fully trusted, but they are the only way we will ever get any empirical information. Arguing against a materialist worldview by noting that our senses can't fully be trusted implies that the materialist worldview is flawed. My issue here is that any alternative has even more dubious foundations. (this is why I raised Occam's razor in my original comment). Would any inherent cosmic meaning even be relevant if we can't ever know about it? I doubt that Donald here would be reassured about the theoretical possibility of meaning existing somewhere beyond our senses. I am not.

The allegory of the cave, as I'm sure you know, came about in the context of Platonic idealism. That's how I've been talking about here as well. The allegory becomes moot if the objects casting the shadows and the shadows themselves are essentially the same thing. You need a dichotomy between two completely different things for it to be relevant. If it's matter casting metaphysical shadows which we perceve as matter, then Mickey has no argument and it's just accurate observations with extra steps.

I never said completely. Sure it's fun to entertain such possibilities, but science doesn't bother with unverifiable claims. That's the realm of metaphysics, unless somebody clever or lucky finds an actual glitch in the Matrix which would allow the claim to be verifiable.

Boltzman brain sure is an interesting concept. If I am one and you're a thought within it, then I must say that it's a bit funny that it popped into existense with the correct theories of thermodynamics and cosmology that explain the brains own existence. Also means that the universe has seen or will see every possible brainstate, nightmare and daydream, infinite beauty and horror. Oh yeah and we may as well be living in a Boltzmann galaxy that popped into existence in a similar manner. But alas, the relative improbability of our own (non-Boltzmann brain) existence is not proof against it. Same goes for the simulation hypothesis.

Care to explaing what "subscribing to philosophy" would even mean? If you instead meant to say a philosophy, then yes. I do have my own worldview, as I think every thinking being does. I apologize if I was unclear in my previous comment, I was commuting while I typed it and had to rush it a bit. The first paragraph was a response to the first paragraph of your preceding comment, the second one to the second and the third to the rest of it. I'll elaborate a bit:

If we don't make the assumption that our senses and measurements could possibly derive information about the nature of the reality around us, then trying to do so (empirical science) would be quite insane in my opinion. Why would anybody seriously try to do something which they think is categorically impossible to do?

If some physical phenomena is found which can only be explained via some sort of substance dualism or idealism, I'll let you know.

weird unknown forces we can’t explain

I assume you're referring to dark matter with this one. It's just an unsolved mystery. It sure would be interesting if it was ghosts, but we have no reason think so as of currently.

the results of tests looking different depending on if it’s being observed or not

How do you feel something without touching it and thus affecting it? To see something requires the object of observation to reflect or emit light. At small enough scales that will affect the object itself in a significant manner. Quantum physics sure is weird, but I don't see how that would be a reason to think that ideas could exist independently outside of a brain or similar material substrate.