https://youtu.be/zHbv2YQ6yF4

Good video covering the incident in detail

Thank you. That's about what I suspected. And an email may not technically be a paywall but imo if they're going to sell it or even just use it to spam me with shit that's just another form of payment. I could make a fake email address or something but honestly I'm not going to go through all of that for what seems like a clearly shitty article from that parts that I can see.

Paywall link + no context given as to what actually occurred other than someone claiming that they are being silenced. That very well may be true but without more context I can't make that determination. It may also well be true that the claims by the DoJ are true and that the narrator of this article is an unreliable narrator.

If you want me to think or feel a particular way then don't lock the article behind a paywall and give actual context so that I can come to my own conclusions.

That is one of the most disgusting websites I've ever seen. If you're reading this please don't click the link.

I can't speak for the people that made the community but I don't think that places like this are necessarily made by vegans for vegans as you describe. Personally I can attest that it's just extremely frustrating to be made to feel like an out group in the ONE community where you shouldn't be made to feel like that. I personally welcome nonvegans to participate in discussion so long as they come with the understanding that they are a guest in our community and should respect the community as such which does include taking care to not come across as tone deaf. I'm not religious and in fact actively oppose religion but if I found myself at a church for whatever reason I'm not going to go in there and start a bunch of arguments and whatnot. I would be respectful because I understand that going to their place of worship and causing a commotion is uncalled for and doesn't benefit anyone. To be clear, I'm not trying to say that veganism is a religion because it is not and it is not viewed in the same way as religion is by its followers. I am merely using the analogy to illustrate how you should act when going into a community that you are not a part of.

In my experience it is not NEARLY as prevalent as when someone learns that you are vegan or finds out about vegan communities and whatnot. People make countless memes about vegans for example, but when was the last time you saw a meme about someone choosing to eat Halal? Because to my knowledge there is no scientific study on the different experiences of these groups it is impossible to talk about this topic in any way that isn't anecdotal but for what it's worth I have been all over the US and the anecdotal experience that I have had is so overwhelming that I refuse to believe someone is arguing in good faith if they are claiming that, for example, someone eating Halal has even a remotely similar experience to that of vegans.

My guess is that this is because people tend to associate other dietary or lifestyle decisions as being just a different way to live. Like oh, that person is Muslim or Jewish and that influences their diet. And they don't take that as a personal judgement anymore than they do when they learn that that person is Muslim or Jewish to begin with. But with veganism it is usually not something that a person is raised into. It is a decision that that person has made after learning more about the animal agriculture industry and it is usually for ethical reasons primarily. Not because a religious book told them to. Therefore they hear that someone is vegan and are instantly defensive in a way that isn't true with halal, kosher, etc.

There is a big difference between getting a solid idea for what will happen before testing and literally being able to see the future as clearly as the present. If a software developer literally can see the future and already knows what error will occur if he tries to run the code then he would not run it. Or to use the engineer example, let's say someone is creating a humanoid robot which is still in the early phases of development but the creator believes that it has just reached a point where it is able to sort of balance for a second. First of all, he can't KNOW that it's at that point without testing. And even if he has a very good idea that it is probably at that point he certainly won't know exactly how it is going to fail eventually during the test. If the designer is all-knowing then he would literally know every force that is applied to the robot as it attempts to stand, the exact way that it will stumble down to the minutiae, etc. There is no reason, not for fun, not for learning, literally no logical reason to run that test in that case.

I also agree that religion is a bunch of BS but if I were to try to come up with a justification to the question of why an all-knowing creator would test their creation, I would say that it isn't for the sake of the creator but rather to teach the person they are testing about themselves or some BS like that. That being said, I think there are many many ways that you can poke holes in the logic of a creator being all-knowing, just, and all-powerful; all three of which are claimed by believers. Alternatively, you can also focus on the all-knowing aspect specifically by illustrating that it is impossible for free will to exist if god is all-knowing. At least not the version of free will that most people refer to. If you want to claim that free will can exist even if there is only one possible time line then that's another argument.

"The researchers found that Sky was also reminiscent of other Hollywood stars, including Anne Hathaway and Keri Russell. The analysis of Sky often rated Hathaway and Russell as being even more similar to the AI than Johansson."

Did you block it before or after taking the time out of your day to post this useless comment? And can you show me on the doll where it hurts?

It would be if it were legalized but it will still be illegal so there will be no federal taxes earned by rescheduling cannabis.

As someone that has used ad blockers for just about as long as I have been able to, I would like to think that this is true. However, I'm not entirely sure that it is. I've heard that a surprising percentage of people just don't even know that ad blockers exist. If that's the case then they may be very well aware of what is happening. (Using made up numbers for the sake of argument since I don't have real numbers) Like if only 5% of users use ad blockers and doubling the number of ads they show only brings that to 10% then it is certainly worth it financially. I doubt that if you were to graph that curve it would be linear - there is certainly a point where you inundate users with so many ads that even non-technical people will start learning about ad blockers. Regardless of what the real numbers are, I would be very surprised if they are making decisions this big without at least being aware of what those numbers might be. And if they can make a small amount of money indefinitely but they have evidence to suggest that they can make even more money also indefinitely then the financial motivation is obvious. Not all infinities are the same size.

Yes, that is my point. Whether someone is vegetarian, "trying to be more ethical" but still eating meat, or just a meat eater that has never even considered ethics, there is nothing that says you have to go through all of those steps to becoming vegan. In my experience, regardless of how far along you are in those "steps" once you make the connection between the food on your plate and the animals that it comes from and you realize that they are suffering for you, you go vegan. That could be meat eater to vegan, "ethical" meat eater to vegan, or vegetarian to vegan. My point is that in my experience that process does happen overnight.

https://youtu.be/LQRAfJyEsko

What he said

In my experience they often do go vegan overnight though. The key tends to be actually connecting the food on your plate with where it came from and accepting that animals are capable of suffering. Once that connection is made, animal products simply aren't seen as food anymore and going vegan overnight is the only logical conclusion.

Some people may be further along the spectrum towards being vegan when this connection is actually made but regardless of if you are vegetarian, "only eat free range meat", or an unapologetic meat eater, once the connection is made they are vegan.

👋

I agree that those people need to understand her point the most and that they likely won't even if they did hear it unedited but even the people who are already on her side like myself still need to hear it. Not because we don't already understand what she's saying but because it shows that we haven't given up yet.

(Not who you replied to) I think they might be more concerned about the possibility of Trump being in power than the litigation being shelved as a result.

I don't think she's really talking to them or expecting them to suddenly admit what they are doing and change their actions. I feel like she's moreso talking to the American people. I know personally it at least gives me a modicum of hope to see that there are still people who will stand up for what's right and call them out on the floor of Congress. It's certainly better than living in a world where no one challenges them anyway.

The survey isn't about the "niche" subset of the population that is religious. It is about the composition of the entire population. Not a subset of the population so that isn't relevant.

Edit: to be clear, I understand that there may be some niche subsets within this survey that may not be represented because there are only 20 people in the US that believe in that weird religion, but again, that has nothing to do with the larger, non-niche subsets which are absolutely represented with enough accuracy to draw statically significant conclusions with a sample size of 1000

https://www.mili.eu/learn/is-a-sample-size-of-n-1000-sufficient-for-accurate-survey-results