@veganpizza69@lemmy.world cover
@veganpizza69@lemmy.world avatar

veganpizza69

@[email protected]

No gods, no masters.

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. View on remote instance

veganpizza69 ,
@veganpizza69@lemmy.world avatar

It's a waste of time, the "NOVA" system is subjective and it makes testing it a dead end. Your question will not be answered.

It also doesn't teach nutrition to the people; the core application of it is demonizing food that isn't cooked at home, as if something made in a small home kitchen is magically healthful.

If you want to get a better grasp, here's a nice and short read: (shorter than a book) Series 5: Is the Ultra-processed Food (UPF) concept useful, and for what goals? | TABLE Debates

veganpizza69 ,
@veganpizza69@lemmy.world avatar

Unfortunately, the "Processed Food Moral Panic" has been taken over by the meat and dairy industries, so people will not be learning why it's important to eat lots of plants as whole foods.

veganpizza69 ,
@veganpizza69@lemmy.world avatar

Squashing

The s "squash" command is where we see the true utility of rebase. Squash allows you to specify which commits you want to merge into the previous commits. This is what enables a "clean history." During rebase playback, Git will execute the specified rebase command for each commit. In the case of squash commits, Git will open your configured text editor and prompt to combine the specified commit messages. This entire process can be visualized as follows:

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/c9b3554b-d6a9-4fd0-a612-7d2e3f60d6e9.png

Note that the commits modified with a rebase command have a different ID than either of the original commits. Commits marked with pick will have a new ID if the previous commits have been rewritten.

https://www.atlassian.com/git/tutorials/rewriting-history

You can also amend for a softer approach, which works better if you don't push to remote after every commit.

The git commit --amend command is a convenient way to modify the most recent commit. It lets you combine staged changes with the previous commit instead of creating an entirely new commit. It can also be used to simply edit the previous commit message without changing its snapshot. But, amending does not just alter the most recent commit, it replaces it entirely, meaning the amended commit will be a new entity with its own ref. To Git, it will look like a brand new commit, which is visualized with an asterisk (*) in the diagram below.

You can keep amending commits and creating more chunky and meaningful ones in an incremental way. Think of it as converting baby steps into an adult step.

Israel's high court orders the army to draft ultra-Orthodox men, rattling Netanyahu's government ( apnews.com )

Israel’s Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled unanimously that the military must begin drafting ultra-Orthodox men for compulsory service, a landmark decision that could lead to the collapse of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s governing coalition as Israel continues to wage war in Gaza....

veganpizza69 ,
@veganpizza69@lemmy.world avatar

No more fighting against boxes of aid for these warriors.

What do you think the Great Filter is?

The Great Filter is the idea that, in the development of life from the earliest stages of abiogenesis to reaching the highest levels of development on the Kardashev scale, there is a barrier to development that makes detectable extraterrestrial life exceedingly rare. The Great Filter is one possible resolution of the Fermi...

veganpizza69 ,
@veganpizza69@lemmy.world avatar

For us it's conservatism and its synonyms.

veganpizza69 ,
@veganpizza69@lemmy.world avatar

I think that it's you who should read more.

Here:

Characteristic processes of human evolution caused the Anthropocene and may obstruct its global solutions | Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

We propose that the global environmental crises of the Anthropocene are the outcome of a ratcheting process in long-term human evolution which has favoured groups of increased size and greater environmental exploitation. To explore this hypothesis, we review the changes in the human ecological niche. Evidence indicates the growth of the human niche has been facilitated by group-level cultural traits for environmental control. Following this logic, sustaining the biosphere under intense human use will probably require global cultural traits, including legal and technical systems. We investigate the conditions for the evolution of global cultural traits. We estimate that our species does not exhibit adequate population structure to evolve these traits. Our analysis suggests that characteristic patterns of human group-level cultural evolution created the Anthropocene and will work against global collective solutions to the environmental challenges it poses. We illustrate the implications of this theory with alternative evolutionary paths for humanity. We conclude that our species must alter longstanding patterns of cultural evolution to avoid environmental disaster and escalating between-group competition. We propose an applied research and policy programme with the goal of avoiding these outcomes.

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/4c98d163-d037-41e0-9092-479db76236df.jpeg

Figure 2. Dimensions of environmental management create an attractor landscape for long-term human evolution. Environmental sustainability challenges (curved frontiers) require a minimum level of cooperation in a society of a certain minimum spatial size. Alternative potential paths move humanity toward different long-term evolutionary outcomes. In path B, competition between societies over common environmental resources creates cultural selection between groups for increasingly direct competition and conflict. Path A, growing cooperation between societies facilitates the emergence of global cultural traits to preserve shared environmental benefits.

veganpizza69 ,
@veganpizza69@lemmy.world avatar

I see, so you don't understand what's happening on the planet.

Don't worry, you're not alone, you represent the majority.

veganpizza69 ,
@veganpizza69@lemmy.world avatar

That's one of my first reasons for realizing that cars are a blight upon the land.

veganpizza69 ,
@veganpizza69@lemmy.world avatar

Who would use that kind of type coercion? Who? I want to see his face.

veganpizza69 ,
@veganpizza69@lemmy.world avatar

So... mess with gangs by bringing down cellphone communications.

veganpizza69 ,
@veganpizza69@lemmy.world avatar

The traditional "solution" to the supposed threat of "The rapists are invading" is to lock up women domestically and only allow one rapist at a time to do marital rape.

The news just shows that women are also humans who are susceptible to propaganda...

veganpizza69 ,
@veganpizza69@lemmy.world avatar

No, no, I come to Lemmy for petty moneylaundering tips.

veganpizza69 , (edited )
@veganpizza69@lemmy.world avatar

easy emotional messaging × a lot of funding from rich assholes of all types × great means of communication that can target audiences even in isolation.

veganpizza69 ,
@veganpizza69@lemmy.world avatar

Can anyone EILI5?

Sure. A lot of people voted for bullies who can talk themselves out of consequences.

veganpizza69 ,
@veganpizza69@lemmy.world avatar

So you're saying that the city is also a large gym which improves public health 👍

veganpizza69 , (edited )
@veganpizza69@lemmy.world avatar

"Let's destroy where we live, locally and cosmically, because seeing sweaty people or being sweaty makes me psychologically uncomfortable."

-- you

veganpizza69 ,
@veganpizza69@lemmy.world avatar

Sawdust would be an improvement. It's just fiber, desperately absent fiber.

veganpizza69 ,
@veganpizza69@lemmy.world avatar

I'm not sure why it's so difficult to understand. Eating lower down the trophic levels is energy efficient, and the energy level is proportional to environmental destruction, water use, and pollution. This is especially relevant if you have a large population to maintain (food security), which is the case for humans.

Eating up the world’s food web and the human trophic level | PNAS

Abstract

Trophic levels are critical for synthesizing species’ diets, depicting energy pathways, understanding food web dynamics and ecosystem functioning, and monitoring ecosystem health. Specifically, trophic levels describe the position of species in a food web, from primary producers to apex predators (range, 1–5). Small differences in trophic level can reflect large differences in diet. Although trophic levels are among the most basic information collected for animals in ecosystems, a human trophic level (HTL) has never been defined. Here, we find a global HTL of 2.21, i.e., the trophic level of anchoveta. This value has increased with time, consistent with the global trend toward diets higher in meat. National HTLs ranging between 2.04 and 2.57 reflect a broad diversity of diet, although cluster analysis of countries with similar dietary trends reveals only five major groups. We find significant links between socio-economic and environmental indicators and global dietary trends. We demonstrate that the HTL is a synthetic index to monitor human diets and provides a baseline to compare diets between countries.

This first estimate of HTL at 2.21, i.e., a trophic level similar to anchoveta and pigs, quantifies the position of humans in the food web and challenges the perception of humans as top predators (2). Humans dominate ecosystems through changes in land use, biogeochemical cycling, biodiversity, and climate (11, 13, 14). It is not sufficient to separate humans from analyses of ecosystem processes, because there are no remaining ecosystems outside of human influence (15). Thus, investigations of ecosystems, without accounting for the presence of humans, are incomplete (13). There is a variety of other ecological indicators based on trophic ecology theory or diets, e.g., the omnivory index, that may also prove useful in assessing the impact of humans in the functioning of ecosystems. However, a first estimate of an HTL gives us a basic tool that places humans as components of the ecosystem and assists in further comprehending energy pathways, the impact of human resource use, and the structure and functioning of ecosystems.

The global increase in HTL is consistent with the nutrition transition that is expected to continue for several decades (16, 17) from plant-based diets toward diets higher in meat and dairy consumption (1822). This 0.15 increase in HTL from 1961 to 2009 is mainly due to the increased consumption of fat and meat (SI Appendix, Figs. S5–S8), as opposed to a shift toward the consumption of species with higher trophic levels. In fact, we find that the mean trophic level of terrestrial animals that are consumed by humans has only slightly increased (by 0.01 or 0.5%) due to the higher proportion of pork and poultry in the diet (SI Appendix, Fig. S11_A_), whereas that of marine animals has decreased markedly from 2.88 in 1961 to 2.69 in 2009 (SI Appendix, Fig. S11_B_). This decline in the trophic levels of marine food items in human diets is consistent with the global decline in the mean trophic level of marine fisheries catches. This decline has been related to the consequences of fishing pressures on marine predators (23), although changes in the characteristics of fisheries over time may also influence this trend (24).

The global convergence in HTL is consistent with the convergence in diet structure between countries with diverse levels of development (18, 19), and in agreement with previous studies of the FAO (17, 25). Globalization and economic development facilitate the access to diverse foodstuffs and can enhance the rate of this convergence (18, 26). For India, China, and countries in groups 1–3, HTLs are low and rising. With economic growth, these countries are gaining the ability to support the human preference for high meat diets (18, 19, 26). For countries in group 4, the nutrition transition has reached a point where health problems associated with high fat and meat diets (i.e., high HTLs) have led to changes in policy and government-run education programs that encourage these populations to shift to more plant-based diets [i.e., lower their HTL; SI Appendix, Figs. S4–S8 (18, 20, 22)]. Similarly, countries with high initial HTLs (i.e., group 5) show decreasing trends with time (Fig. 3). For Scandinavian countries, this decline is due to government policies promoting healthier diets (18, 22). For example, in 2011, Sweden consumed historically high levels of meat due to low market prices, leading the Swedish government into discussions of a Pigovian tax to reduce this consumption (27). Changes in diet in Mauritania (decreased meat and dairy consumption) and Mongolia (increased proportion of vegetables) are linked to increased urbanization and economic development and decreased nomadism.

veganpizza69 ,
@veganpizza69@lemmy.world avatar

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/d191c966-0cbd-4477-bbd7-2eb464b40fd7.png

While that needs to stop entirely, the 1%' carbon footprint (yes, it applies to them too, this is what everyone here is actually pointing out) sums up to about 15% of global GHG emissions at the consumption level. Huge, but they are few, they aren't "masses".

We need GHG emissions to drop at least 100% (to 0%) and then we need to remove carbon (so that's negative emissions) to get closer to the safer atmospheric CO2.

veganpizza69 ,
@veganpizza69@lemmy.world avatar

The impossible love of fossil fuel companies for carbon taxes - ScienceDirect

Economists agree that carbon taxes are the most effective solution for climate change mitigation. But where do fossil fuel companies stand on carbon taxes? I analyse how the 100 largest oil and gas companies communicate on carbon taxes. Surprisingly, I find that 54% of companies that have a policy on carbon taxes support them (78% for the 50 largest). This is puzzling as an effective carbon tax should reduce the revenues and reserve value of fossil fuel companies. To understand this paradox, I offer non-mutually exclusive reasons why fossil fuel companies might support carbon taxes. Oil and gas companies could use a carbon tax to get rid of the competition from coal, create a level playing field and remove regulatory uncertainty. Or they think that these taxes will not affect them because demand for oil and gas is inelastic or that international coordination will fail and lead to leakages. Finally, it could be that this is simply a communication exercise. A carbon tax helps them shift the responsibility from fossil fuel companies to customers, voters and elected officials.

veganpizza69 ,
@veganpizza69@lemmy.world avatar

Hey, I have re read your comment a few times. Important info, but unsure how it relates to my comment. Rich people don’t contribute that much to C02?

There are 2 necessary changes as layers in this context:

  1. There are also studies that show the GHGs for "rich people's investments". This is important because they are in the way of necessary adaptation and mitigation. We can't do anything meaningful about climate and biosphere because that would require ending profiteering from planetary destruction, it would require decommodification.

  2. Rich people's consumption is excessive for anything. Not just their carbon footprint, but their ecological footprint. But they are a small minority, especially the richest. Being a small minority means that if they lose their... wealth and become wage workers, that's going mean only a decrease of 15% GHGs. This 15% is not meaningful to avert ruining the planet's surface. We need more than 100% (zero emissions and then removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere). This means that EVERYONE has to participate, which also means that we need cooperation. And you don't have cooperation in a capitalist class society with all this "rat race" going on, you can't, we're literally all enemies (competitors) in this game.

So they can tell me how to live my life?

That's one side of it, yes. To have any meaningful action, all sides of economic activity have to change, we need decreases in production (supply), but also in demand (consumption). If only production decreases, the demand side goes nuts and there's hyperinflation and other problems. If only demand decreases (unlikely), the production side, which is owned by rich people, may decide to force and coerce an increase in demand somehow, as has been happening at least since the end of WW2.

Here, a game: https://play.half.earth/

'Settlers are right': The kibbutz movement should break away from the left, leader says ( www.haaretz.com )

"The settlers aren't wrong. The right is correct: That is the way to seize and hold land, and their claim that, any place we Israelis leave, the Arabs will come in our place, is correct. The right is also correct in its path: It's by settlement and only by settlement that sovereignty can be imposed. The debate is whether...

veganpizza69 OP ,
@veganpizza69@lemmy.world avatar

If you want to waste all your money, why not pick nuclear?

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • kbinchat
  • All magazines