CurrentB

I do live in a big city, and I've found the eating part to be a non issue after like a one month learning curve. I now miss absolutely nothing, and am healthier and spend less on food. The hard part is dealing with social situations, but it's not that bad.

I also had this sudden realization a year ago about the cruelty of animal usage in society and went vegan and my only regret is that I didn't do it sooner.

One other angle is there are the beginnings of consideration of cruelty to AI's. That's great that people are starting to consider it, to try to be compassionate out of the abundance of caution that it might matter.

But to then just straight up pay to have tens to hundreds of obviously sentient animal killed for you per year (and yes egg laying hens and dairy cows are killed in their youth, when they don't want to die) seems like a blind spot a lot of people have. I had it myself until recently, so I don't cast any judgment, but I also wish it was easier to make people just see the truth on this

I live here and I'd be thrilled if it loses this particular dumb cruel tradition.

Even if you think this is true generally of horses and humans, I can't understand feeling that it remains true regardless of setting and conditions for the horse? Like, they're overworked, never ever leave cement and heavy traffic and loud city noises and small confined spaces.

An era of seeing tourists do tourist things, and smelling horse shit in central Park?

Now I'm curious. Why can't the same land be used to grow a soy bean for human consumption vs animal consumption? I would naively assume that at worst some land might yield top quality crops but that it would at least be usable as an ingredient or something?

> Why is okay to kill a tree to build a home, kill a plant to eat, but not okay to kill an animal to eat? > Does the biological complexity of the organism make it more or less okay to kill it?

The ability to suffer is the distinguishing/relevant factor. We all know what suffering feels like and we know that animals have the capacity to suffer. We don't really know that trees do. I want to reduce the suffering I am responsible for.

> Is it okay to kill a cockroach or a rat in your home?

I probably would get rid of infestations in my home and feel bad about it.

It's not about having a 100% perfect record with not killing animals. It's about striving to minimize animal suffering as much as practicable. You're never going to reduce this to 0 animals. But you can get to 95% better than the average human pretty easily if you want.

With what exactly?

Do you want your kids to have colon cancer or heart disease because there is pretty strong evidence to suggest red meat contributes to these. And there's much stronger evidence for that than there is that suggests that vegetarian kids will be shorter and physically weaker (in fact I don't think there is much good evidence at all suggesting that).

Do you also have a problem with red meat?

Someone else linked these in the replies, but that's simply not true. Most land taken up to grow plants is used to inefficiently feed livestock. Feeding humans plants only would be much much more efficient in terms of land use.

https://ourworldindata.org/global-land-for-agriculture

https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets

Do you think it widely leads to behavior changes among people that support environmental causes?

Presumably you only would acquire female chickens to lay eggs. What happened to the male ones? (I don't recommend googling this).

What do you do with the cow when its milk yield drops after several pregnancies? what do you do with the male calves? Just keep them all as pets?

I think there are situations I could contrive where I'd say yeah its fine ethically to eat these things, but the general case still has victims.

And again, since maybe the first week without them, I truly haven't missed milk or eggs or anything else after eliminating them from my diet. Plant options are pretty good too and there are plenty of plants.

Personally that would be even worse for me, though I understand maybe "better" on a societal scale by some metrics. To feed a being every day and care for it, to gain its trust, to appreciate their individuality, then to have them killed when they reach some fraction of its potential lifespan, I just don't want to do that. I'm perfectly happy eating legumes.

I went vegan six months ago after being exposed to numbers like this and thinking about it a bit. In particular, imagining extending the empathy I felt for my pets to all these other unseen animals that really aren't much different. I thought I'd try it for a week to see how hard it was. It was so easy that I never looked back. These numbers all could be pretty close to zero and we humans would still thrive just as much as we are now, but causing much less suffering to other beings.

There is no scientific evidence for this

I love homm2 and have been playing fheroes2 for a bit now. homm2 is truly a masterpiece. To me it's the peak of the heroes series. The art and music are both great and still hold up to this day. The game play is basically perfect for what it is - subsequent games in the series, to me, just are adding more and more piece types to a chess board.

I agree I'm bullish on AI for coding generally, but I am curious how they'd get around this problem. Even if they can code at super human level, then you just get rarer super human bugs. Or is another AI going to debug it? Unless this loop is basically fail proof, does the human's job just becoming debugging the hardest things to debug (or at least a blindspot of the AI)

"a few thousand days away" feels like such a duplicitous way to phrase something when "a few years" would be more natural to everyone on the planet. It just seems intentionally manipulative and not even trying to hide it. I've never been an anti-ceo type person but something about Altman sketches me out

I know this probably isn't the best place for a bug report/help request, but this seems cool, and the alternative to asking here, now, realistically is that I just forget about this

I'm trying howm on emacs 29.4

I try (with my config and also with emacs -Q)

  (use-package howm)

I enter `C-c , ,` I see the howm-memu pop up, but it's all plaintext with no font highlighting/decoration/"links" or anything, and I get in the Messages log:

  font-lock-fontify-keywords-region: Symbol’s function definition is void: nil
  Error during redisplay: (jit-lock-function 5328) signaled (void-function nil)

Is this familiar to anyone?

I was hoping to see this exact recommendation.

Markor+syncthing

Is Nvidia even able to capture a proportionately significant amount of revenue from increases in demand for GPU cycles? As the article describes, there are real bottlenecks, but how does this play out? My assumption is that Nvidia doesn't have proportional pricing power for some reason. If demand increases 10x, they can't raise prices to the same extent (correct me if I'm wrong).

How would that even play out then? Is everyone in the world simply stuck waiting for Nvidia's capacity to meet demand?

There is obviously a huge incentive now to be competitive here, but is it realistic that anyone else might meaningfully meet demand before Nvidia can?

Yeah, I've been using python for the first time in a while to try out some of the llm stuff and I can't believe how bad the dependency hell is. It's probably particularly bad due to the pace of change in this field. But I spend an hour getting dependencies fixed every time I touch anything. 80% of the Google Collabs I find are just outright broken. I wish there were other viable non python options to try out these things.

Wow, I had forgotten until now about this game that I must have got from a cereal box as a child and played for countless hours.

This could be a dumb question, and I assume the answer is no, but could the SIM serial data potentially be used to aid in a SIM spoof attack?

I'd be thrilled to pay for such a service if I found it even remotely sticky, and I genuinely wanted it to be. I just found it mediocre. If some of their features' benefits compound over time it seems like it would be better to have a lengthier trial period.

I keep seeing comments like this when Kagi is brought up. One of them motivated me to try kagi about a month ago. I would love to replace google and try out every alternative search engine I encounter. I admit it will be hard to replace. I'm a programmer and searching is basically a sixth sense for me at this point. I'm frequently frustrated with google results but have never found anything less frustrating.

I signed up for kagi, ran out of the free searches in 2 days, my initial impression was "not better than google" and never looked back. I probably would have tried for a few more days if the trial was longer. Still more likely than not that I would have crawled back to google, but it did seem like not enough time to fully evaluate. For instance, the upweight/downweight feature you mention is intriguing but I didn't really get a chance to see any benefits of it.

We haven't specified which exact blockchain we're talking about but in basically all cases you're wrong.

Users just send their transactions to a p2p network. It's miners that pick those up and put transactions into a block and decide which block is the parent to the one they built.

Who said anything about not having a centralized exchange? Centralized on ramps are not necessarily antithetical to a decentralized system.

The only info miners/validators have is public info anyway. Their job is just to constantly decide which public ledger is the "real" one.