asterix_pano

Isn't it sort of the same question regarding if it would be better to use an open source vs a closed source solution? This way all operators can be sure the profit is shared fairly, it's transparent. However it creates probably unnecessary data redundancy. It could also be pruned after a while.

On top of that they have one of the most miserable life we could imagine. Birthing babies and getting them taken away ASAP to give milk to a machine and getting slaughtered when you are less productive... It's hard to describe our lack of empathy to create and accept such systems.

I have looked extensively for this and there is no study that shows that vegan children will be more fragile. Often they boast healthier cholesterol levels and body fat and better nutrient levels. And then, if that were true, is it better to be bigger? Dairy and meat increase the risk of developing cancers and cardiovascular diseases. Is it worth it?

Eating a plant based diet seems more straightforward to me.

The average joe can think about all the unnecessary suffering caused by animal agriculture. Entities do not have empathy, but humans do.

- you can use an escrow account to reverse the transaction if needed - having full ownership of your money and it being censorship resistant (depending on the crypto) is certainly a plus if you don't fully trust your government. - the conversion to fiat is depending on adoption: the more adoption there is, the less necessary that would be. - you can decide to wire your money 24/7, internationally, instantly and with no fees (with the right crypto)

Overall you get more control of your money. If you think of money as just another kind of information, it's normal to expect it to evolve in the digital age we are living in.

I would not call "P-Hacking" wishing to know the stats of the group you're in, especially if there are significant differences between groups.

You seem pretty biased. You now have cryptos that allow you to transact with anyone in the world, instantly and without fees, while consuming barely any energy. And all of that, while remaining 100% in control of your money. You have others that let you lend or borrow assets in a permission-less fashion, without many intermediaries. More and more companies are using it as a backbone for their operations, for example in IoT settings or in financial situations. If you look a bit more, you will see many interesting development. But like everything in tech, there are good and bad things.

I would argue that Bitcoin is already outdated tech so has the only benefit to be the first one. Now you have crypto doing what Bitcoin does, but with instant transactions, feeless, while barely using any energy (think a wind turbine would suffice to maintain the complete network)

You have many cryptos with completely negligible environmental impact, thanks to smarter consensus mechanisms. It's a really new tech field, and as almost everything in tech, it improves over time.

some interesting data on that point: https://forum.nano.org/t/nano-stress-tests-measuring-bps-cps...

I believe it has one of the best TPS for a decentralised system, and this can be improved with better hardware when the need for higher TPS comes. Now, as it stands today, you can transact on Nano with a 0.4s confirmation time, so higher TPS is not a necessity.

Nano is a very interesting one. The foundation developing it focuses on one thing: developing the best digital currency. They don't implement smart-contracts to make it as efficient as possible for example. The feeless aspect is what makes it great but also maybe vulnerable at the same time: the foundation will have to look for external finance a bit like the Linux foundation of which they are taking inspiration.

Bitcoin is probably one of the worst asset to use for crimes, since all transactions are publicly available on the blockchain, with no privacy.

There are many different cryptos that offer the same attributes without the energy cost. If Bitcoin was created today, no one would even bother to look at it.

You need to have a look at the numbers globally. And include all the deforestation done to clear space for growing soy beans (later used to feed farmed animals).

some sources below Margulis, Sergio. "Causes of Deforestation of the Brazilian Amazon". World Bank Working Paper No. 22. 2003

Tabuchi, Hiroko, Rigny, Claire & White, Jeremy. "Amazon Deforestation, Once Tamed, Comes Roaring Back". New York Times. February 2017(New)

Bellantonio, Marisa, et al. "The Ultimate Mystery Meat: Exposing the Secrets Behind Burger King and Global Meat Production". Mighty Earth (New)

Oppenlander, Richard A. Food Choice and Sustainability: Why Buying Local, Eating Less Meat, and Taking Baby Steps Won’t Work. . Minneapolis, MN : Langdon Street, 2013. Print.

It's like saying pressing the trigger doesn't kill someone, only the bullet does.

We are feeding over 70 billions of land animals for our appetite, nothing about that is sustainable.

Absolutely. However, palm oil is a much smaller cause than the animal agriculture (like 1/10).

We can know with pretty much certainty that raising a huge number of animals in close spaces is just asking for disaster. But I don't see us stopping to kill 70 billions land animals a year and the world becoming vegan anytime soon.

Are animal proteins not a source of inflammation? It's quite well studied.

“As long as Man continues to be the ruthless destroyer of lower living beings, he will never know health or peace. For as long as men massacre animals, they will kill each other. Indeed, he who sows the seed of murder and pain cannot reap joy and love.”

Pythagoras

1 liter of almonds milk require about 350 liter of water, while 1 liter of milk is about 1000 liter of water. So, still better to grow almonds than using dairy. Soy and oat are also better than almonds milk.

Well, this is not really true. Animal agriculture is more or less the same total GHG emissions as the whole transportation sector, and it's technically way easier to switch to a vegetarian diet than stopping people from moving or finding new technological avances. So why not start with the low hanging fruits?

If we simply stop eating meat, it would be better for us (less cancers due to red meat and pesticides), for the environment (much less pollution, resources consumed, deforestation, CO2 and methane emissions - more biodiversity) and for the animals... so in the end it is obviously way cheaper and better but we always find excuses not to do it.

Easier: 1. Don't buy meat.

Free school, healthcare and nice infrastructures have a cost..