This is such a good point that I hadn't even realized til just now. I'm a pretty tech-savvy user and was never able to really figure out how it worked, or at least how to make it work for me. Can't imagine the average user's experience!
47 karma · joined December 25, 2021
Africa especially, the current country borders were designed based on the division of property between all the European countries invading the natives' lands. That meant several tribes and groups were divided/grouped together, leading to wars that hold to this day. If I'm not mistaken the Rwanda Massacre is the major example of that coming to fruit
Lecun and his team and/or Meta did a terrible job in managing the users' expectations
Even if some do, most of those will run into a tiny random roadblock and will give up.
Nothing as "techy" as Mastodon or the one you mentioned will be adopted at the scale of Twitter.
Why do you need a grant or scholarship?
Or it's someone saying that happened to themselves, and then they say they never did anything bad with their gmail. Which may or may not be true?
You also seem to think that "these people make the policies because they are the best at making policies for X", but again, is that right? Have you never heard of an incompetent politician?
"The solution is this, but I'm SURE people wouldn't like it, so you all are complaining too much"
What was the rate you chose?
The demand side isn't being attacked anymore than in any other industry. "Buy our product because it doesn't include chemical X" is the same thing as plant-based meats saying meat is bad for you. Also, "Studies" aren't even in the top 5 reasons why people at scale make life-changing decisions... there are studies that say almost anything about diet, people are influenced by media. In the media, I've seen more ads and articles about how soy is bad, milk is good, meat is good. Why do you not have any issue with that, but you do have issues with studies being published that say the opposite?
The supply side doesn't need to be demonized, because it did a great job itself. All of those industries have made insane amounts of money through lobbying for deregulation in their respective countries and then lowering costs while increasing profits by using that de-regulated environment. That deregulated environment just needs to be filmed in its reality to be "demonic".
If that didn't exist, again, there would be no need for the veganism movement and you'd likely never hear about "plant based", since most people follow plant based diets because the supply side has made itself terrible.
The "food industry" doesn't really exist, but the meat industry is heavily lobbying for strict regulations, as well as producing more and more ads ("eat REAL meat"). On the other hand, the "vegan products" industry is infinitely smaller, but also lobbying for their products to be less regulated and also putting out more ads.
There is no anti-meat jihad, there are people fighting each other with the same arguments for like 10-20 years. What you're noticing is in an increase in adoption because (1) it actually really works for a lot of people, and people have been uneducated about veganism until recently (which ties back to the meat lobbying and ad campaigns admonishing veganism) and (2) it's accepted by quite a few people that the climate impact of the meat industry is outweighing the benefit of eating meat, and so a lot of those people are starting to go vegan too.
E: and (3) the main piece: the hyper-focus on the bottom line turned the meat we're eating into hormone bombs. If everyone could eat locally grown ethically sourced meat, there would be no need for veganism, but there wouldn't be enough meat for everyone either. So it's a losing proposition either way, until we have lab grown meat at scale.