87 karma · joined September 11, 2021
Even vegan (plastic) leather is significantly better from an environmental and emissions perspective than cowhide leather. The tanning process is not exactly eco-friendly, and neither is raising cows.
The military also “runs at a loss”—should we expect it to be profitable?
"And. And. And. And." caused no problems.
"And. And. And. And. And. And." also crashes (5 "And."s is a substring, so makes sense).
I cannot imagine how this bug is occurring.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/12/17/world/asia/in...
Netflix pays well, has a generous severance package, and is honest about its culture. I think there is nothing wrong with them making it easy to fire.
I do, however, have some family members that demand I actively oppose this, and get very mad when I profess neutrality.
> Is “they” singular or plural? The answer is both. As of 2019, most big style guides—including the Associated Press, the Chicago Manual of Style, the MLA style manual, and the APA style manual—accept the usage of the singular they. [0]
I would just note that "a data scientist with working professional competence in say, R and Pandas" describes a good number of epidemiologists, who also have infectious disease, toxicology, and study design knowledge on top of this.
I don't know much about infectious disease epidemiology, but I'll use glyphosate toxicity as an example from environmental epidemiology. Glyphosate was found to be non-carcinogenic by the EPA, but if you review the literature on glyphosate toxicity, industry-affiliated researchers tended to study pure glyphosate, and these studies were the majority of those considered by EPA. Researchers without industry affiliation tended to study glyphosate in the formulations actually sold in products such as RoundUp, and found much stronger evidence of carcinogenic toxicity.
I don't think a generic data scientist would think to ask the question about glyphosate formulations, as many people at EPA did not.
So there is still some evolutionary benefit for lower lethality.
So even if you take this argument seriously, the insects and field animals are better off if you grow fewer crops, which you accomplish by directly eating the crops you grow, not feeding them to livestock.