Flawed argument because animals still eat 10x the amount of plants vegans do. So if plant suffering was a legitimate concern, one would still be vegan, which is a lifestyle to reduce harm to animals.
there are plenty of reasons to be avoid eating meat that have nothing to do with reducing harm to animals.
and animals consuming plants has nothing to do with any of your observations. If this was a standardized test prompt, your first sentence would be erroneous information.
A study by a pill manufacturer whose business is sickness, promoting a sick diet for more obedient consumer customers.
Adult humans require surprisingly little protein. So little, in fact, it's virtually impossible to be protein deficient eating an adequate isocaloric diet with even a modicum of variety. This is a very well cited page which explains most misconceptions and falsehoods about protein in diet https://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2007nl/apr/protein.htm
McDougall promotes a vegan fad diet. Not sure why I would trust his literature when there's plenty of contrary scientific evidence today. Also, it's been 16 years since that article was written. Scientific consensus has advanced considerably.
Just because humans survive on very little protein doesn't mean there are not negative implications, notably on muscle mass and development.
Fad diet? Until recent history, and coincidentally before the prevalence of vast diet-related disease, most of the world lived on a mostly vegan diet. You are welcome to cite some of this advanced scientific evidence refuting McDougall or suggesting protein deficiency is a concern anywhere in the Western world.
McDougall's diet promotes low dietary cholesterol. Scientific evidence supports dietary cholesterol has no link to blood serum cholesterol. One easy example of promotion of non-evidence-based dietary restrictions. Also, extremely low fat recommendations, far below scientific concern levels. What's left is carbs and fiber for satiety, which is going to be extremely difficult to adhere to.
McDougall has also promoted his diet for treating diabetes, cancer, and other non-diet-related ailments.
Yes, I think it's fair to call it a fad diet. Nothing specifically wrong with reasonable vegan diets, but his seems full of specious claims.
Except, low protein intake is correlated to problems in elder age. As you get older, you need more protein to support muscles from atrophying (explicitly a point the main article discusses). Muscle weakness and atrophy is a huge problem for elderly, and leads to numerous health risks, quality of life problems, etc. Stronger older individuals are better at caring for themselves, much more likely to survive accidents such as falls, and generally going to be more mobile.
Linux is not a "safe" operating system by any stretch of imagination. The only saving grace is the fact Linux users are not profitable to malware authors due to very low market share. Still, I think it's naive to view it as a secure operating system/kernel because it is not designed nor built for that goal explicitly. OpenBSD on the other hand is a worthy contender against a determined adversary and is developed by skilled and highly paranoid people.
Having managed just about every OS I have learned to see it a little differently. Rather just about every OS can be hardened to the point of being secure but each OS and each iteration of said OS will have different default kernel compile options, admin configurable settings, kernel tuned settings that vary the amount of "friction" the end user is meant to experience. Even Windows NT had more security controls than Linux and BSD combined mostly pilfered from VMS but the defaults were opened up to minimize friction for businesses. Windows XP, Linux, MacOS reduced friction even further to improve adoption by developers and end users alike, to a fault. Not just security but also memory management behavior. Windows Linux and Mac allow over-committing memory by default to improve adoption by people early in their development career. So I guess what I am trying to say is that people have decided they will trade in friction for usability and thus has resulted in a myriad of gaping holes by design. Each OS have tools to harden them as far as one wishes to go. The BSD community have accepted that they will endure a little more friction by default and I can respect that.
Almost all happened in Latin America where individual rights, including to own and defend yourself with potent firearms, is severely limited (except for agents of the state). Without this fundamental ability and political right, lawful good individuals will suffer and fail. History is replete with examples of this basic and obvious fact. Armed minorities are more difficult to oppress.
I'm delighted by this split brained reality in America.
"facts" as stated by a particular left group.
- Cops are oppressive, unreformable and should be abolished
- The GOP has become fascist and are looking to overthrow the government
- The rich will choose to murder us all slowly via climate change and retreat as they did during the pandemic to let the masses suffer
AND
- We should outlaw everyman gun ownership because of the harm it causes.
It occurs to me that its probably a projection of our first-past-the-post political system that means these views all get amalgamated together, because they sure don't make logical sense.
They make sense if you assume one thing: gun owners are never going to rise up and throw out the bad guys in government. If that is never going to happen, all those guns are really only used to kill a bunch of innocent people, rather than the bad guys in government.
If you think gun owners are really somehow going to save us from fascists at the top, when is that gonna start, exactly? What would actually get them to start fighting? I frankly don’t see it ever happening.
I know our national myth of the American revolution is that freedom loving patriots are going to rise up and throw off the oppressors, but that is a pipe dream. The answers are in the ballot box, not the cartridge box.
All those guns are going to kill a bunch of people because the other side, you I'm guessing in this case, have decided to willfully disarm yourself because you believe the ballot box is the sole savior. I expect because such people are afraid of accepting a world in which they must be responsible for their own safety.
Along that same path, I'm not worried about a fascist in Washington DC, I'm worried about the one next door. The ones who see some queer kids stocking up at a rural store, and follow them to their campsite to tell em they aren't welcome with threats, and destroy their sense of safety. (Speaking from experience) Ballot box doesn't fix that, but couple weekends of pistol training and drills can help.
As someone who migrated from a very conflictive area of Latin America, this is the answer, period. But the minute you mention this to the incumbents here in the US (specially to those claiming the need to “amplify” underrepresented voices) all of a sudden you will not be an ally anymore.
That is not by accident. The history of gun control in the USA (and mostly elsewhere) is deeply rooted in racism and classism. The very idea of an armed minority challenging the status quo terrifies individuals living lives of relative privilege and prosperity. Even if they don't consciously apprehend their bias (and most lack the emotional and spiritual maturity to do so), they are useful in promoting the false narrative of "only the State must monopolize power" as they are the benefactors of it.
Indeed. American liberalism (in the most general rather than partisan sense) has for decades tied itself to the ideal of nonviolence. In practice means that it favors orderly incumbency (however oppressive) over messy revolution (however justified). It's not armed groups are good by definition; many of them are highly questionable or outright appalling, eg FARC or the Maoist Shining Path group. But this 'nonviolence' posture and its magical exclusion of most state violence ensures that unarmed movements are impotent. An impressive dichotomy for a country that celebrates its own violent formation with fireworks and song every July.
Several countries in Latin America are near the top in murder rate, guns or no guns. That activists are killed more often in places where people in general are killed more often doesn't by itself tell you much about whether guns should be legal or not.
There is one gun store in all of Mexico and a two-tier ownership/permitting system where only the oligarchy class actually has rights to arms. No wonder it isn't safe when the average person is deprived of the means to defend themselves.
No, I don't think anything is safe from a determined adversary with near-infinite resources, especially if they are specifically targeting you. This is a basic tenet of infosec.
I can't even tell it's crappy. Just a blank screen with Javascript disabled. Sites aren't worth visiting if they don't care about usability and accessibility, and promptly get added to my shit-list of domains.
Did you just read a marketing blurb on their landing page and decide after 5 seconds they don't do unit testing? I guess we can also assume they don't brush their teeth every morning because they didn't mention that either.
Actually I read the entire documentation and browsed the source code.
https://www.talos.dev/v1.0/learn-more/philosophy/ "Security" section makes no mention of independent audits. It just boldly claims "There are no passwords in Talos" as if that was a panacea for security.
The existing integration tests don't verify any assumptions about security, only that the configuration is valid. Please correct me if I'm wrong or missed anything.
If you're going to call something "secure" you need to prove it.
They didn’t call it secure as per your initial quote. They say it is designed to have a small attack surface. You missed to acknowledge that security means different things for different contexts. Besides, it’s a free offering, clearing issues with insecurities other offerings have. If you want something to be more secure, you can point out flaws you find in the intended way (filing issues) which might help improve the situation. Calling it out the way you did (probably without trying the tool and even more likely without having substantial knowledge of better approachable alternatives in the space) doesn’t help at all.
> Everyone blaming "meat" for global warming is just a shill for the petrol industry, distracting from the real cause (fossil fuels).
Maybe because most of the petrol industry serves the animal agriculture industry and hundreds of billions of animals it needs to raise and kill annually? Or did you think they don't require any inputs nor produce any outputs other than a corpse?
