Not OP. I think it’s funny how you’re accusing them of “bullying” when their comments aren’t aggressive at all, just pointing out a practice they disagree with. But somehow your multi-paragraph, raging, sorry, uh… “laughing” comment filled with direct insults and patronizing dismissal, should NOT be considered “bullying.”

Like, I don’t buy into the idea that anyone can bully someone else in an anonymous Internet forum, outside of doxxing or repeated harassment. But looking at this, one of you is clearly much more aggressive and bothered than the other here.

Not sure which post you’re referring to, but from Our World in Data, pig farming generates more emissions than farming chickens. They are lower than beef, but that’s not saying much, since beef is an order of magnitude worse than most other foods. Pig farming also generates four times more emissions than soy.

Less than half of that plastic litter had discernible branding that could be traced back to the company that produced the packaging; the rest could not be accounted for or taken responsibility for.

The branded half of the plastic was the responsibility of just 56 fast-moving consumer goods multinational companies, and a quarter of that was from just six companies.

This seems to me like a self-fulfilling prophecy. Of course the biggest companies with the most easily identifiable packaging are going to be the ones identified in this study. The majority of the plastic, however, is not, and it’s difficult to tell who produced it.

The article addresses this as well, mentioning that this is the reason we need traceability, so we can get the true metrics on who is creating and thus responsible for the bulk of plastic waste.

The big players like Coke and others are obviously very much responsible for a big part of the problem. I just didn’t see people mentioning this part of the study in the comments, so I wanted to bring it up.

When people claim that leaks “get people killed,” they’re referring to when undercover agents are identified while they’re in the field. The only secrets exposed in these leaks are the computer hacking techniques used by the US to spy remotely through compromised devices.

The so-called Vault 7 leak revealed how the CIA hacked Apple and Android smartphones in overseas spying operations, and efforts to turn internet-connected televisions into listening devices.

You could maybe say that closing off those surveillance channels prevented the CIA from learning about some attack, but that’s really tenuous. It also assumes that the CIA isn’t constantly developing new zero-day exploits so that they can continue to spy on just about everyone on the planet.

It’s funny, the US Marshalls interviewed for this are extremely forthright in explaining their methods, but clam up and say they “can’t explain these methods” as soon as they have any leads relating to cell phones. Probably because they’re using the US’s vast warrantless surveillance system to pull any possible info they can on her.

For example, they “track[ed] down the phone number for an American businessman they believed had connected with Armstrong at some point,” and are cagey about how they got that number. I’d bet that they pulled her phone records and started cold calling everyone she’s ever contacted through her cell phone until they got someone who could give them a lead.

Later, they set up the fake yoga instructor ad, and mention that they’re tracking the phone location of the person who answered the ad to make sure they’re at the sting location.

It’s crazy that even with all those “methods the Marshalls won’t go into,” they almost gave up on finding her.

CORRECTION: This story has been updated with the correct spelling of Nikki Haley’s first name.

Oh man, the CNN reporter just assumed Trump spelled it correctly and wrote the whole article while using a misspelled version of her name. As embarrassing as that should be for Trump, it’s almost on brand for him at this point. The reporter could have at least pulled up her Wikipedia article to double check the spelling, like come on.

Hard agree with all of this. I’ve never been good at shooters, especially PvP, but the invasions always felt like more of a chess match than a true gun duel. Outsmarting some human player who’s a better shot than me made for super memorable and satisfying moments.

I’ll also add that the voice acting and dialogue were great. Dishonored is infamous for having limited voice lines (“shall we meet for whiskey and cigars tonight?”), and in a game with a time loop mechanic and limited maps, I thought for sure it would be even worse. But I was pleasantly surprised. It’s still annoying for scripted events that repeat, but the Colt and Julianna banter kind of made up for it imo

That’s a common misconception that’s been passed around the Internet so long that it’s become common knowledge. There’s a great (now deleted, but archived) writeup showing that the Wachowskis always intended humans to be batteries. The actual source of the “processors” idea came from a Neil Gaiman short story written to promote the movie at its release

It’s always crazy to come into threads like these and see people say “I would murder as many elites as possible” without batting an eye, and in the same comment say “I could never give up hamburgers.” It’s some kind of insane self-soothing to throw all of the responsibility for a global issue onto a few scapegoats. It also shows that people have no intention of doing fuck all about climate change beyond typing up snarky comments on the internet.

People can misquote all kinds of studies they half remember to pretend that they have no responsibility for making changes, but that doesn’t make it true. Just as one example, first world countries’ per-capita rate of meat consumption alone is enough to push the world over our 1.5C warming target. But because it’s an inconvenience to make any changes to my life, I’m going to pretend I would personally kill scores of people rather than make a new recipe for dinner. We’re fucked

PRR PRR PRR

Ok but remember this part?

We have a number of options – some fall on the shoulders of consumers; some on producers.

Maybe we can’t convince everyone to quit eating meat, but I would hope that we could appeal to self-described environmentalists, who have a stated interest in making sustainable changes.

That’s the OP’s point, after all. That the science unambiguously states that we need to stop eating meat if we care about meeting our climate goals. Any environmentalist who learns that this needs to happen and still chooses to eat meat is acting against their own ethics.

It has to be both. Our World in Data puts it one way:

We have a number of options – some fall on the shoulders of consumers; some on producers.

Or to cut through the flowery language - farms need to stop producing meat, and people need to stop eating it.

The biggest reduction would come from the adoption of plant-rich diets. Emissions would be halved compared to business-as-usual.

Man I had to rephrase this a dozen times and I still don’t have a good way to communicate what I’m trying to say.

The goal of this kind of callout is to make vegetarians, people who already value animal welfare, aware that they may still be contributing towards animal cruelty. For example, I was a vegetarian for years and then got rocked by the realization that, “oh wait, vegans aren’t just crazies that I can blow off, it was me who was ignorant the whole time.”

So I anecdotally assume that a huge percentage of vegans are vegetarians who went from thinking “vegetarians and vegans are basically the same, besides vegans taking the idea too far” to “oh wait there’s a huge important difference between the two.” On vegan spaces, people often joke that “bullying worked on me lol” because the gentle approaches are easily ignored, but the really blunt “your actions don’t align with your stated ethics” is really difficult to brush off.

TL;DR yeah I think you’re right. The original announcement from the Reddit admin comment didn’t give any details, so I filled in the gaps myself and assumed “heart” would imply compassion, especially since I’ve seen that “stay for the empathy” tagline for so long. After all, why would the change from “front page” be necessary if “heart” of the internet gives a the same sentiment that it’s the core or cutting edge?

The contracted marketing team’s writeup has some limited insight into the reasoning:

…Reddit’s updated brand materials would all point back to four traits: inherently eclectic, positively different, delightfully absurd, and genuinely candid. These traits, along with the uniquely empowering foundation of Reddit as the best place to discover and participate through real conversation, led the team to a new, strategic description of Reddit as “the heart of the internet.”

I’m not experienced enough in marketing jargon to understand if this is saying that “heart” only implies that there are lots of communities available on the platform, or if “genuine” and “real conversations” should be factored in to imply that these conversations and communities should be heartfelt.

But all in all, it seems like the focus is on “you can discuss with lots of communities.” And since “front page” doesn’t imply discussion as much as it implies reading a newspaper, the change was needed.

I find it odd that they changed their tagline from “the front page of the Internet” to “the heart of the Internet.” Reddit is certainly a massive hub for discussion, but “compassionate” is not the first association I have with Reddit conversations. Smug condescension, certainly. Frothing mob mentality, often. But compassion? Rare, at best.

I suppose that Reddit may be trying to simply manifest their hopes for the platform into a reality, but I don’t think it’s that easy. The Reddit welcome banner reads, “Come for the cats, stay for the empathy,” but most people probably know Reddit for the Boston Bombing debacle, r/theDonald trolls, and other nasty news items. It’s hard to believe the cushy corporate messaging when Reddit has so consistently allowed horrible shit on their site until the media fervor gets so intense that they can’t ignore it anymore

The Covid episode made me bail on the reboot altogether. It was the worst offender in every way that the season was bad, including the pacing of the episode.

All the episodes in the newest season resolve the plot in the last like thirty seconds of the episode. It’s like the writers kept writing until they ran out of runway, then just yelled, “oh crap!” and wrapped everything up as fast as they possibly could. Which is bizarre because the episodes are so full of tepid puns and “phone bad” boomer humor you would think the writers were starved for ideas.

deleted by creator

Not to mention that the existing Twitter infrastructure was already incredibly insecure before Musk even took over.

Twitter does little to monitor for so-called insider threats, employees or contractors who use their positions in the company to steal information, and instead leaves them “virtually unmonitored."

Twitter suffered security incidents significant enough to warrant a report to a government agency about once a week, with 20 breaches in 2020 alone.

Twitter devs can already take over user accounts since they all have prod admin access (which they need because Twitter still has no QA or staging environments). I can only imagine the potential for abuse once people’s finances get tied together with their account.