eastof

The primary victims are the cattle that suffer the fate of being born into a frozen slop company torture house and the people turned into sociopaths by working there in horrible conditions. How many cattle have you personally slautered? Or do you avoid that because of your conscience?

Maybe eating ultra processed frozen meat products wasn't such a good idea in the first place. Sad that some may have to learn the hard way.

As a successful nonwhite person in the US, AbsurdCensor made an infantilizing comment. Non white people have flocked here in droves because of the freedom afforded to anyone to become wealthy. I agree that we are back sliding (tax burden, regulatory burden, political repression, etc.) but it is absurd to make it about race and say that it wasn't once the freest place to start a business and even express yourself.

It's not 'extreme' its just extrapolation and common sense. Profit motives dictate this as the only outcome. In what world are you living in where any system exists that collects data and doesn't transmit it to corporations and governments? Yes there are arguably a couple niche E2E encrypted open source programs, but surely that isn't at all comparable with proprietary big corporation vehicle software which have always notoriously been some of the worst privacy violating software around.

Is it BS if this is the only way to implement such a system? Then it is practically required. Legal or not these cameras will be used to identify you, car companies do all kinds of shady stuff with the data they collect with all their fancy new sensors. Besides, cars have famously lagged in security standards, so this data will be exfiltrated. By comparison, your comment is more hysterical sounding than the article. It is very reasonable to not want even more invasive systems installed in cars, especially when this may bleed into US models and then used against us here where the company can absolutely legally sell your data.

Massively downplaying it to say "chips away" this takes a sledgehammer to the core of internet privacy. In all cases in the world where this has been done before like China or Russia, freedom is also lost shortly after. Of course people only argue one side, the stakes are losing internet privacy and freedom in the entire world if the west also succumbs to these authoritarian policies. It isn't the government's job to prevent your child from getting access to a phone/ipad, that's your job as a parent.

Yeah that makes sense, that's too bad. The coasts are the most interesting places for local travel, but the elites living there don't seem to have the time of day for it. More for me I guess.

Would you mind sharing the general region where you are? Based on your criticisms it sounds like the US, but my experience is quite different. I have only lived on the West coast though, and we're quite spoiled with amazing natural beauty around every corner here. I had a great time road tripping around small towns in the northeast around Vermont and Maine though.

I am a huge proponent of this. I find it shocking how many people I talk to in California have never even heard of so many amazing parts of the state outside of a few urban bubbles of SF/LA/San Diego and major attractions like Yosemite. Such a better experience in nature when you aren't surrounded by tourists in places like the Mendocino forest or the Inyo mountains. I also learn so much about our history and how regular people live in small rural towns, they often put effort into preserving it, and the locals love to talk about it. I also love seeing all of the huge mines, factories, infrastructure projects, etc. that support our cities, but people rarely think about.

One of the great things about OpenCV is how ubiquitous it is, there's a ton samples online and well represented in frontier model training data. I recently vibe-coded an object detector for my own personal photo library so I could separate out my pictures with humans in them. Very approachable with Codex + feeding it a sample from Github.

I wish this were true but they get paid by taxes. Besides, there are few things more unpleasant than having your hard earned money taken away from you, regardless of how it happens. I don't think it takes fancy paperwork to make people oppose it.

The list you linked explicitly excludes emissions from agriculture, you are talking about %70 of what they measured, not overall emissions. If everyone stopped eating meat, it would reduce overall global emissions by a third which is hugely significant.

No one is saying fields of corn and soybean wouldn't exist, but we would have far less of them without animal agriculture. You are creating a false dichotomy of "sustainable"/"not sustainable" the reality is human societies would be much more sustainable without animal agriculture. More sustainable does in fact result in less extinctions/ecosystem impact and reduced climate change.

Maybe I'm wrong but reading your comment it feels like you are letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, and you use your conclusion that we will never be sustainable as your excuse to continue to eat animals.

You are still falling for the evil genius trap. The truth is all of us treat our fellow humans this way, see Singer's drowning child. We're simply not wired to care as much about even large groups of people when they are not people we regularly interact with.

We haven't always been awful at keeping secrets, see the actual Manhattan Project. I like the optimism of your proposal, but how would those US companies continue the same level of R&D investment without those extra profits? If the government just directly invests, then you've just become the enemy.