tryptaminev
@tryptaminev@feddit.de
- Comment on We have found it. 7 months ago:
We don’t need industrial farming to feed the world. We need industrial farming to provide excess amounts of meat and dairy products and sustain an abhorrent food waste.
In western countries half to two thirds of farmland are used for animal feed. by reducing our meat overconsumption by half, which would still far exceed what is considered a healthy diet, we could make 25% of farmland available for feeding humans. 30-40% of food in the US is wasted. About 10% of food in the EU is wasted. So if the US would reduce its food waste to European standards that would make another 20-30% of farmland available.
So simply by cutting down overconsumption and food waste, we could increase the available farmland by 50% and accept 2/3s of current yields per hectar in the US w.o. any reduction in available food. When looking at farmers who switched from industrial to more sustainable farming, they achieve the same and sometimes increasing yields, as the crucial natural ability is restored with a healthier soil and more biodiversity, protecting against all sorts of pests and allowing for pollination.
Industrial farming is a death sentence to the world, as it destroys the very foundation of farming. An intact soil and an intact ecosystem to allow the plants to grow.
- Comment on To be fair, that's more than two words 7 months ago:
Both are possible.
- Comment on We have found it. 7 months ago:
I disagree with that. In Western countries typically half to two thirds of agricultural land are used for meat and dairy production. We have plenty of food available to sustain the current or even growing populations without depending on mineral fertilizers. Farming techniques have significantly evolved over the past two hundred years and the crop yield of an intelligently managed field without mineral fertilizers is not signficantly lower than what is achieved by conventional farming. With the added difference that conventional farming is actively destroying the soil and killing the insects that are vital to maintaining agriculture.
- Comment on We have found it. 7 months ago:
And where did the Dinos get the poo from? From eating plants. Plants that either used bioavailable nitrogen or captured nitrogen from the air.
The nitrogen cycle has been interconnected between soil, air and biomass nitrogen since forever. There simply is no fundamental need to use mineral fertilizers, as was claimed in a comment earlier.
- Comment on We have found it. 7 months ago:
And what about the ~700 million years before cows existed?
- Comment on We have found it. 7 months ago:
So how did these plants exists before mineral fertilizers?
- Comment on We have found it. 7 months ago:
Legumes like lentils capture air nitrogen.
- Comment on To be fair, that's more than two words 7 months ago:
Anlage also means attachement i.e. a file attached to an E-Mail
- Comment on Round 2 🚢 8 months ago:
You fill a barrel full of Ammonium-Nitrate fertilizer and put a 30-120 seconds delay fuze depending on expected depth. You start the fuze and drop it into the water. Voila Depth-Charge.
- Comment on Round 2 🚢 8 months ago:
For non military or explorative purposes there is absolutely no reason to go that deep. The “submarine experience” at 50m is the same as at 250m. And it smells terribly, because recycling sweaty air only goes that far.
- Comment on Scallops 8 months ago:
Then why are Christian depictions of Angels strongly different from the biblical and quranic descriptions? E.g. looking at the pa
Also then the prophet Mohammed would have needed some sort of elusive Jewish or Christian mentor, that somehow was close to him all the time over two decades, reading the Torah or bible to him. But no such figure is mentioned, despite the life of Mohammed to be about the best reported on life of a historical figure. There is countless of eyewitness reports about his life and work, yet there is no mention of such a person. The Quran strictly rejects the concept of trinity or Jesus being the literal son of god, but confirms the virgin pregnancy of Mary. So it seems extremely implausible for their to be a Christian who would have told all these things to Mohammed.
The reason why i am so pedantic about it, is because the statements made by Mohammed are not just some general “there is angels with wings and stuff” or “there was this Moses guy” statements, but sharing details with the Torah descriptions in Hebrew, but also distinctly differing on some aspects with the Torah in a consistent way. For instance the differences in the story of Moses or Abraham
- Comment on Scallops 8 months ago:
So an Arab who lived in a city where Pagan believes dominated and neither read nor write was read the Torah in hebrew that he didn’t understand? And that is how he made statementes consistent with the descriptions in hebrew, which again he didn’t understand?
- Comment on Scallops 8 months ago:
And those stories didn’t change over 3.000 years?
- Comment on Scallops 8 months ago:
The accounts are consistent over a timeframe of about three thousand years, counting from Abraham to Mohammed (s.a.s). Note that Mohammed was an arab who could neither read nor write, leave alone hebrew.
If it was just some birds brought in by merchants that would be an extraordinarily long time to not realise that.
- Comment on Scallops 8 months ago:
If humans are bound to a three dimensional realm it only makes sense that god created angels as higher dimensional beings to intercede between the limited humans and the infinity of god.
- Comment on carpet 8 months ago:
If you water your carpet and do this for like a few hundred years or so, a nice layer of top soil should form on it.
God i miss my little anarchists.
- Comment on The superior citation method 8 months ago:
This is all nice and well, until your footnotes are half a page of explanation that was impossible to fit in the text directly.
- Submitted 8 months ago to [deleted] | 4 comments
- Comment on Taylor Swift getting to the trade center. 9 months ago:
Is that her perfomance of wrecking plane with miley cyrus?
- Comment on It was in self-defence 🙃 9 months ago:
Israel is not fighting against Hamas. Israel is fighting against all Palestinians, of which only a tiny fraction is Hamas. Well or rather they are fightinf against Hamas, but they are slaughtering the other Palestinians.
Israel is past the need to defend itself. Now they are taking the opportunity to commit genocide and displace the Palestinians from Gaza.
- Comment on New study 9 months ago:
They can only perform under pressure.
- Comment on Get to work, crackheads 10 months ago:
I’m starting to think you’re so bloodthirsty to punish people that you’re willing to put more people at risk by accepting bad design just so you can manufacture more violators!
Now you are just making things up. At every point i said, i think design to enforce the speed limit is a good thing. But you are claiming it is good design by itself, when it is only necessary as design, because people intentionally violate the speed limit, what you are still trying to be apologetic for. You switching cause and effect around and you do that in order to apologize for people who willfully endanger other people.
- Comment on Get to work, crackheads 10 months ago:
And there is disagree. We don’t need speed limits for their own sake. They are the speed that is deemed appropriate in the area for a multitude of reason. Primarily safety, but also things like noise and emission reductions.
It is the same question of whether someone wants to uphold rules like right of way, or red lights. They have been implemented to order traffic in a way that is deemed beneficial. Anyone who deliberately violates speed limits is deliberately violating the rules that have been put in place to provide safety to everyone. subequently it is also people that are more likely to violate right of way and other rules.
Your argument again is to be apologetic for people deliberately violating the rules. Your idea of simply designing streets in such a way that everyone will drive safely doesnt work out. It is still individual actors with a highly subjective idea, of what it safe and what isnt. But traffic as a global system needs reliable actors, who can be predictable for other actors too. That is why we will always need a set of global rules, to which a speed limit belongs just as much.
I am all for designs like speed bumps to additionally discourage reckless driving. But being apologetic of people who are reckless and subsequently often killing or injuring people doesn’t fly. Especially as there is still enough people who are not stopped from driving over chilren in front of schools, despite speed bumps and other measures. The only thing that works for these kind of people is to permanently remove them from operating motorized vehicles and to give them some time in prison to think about what they have done. being apologetic of them instead, encourages lax traffic laws and lax consequences for people who are injuring and killing other people in traffic.
I am particularly aggrevated at that, because in germany drivers who kill pedestrians or cyclists are often given a slap on the wrist and allowed to drive again soon. This includes particularly elderly people who are clearly unfit to drive, but being a car nation and all that, it is apologized by the courts. But how do you design streets in such a way that it is impossible to drive on the wrong side of the road, which one elderly women did, killing two cyclists? How do you design the road in front of a school that an already convicted of traffic offenses mother doesnt slowly roll over a young girl on her way to school, smashing her under her SUV? You can’t. It is simply impossible to design car traffic areas in a way that makes them safe by design.
You can only make them more or less safe. But it will always be necessary to identify and punish reckless drivers. And if necessary that means prison sentences and permanent exemption from driving. Being apologetic of them is in no way helping traffic safety.
- Comment on Get to work, crackheads 10 months ago:
You say that speed limits shouldnt be enforced as they would be a “symptom” of poor road design. This abolishes the speeding drivers from their own responsibility for violating the traffic rules.
You misinterpret the design choice as the opposite of bad road design, therefore goad road design, which implies a generality. However these design choices are made solely and explicitly to enforce speed limits. They have disadvantages in other ways e.g. if you make spots where only one car can pass at a time, it makes traffic less efficient. These disadvantages wouldn’t be needed if people would take their responsibility not to speed seriously.
Good design or bad design, many people will speed if they can get away with it. With a proper enforcement through speed cameras, and proper penalties for speeding, e.g. losing your licences for repeated offenses or having your vehicle impounded, could equally serve for enforcement. They are just more expensive, so making design choices is prefered by some countries.
But still people who speed chose to speed. They chose to violate the traffic rules and they chose to endanger other people and themselves. So speeding is never a “symptom” of road design. It is always a “symptom” of selfish assholes that should not be given the right to operate dangerous vehicles.
- Comment on Get to work, crackheads 10 months ago:
Sorry, but that is a gross misinterpretation. Drivers are not victims of an intrinsic speed devil that they cannot escape. They still choose to violate the speed limit in most cases.
What was done in these countries is to acknowledge, that physical design is more effective as enforcement, than the cop with a speed-meter.
Still the explicit intent is to enforce speed-limits, knowing that people would violate them if they could, but they can’t because they would wreck their car. Still those people choose to violate and are responsible for their actions.
- Comment on Can you survive on pickles alone, for a while? 10 months ago:
That is a poor metric. Pickles are salty and acidic as fuck. Covkroaches dont literally eat everything with calories.
- Comment on Duolingo Fires Translators in Favor of AI 10 months ago:
But that is relative. Of course if you spend ten minutes a day you will have a smaller progress. But still you make steady progress. It took me two month now with Spanish to get from nada to being able to say how many siblings i have, where my parents are from, where i live and what job i have. It is not much, but last week i didn’t know how to express my workplace and by next week i’ll be able to express something more.
This is the same like for everything you learn or train. You want to be a concert violinist? Yeah better practice multiple hours a day. But just practicising ten minutes a day will still get you to be a decent player after a few years. Want to look like Schwarzenegger in his best times? You got to hit the gym regularly and on a proper plan and diet. You just want to be fit and build some muscles? Ten minutes of planks, pushups and situps and you’ll notice your shape changing after a few weeks.
- Comment on Games that force you to make hard choices 10 months ago:
Two copies are enough.
You just safe 5 starters on one copy and then move the two that are double back to the other copy when they got their third starter.
- Comment on Games that force you to make hard choices 10 months ago:
When you have a link cable and a friend you just exchange starters to each other so you have all three of them.
- Comment on OpenAI says it’s “impossible” to create useful AI models without copyrighted material 10 months ago:
You do know that comedians are copying each others material all the time though? Either making the same joke, or slightly adapting it?
So in the context of copyright vs. model training i fail to see how the exact process of the model is relevant? At the end copyrighted material goes in and material based on that copyrighted material goes out.
