I think you care food-pleasure just as much as most people. Otherwise why not eat something healthier, faster or cheaper. I like to think that i didn’t use to care much about taste before so for lunch i used to eat 1k kkcal in the form of a unflavoured, unsweetened meal replacement shake, took <5 min to prepare+eat+clean.
I think that the real answer is that different things work for different people.
Personally when I make changes in my life I always go 100% straight away. I have a really hard time with half measures. Like when i wanted to lose 5 kg I started logging everything i ate and just was super strict with ny kcal intake for a year to not gain it back, no cheat days. And when i went vegan a few years later i did that cold turkey.
I’ve had the exact opposite experience. I have a literal pile of dead wired headsets (most were mid quality but two of them were >100$) but not a single one of the 4 wireless headsets ive had since then have died (the first one i bought have admittedly had its battery degraded to where it can only live for an hour or two, but its nearing on 10 years old now).
Not saying you can’t have the opposite experience, but from my point of view last noticably longer at a similar priceclass (and i run them pretty hard both physically and time wise, easily 6-10h/day, with workouts most day). I’ve been running my jabra elite 65t for over 5 years now as my only headset which is the longest i’ve ever had a single headset. Though admittedly i lost my case 1.5 years ago while biking but i managed to find a secondhand case.
That’s fair enough. Didn’t think of that angle which is a pretty relevant one considering how easy it seems to be to get demonetized.
I don’t care who’s serving the ads, I don’t want to watch ads period. I will pay for the content where possible though. I dont think youtube taking 45% considering the crazy infrastructure provided is that strange. Maybe 45% is still too much, but i don’t think 55% sounds like “shit”.
My parents are great as well. Very supportive and loving.
Depending on the surroundings it sounds quite sane. In the village I grew up in we had 20km/h (12-13mph) which i think was quite reasonable. When there are hedges and stuff to the side you need to be able to stop if someone walks out.
I’m not saying that it’s especially bad conditions, more like indoctrinating conditions. It’s not like germany had very bad conditions when they started ww2 either.
But if you don’t think it’s a problem with the society and culture then the only real common denominator is ethnicity. Which kind of means that ought to be genocided when russia eventually falls.
I don’t think that Im rationalizing, more like the opposite and saying that most people are similarly irrational, there’s no evil-gene that just they have.
That said, if they take up arms and go to kill innocent people then they obvilusly need to be put down. Similarly to how a dog trained by a dog fighter might need to be put down even if it’s just a pawn in someone elses twisted game. So yes these russians have to be killed in self defence until they leave.
All I’m saying is that i always find it a bit rich that people act as if they would always do the right thing in similar circumstance.
They are not monsters though, they are very human. Doing horrible shit is as human as eating or shitting. I think most people here would do the same thing if they were raised in similar conditions. Most people don’t even see (much less care enough to do something about) the injustices going on in their own society.
It really is an almost impossible situation. The far right will win this one regardless what the government does. If they do nothing we will probably see some form of terrorism sooner or later, if they clamp down on it they will prove the activists right in that the government will reduce freedom of speech just because some muslims cant behave.
Maybe theres some way to eke out a win but I cant see it.
Yeah afaik there are a couple of suitable places for more hydropower but no plans for more due to, like you said, local environmental reasons.
That said, sweden is basically already completely “decarbonized” (if anything can really be decarbonized), we only have a reserve oil powerplant that runs for maybe a couple of days each year (~9 days last year, though last year was especially bad). Sweden also generally has a pretty big net surplus (usually about 10-20% of production) of green power that is sold to the european grid.
If you read the report there’s both context there and also on their site mullvad have commented on the found issues stating either reasons or what they are doing to fix it.
I picked bias because it was basically the first statement that i could remember that i disagreed with. No other real reason, I didn’t want to pick a single point from the video since i didnt want to presume that you were on board with the entirety.
I looked at his substack and there over 50% 27/51 counted (just skimmed the borderline ones) were tied to highprotein/meat lifestyle or directly/indirectly anti-vegan. There were also a lot of masculinity/testosterone ones that i think are quite relevant, but I didn’t count those. He clearly makes it a large part of his brand either way.
I agree that the site i linked is (probably) somewhat biased, but that does not matter at all in this context. There is nothing wrong with using data provided by biased people if you are aware of the bias and take it into account when using the data.
We need to scale this argument down though. I refuse to take an argument over text if we don’t just laserfocus on the argument. If you have a problem with a source i put forth then just say that without adressing its claims and we can discuss if the source is acceptable before continuing.
If we start over where I should have started in the first place. What do I need to show to convince you that he’s biased? (If you disagree with any prior statments in this comment lets start arguing those first. I don’t want to have a multithreaded argument)
Okay, I would argue that the guy in the video is extremely biased. I don’t know how you would determine bias in a person, but I think that a clear indication is to not caveat any of the cited sources with their various flaws in methodology and only show studies “in your favour” assuming they don’t all show that. I looked at criticism towards the videos claims by Nutrivore criticism. I read half of the critique but only doublechecked a couple of the studies that i could access.
If you disagree with my assessment that the video is very biased either put forth your own definition of bias or I could pick a couple of the (in my opinion) biased claims and we can talk about those.
I don’t mind arguing (in fact i really like arguing) and I also disagree with most of your points. That said however If I am to argue then I don’t want to do massive walls of text and rather pick a single well defined point. So if you want to do that as well then put forward a single point which you feel strongly about and I’ll say if I disagree or not (alternatively I could pick something from your text, I just wouldn’t want to feel like I’ve picked your weakest point).
My take on this (an I’m vegan so there’s a possibility of bias) is that most of the mainstream claims such as there being no health downside and a plantbased diet is significantly less harmful for the environment are simply true.
But there is a subset of vegans that for some reason believe they need to justify it further than that who say that plant based diets have some nigh on magical health abilities and they feel so much better etc, pretty much all of that is some form of bs. Just like the idea that humans didn’t need to eat meat in the far past due to b12.
All in all, it’s an infected debate where vegans/nonvegans just throw false shit out to see what sticks.
Exceedingly unlikely given the fact that he’s already that old and also that he only has one term left. He would have to be really industrious to turn america into shit(tier?) in that limited time.
But I don’t disagree that he’ll give it a go.