What bother’s me about these sorts of posts is they don’t give people a consumption goal. Blindly telling everyone to consume less isn’t exactly fair. Say, for example, there’s person A who consumes 1 unit of red meat per month, and person B who consumes 100 units of red meat per month. If you say to everyone “consume 1 unit of red meat less per month”, well, now person A consumes 0 units of red meat per month, and person B consumes 99 units of red meat per month. Is that fair? Say, you tell everyone “halve your consumption of red meat per month”, well, now person A consumes 0.5 units of red meat per month, and person B consumes 50 units of red meat per month. Is that fair? Now, say, you tell everyone “you should try to eat at most 2 units of meat per month”, well now person A may happily stay at 1 unit knowing that they’re already below the target maximum, they may choose to decrease of their own accord, or they may feel validated to increase to 2 units of red meat per month, and person B will feel pressured to dramatically, and (importantly, imo) proportionally, reduce their consumption. Blindly saying that everyone should reduce their consumption in such an even manner disproportionately imparts blame, as there are likely those who are much more in need of reduction than others. It may even be that a very small minority of very large consumers are responsible for the majority of the overall consumption, so the “average” person may not even need to change their diet much, if at all, in order to meet a target maximum.

Civilization ][

I have never seen a roman numeral 2 stylized with square brackets before. Neat!

I acquire music either through saving what I hear being played around me (if like it), by recommendations from people, by using Spotify’s recommendations algorithm, or by saving all the music from an artist that I’ve found and filtering later by shuffling my library. The last one can become a little overwhelming as I’ve found that it can quickly balloon the size of one’s music library, and the size can be daunting for me to filter through, but it does help me find some obscure music from artists that I like.

I apologize, but I’m not the best to explain it

For clarity, I wasn’t really looking for an explanation of what they are — I was simply unsure exactly what you were referring to.

[…] this particular form of meditation connected to Buddhist religious and spiritual practices […]

[…] perfectly secular or non-spiritual forms of meditation […]

Could you cite some information on both of those to help me understand exactly what you’re referring to?

I think you did a really good job with the texturing of the beard. Also, kinda looks like Destiny to me 😆

For clarity, are you saying that you think meditation is nonsense? If so, why or what about it do you think it’s nonsense?

Reposted here.

IMO, one of the worst parts of the article is this quote:

[…] “We might have to put DOGE on Elon,” [Trump] said. […] “If DOGE looks at Musk, we’re going to save a fortune,[sic]” […] ^[1]

To me, this reads as an admission of guilt from Trump that he instructs DOGE to withhold its scrutiny from entities favorable to him, and that he biases it towards entities unfavorable to him.

2, 5, 20 (which one exactly depends on the temperature and my general level of comfort at that moment)

[email protected]

deleted by creator

[Tesseract is] a Photon fork.

TIL that Tesseract is a Photon Fork. Would you know, by chance, at what point in Photon’s development it was forked to form Tesseract, and what the rationale was?

[email protected]

[email protected]

what a day to have eyes

Similarly, if you were going to fly on an airplane, people would say what time does your plane land? They don’t think you own the plane.

I think that’s a fair point!

[…] You had a misunderstanding.

When I first read it, it felt, to me, like they were insinuating that she was on board and in transit while it happened, but on second thought perhaps I read too much into it.

Hrm, idk. I think I would just avoid the reference altogether. It feels, to me, like the reference emotionally charges the reporting too much for my liking. That being said, perhaps something more like this: “A month after a ship with the same destination that she was to board was allegedly bombed, Greta Thunberg sets sail to Gaza.”.

EDIT (2025-06-02T06:55Z): I think I’m overthinking it 😆 please disregard the following comment.

[…] She tried the same about a month ago and her ship was bombed in a drone strike.

Depending on exactly what they mean by “her ship”, this is either false or misleading. Presumably, they are referring to the incident that occurred on 2025 May 2 ^[1] where the Conscience was struck while still at anchor in Malta ^[1.2]; however, Greta Thunberg was not on board that ship during the incident ^[2], but she was supposed to board it ^[2]. Therefore, it would be false if, by “her ship”, they meant she was physically present on the ship during the incident, or it would be misleading, imo, if, by “her ship”, they mean that she was supposed to be on it. Another possible option could be that they meant that she personally owns the ship; however, if so, that would also be false, as it is owned by a Turkish NGO ^[1.1].