Last game I bought were 10€ and could be run on a potato.

If a person in their home can do a cheap fun game in their spare time so can you.

Oh I miss that feeling.

I would bet money that he indeed likes you.

Yes you can be nice to people in general. But there's a special "being nice to show attraction" that I think is showing here.

No, but it looks interesting I will add it to my reading list. Thanks!

On a plane.

So lemmy is like that cool growing weed in their house?

Was the journey that necessary?

I haven't step on a plane in 15 years and counting. Maybe some travel is necessary, but surely not all traveling is necessary.

It's not even ironic.

I don't care about what other people think about me because I know how most of them are.

M after ricing arch into some ungodly aberration that was never meant to exist in this world.

I live in a city that 10 years ago was losing population and nowadays it's growing in population.

I honestly preferred ot better when it was losing pops.

Eternal growth is unsustainable

I would probably just fake it.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358322559_Is_a_Plant-Based_Diet_Associated_with_Relationship_Aggression

Plant based diet has actually shown some relationship data with some forms of aggressiveness.

Study proposes normalize the data according to childhood trauma, but even then it would only show that plant based diet and omnivore diet have no differences.

And while there are also papers which relation eating meat qith aggressiveness. Most aggressiveness linked with diet is usually related to red meat consumption in excess. Not with all meat, neither with a balanced consumption of red meat.

Anyway, all those are barely noticeable. Not worth the benefits of people being able to chose their own diet.

As said the fundamental difference in philosophies, is the consideration of the existence of "animal rights" or not.

In a selfish tone, we concede all human, human rights because it's the path that leads to better live for one self. If you discriminate another human that human could have reasons to hurt you (legitimate reasons) It's proven that egalitarian societies work better. With animals this does not happen. Animal attitude towards humans is unchanged if we give them rights or not. It's not like a mosquito is going to stop bitting me because I consider it a first class citizen. Animal contribution towards my well-being will be the same, I eat them or not. From a practical point of view, giving animals rights achieve no goals neither for me or humanity as a whole. That's why I only concede humans rights, because giving human rights do make humans better, thus makes my life better.

First, agriculture made for animal consumption doesn't have the same quality sanitarian standards as agriculture made for humans.

Second, not all animals require vast agriculture.

We could also war animals that do not requiere such agricultural measures. I have eaten cows, pigs and chickens that were raised traditionally, out of the natural fields and the parts of the plants that we humans do not want to eat.

In fact for a environmental perspective traditional farming is far better than vegan diet.

Yeah, mostly for translation purposes.

I think I currently have gemma 4 set up.

Take into account that one of the basis of my theory is that animals have no rights per se. When thinking about it it seemed illogical as it's impossible to police, control, or even tu conceive. How could you give rights to some invertebrate living 50 foot underground with a lifespans of 3 days that won't even see a human in that time?

My ideology thinks about humans. I'm human. Society is form by humans. Humans are the only rational being on earth. We can work with humans.

My definition of cruelty and why avoid it is not based on reduce harm to animals, I don't care about that. It's based on reduce harm on humans. That's why the intention and the enjoyment of causing suffering is the thing to avoid. Because that's what create "bad" humans, "cruel" humans. Humans that will hurt other humans. That's the only reason why I think that cruelty (towards anything, animal or not, even alive or not) is to be avoided. Just as a way to create a better society for humans.

As long as humans are "good" and not hurting other humans I don't really care if animals suffer. They are "lucky" that cruelty towards animals is proven to make humans worse. But just farming and managing livestock for human consumption has not been proven to do that, as there's not cruel intentions in it. Just intentions to feed ourselves.

I never cared about steam machine to be honest.

I just want steamOS. And I think it makes more sense to promote that in the current market. Specially giving that linux is starting to give better performance than windows in some games, and that windows 11 have turned a lot of older machines obsolete, and people cannot afford new ones.

As a European I'm with you.

There isn't even AC in schools. Children are let there to boil practically.

Hilariously enough we have legislation that says that schools shouldn't be above 27°C but there isn't any real solutions to avoid that, unless they would put a tax on the sun for overheating the classrooms or whatever.

I feel it's a little dangerous, because it would give a false sense of security in [no-ai] projects.

We have all seen tons of projects 100% written without any AI that are very poorly coded and full of insecurities.

Understandable.

Imagine a full pc that's just cheaper than a pc. Everyone would buy it for any use.

They probably get a ton of drug addicts asking for narcotics. And probably had made a lot of involuntary drug addicts over prescribing narcotics.

Some drugs are quite dangerous and it should be understood why doctors are wary of just prescribing it so easily.

That definition is quite good, I would add that for cruelty to be cruelty the objective of your actions needs to be the cruelty.

Eating meat doesn't fall into that definition, fron my point of view.

You being alive causes a lot of suffering in the world, just because you are alive, you cannot live without doing harm to other living beings.

You draw you line on "I'm not cruel because I go out of my way not to eat meat". There are infinite lines you could draw before and after or in parallel. Someone could say "Ido not walk because I may step on some bug and that would make me cruel, and anyone who walks and thus step on bugs is cruel".

A clear remedy to avoid causing harm to absolutely any other living being is stopping being alive one self. I don't see much people following that route, and considering any living being as cruel would mean that that interpretation of what's cruelty is irrational and faulty. The intention for the suffering to exist is inherent in the cruelty. People need to enjoy that suffering in order to be cruel.

I do not enjoy damage to animals, it's just something inevitable when I eat them. Suffering is not my objective, not the objective of anyone who eats meat, I would assume. So no, they are not being cruel.

From my point of view, if the objective of your actions is not to cause suffering, even if your actions cause suffering, then you are not being cruel. Intention matters here.