I think what stands out to me is the growing use of legislative power to stop strikes and remove negotiating power from unions. The most recent major example being the then pending rail strike back in 2022.
Sure Trump will be 10x worse, but the Dems really haven’t done enough to address the health and safety of these people, and to protect them from growing corporate exploitation.
Not to underplay the craziness of this, but I’d assumed from the headline it meant annually, but it’s actually current active deals over the period of 2011-2030:
the study highlighted 205 active deals over a period starting in 2011 — with some deals scheduled to last until 2030
Of course that leaves out any future deal that’ll be made in the that period.
It definitely would’ve been nice if they’d given us what they’re spending in an average year.
OK, wise guy, listen here… >:(
But that can of soup did irreperable harm to the sheet of glass protecting the painting. Wahh.
And the corn flour did irreperable harm to the lichen on the stones, but climate change certainly won’t. Wahh.
Their arguments are always just knee jerk grasping at straws.
Somehow it seemed to actually work
Tell that to East Palestine. Train derailments are on the rise because of lax safety measures, and this was one of the issues that the workers were trying to resolve. Instead Biden had congress force them back to work.
Nova is great, but you have to turn off auto-updates and use version 7.0.57 which is the last version before the rug pull.
Virtual Network Computing. It’s basically an alternative to remote desktop.
I’d imagine you could run a VNC server, and then just login from the same PC. This kinda what you’re looking for?
There are some limitations, like I don’t think hardware acceleration would work, for example.
Edit: I did a little searching for “nested x-session” and found out that there is a specific x11 program to do exactly what you want called xephyr. There’s also a brief guide on the arch wiki.
Yeah. As much as I dislike dogmatism, and vegans eating bivalves bothers me very little, I think there is an actual slippery slope issue here. If you accept that maybe some animals are OK to consume, how and where do you then set an arbitrary line?
This isn’t quite as black and white as you make it out to be. Severity is an issue here. If you apply the same concept to human life, a similar argument would quickly fall apart. (Oh it was just one human life, so it’s OK, you don’t kill anyone 99.9999% of the time.)
I personally think that whom you kill and for what reason matters greatly. If you accidentally step on a bug, that’s not the same as intentionally killing a rodent, which is not the same as intentionally torturing monkey. Just how killing in humans, intent and state of mind matters, so it does with animals.
I’m not saying that your conclusion is wrong, by the way, just that the reasoning by which you’ve arrived at it is suspect.
Honestly, bivalves were the last thing I gave up before becoming fully vegan, even after dairy and eggs, mainly, as you’ve pointed out, due to their very simple CNS. I found the “we don’t know yet, and it’s better to be safe” argument, as well as the fear of being purity checked by other vegans, convincing enough to stop eating them. Being vegan already makes you a bit of a social pariah, so I don’t need the trouble from both sides.
However, I personally believe that sentience and consciousness exist on a spectrum which is also roughly correlated to CNS complexity. That spectrum dictates how much a living thing is capable of suffering, and hence how much moral consideration they should be afforded.
“Vegans” eating bivalves is so incredibly low on my list of things I care about, it might as well be nonexistent. Let anyone who only eats produce from a veganic farm throw the first insult.
I wonder if that’s because most of its value is predicated on him being able to gain an unfair advantage due to his potential position in office.
If so, then this is probably a more accurate indicator of his chances in the election than any pollsters.
When you surround yourself with sycophants, of course nobody will tell you when you fuck up. People who can’t accept criticism always end up in a bubble of unreality that’ll grow and grow until it pops.
Would you rather take on 30 otter-sized horses, or one horse-sized otter?
Approximately 0.01% of lemmy’s user base would conflate simple “use” with exploitation. I warned you about sophistry before. If you have knowledge relevant to the domain at hand, put it to use, or stop wasting both of our time.
If you want the barest understanding, I guess the barest definitions are “good enough”. If you want a more sophisticated understanding then you have to take the time to understand the actual philosophical lexicon that the definition relies upon, since, as it points out itself, “Veganism is a philosophy”.
Y’know, considering your username is commie, I’m surprised you don’t have a better understanding of exploitation, as Marx was really pivotal in developing that philosophical concept.
That would imply that vegans could not have sex with each other because it “uses” the body of an animal.
Exploitation involves one using the vulnerability of another in order to gain something in an unfair manner. It’s not simply “use”.
We’re not talking about consensual exploitation. Were talking about behaviors that aren’t exploitation due to, or perhaps shown not to be so by consent. There’s no need to explicitly mention consent because a) it would needlessly complicate the definition, b) as a practical matter, it almost never actually arises except in these sorts of thought experiments, and c) it’s already included implicitly in the concept of exploitation.
Let’s look at our original thought experiment: “It’s vegan to eat someone who has consented to being eaten.”
Usually we don’t put too much thought into this sort of stuff because it doesn’t really come up much outside of tongue in cheek mention, but I digress.
OK, so off the bat, if you think about it, there are indeed some problems with this statement. There could be systemic issues that made them consent to something harmful because the transactional benefit outweighs the harm to them. So in that sense, you’re right, looking directly for exploitation is the more objectively vegan thing to do.
However what if they have a genuine desire to be eaten (non-injuriously or posthumously, hopefully) where there are no confounding influences like above? The absence of exploitation is indicated through consent, in this case, and indeed, without any form of consent the other party would have no way to know of their desire to be eaten.
I think maybe a more realistic example than eating someone would be “Is it vegan to honour someone’s organ-donor card?” That seems to me to be a fairly clearcut case of accepting consent as implying non-exploitation.
Cynical take: Presumably to protect corporations from whistleblowers.