The animal dead and the killer is paid long before anybody walks into the grocery store.

your FOUR STUDIES are not “most studies”

where is the study?

it had the very latest gnome and kde releases at the time it finished. I’m sure there are dozens of other packages for which this is true. by Debian standards it was anomalously current. I find it hard to believe there are serious gaps that make even 2025 games unplayable.

edit: speaking, of course, in comparison to other 2025 distros

deb 13 was bleeding edge in June

this accusation of bad faith is, itself, bad faith

I actually have voted third party, and it got us the 2nd Iraq war.

no. al gore won that election. voting for the so-called third party had no bearing on the outcome.

the rational thing to do, if there is insufficient evidence for a claim, is just to suspend judgement. it’s possible their conclusion is correct, but the evidence used to support it is insufficient.

there are still probably thousands of options besides the four proposed.

dismissing your source doesn’t require a contradictory study.

going car free …not flying … switching your home to green energy …veganism.

there are probably a thousand other things people could do. this study, for instance, didn’t account for the impact of sabotaging fossil fuel extraction, refinement, or transportation infrastructure. almost anyone can turn a valve. by limiting the scope of this study to consumer choices, they have chosen to artificially limit the possibilities.

you think human breathing is a significant source of co2 emissions, and should be mitigated? how would changing the food being chewed change the emissions of breathing?

i don’t find this paper compelling evidence that being vegan has significant impact. it relies heavily on ivanova(2020), and additionally cites poore-nemecek(2018). ivanova, themselves, rely heavily on poore-nemecek for the data about food impacts.

so the question is: do you trust poore-nemecek 2018? i don’t. meta-analysis of LCA studies is bad science, and poore-nemecek not only designed a poor study, they didn’t bother acknowledging the problems their methods could incur.

hilariously, you can read the references from poore-nemecek, where the meta-studies they cite, themselves explain the problems with combining lcas, but then say “we’re gonna do it anyway”.

understanding how lca studies are conducted should be sufficient to understand why meta-analyses are misuses of the data, and the wikipedia article about lcas does a pretty good job of explaining the issues with the methodologies

the danish study is actually worse in some ways. it additionally cites poore-nemecek 2018, who themselves referenced tilman-clark, but egregiously gathered even more lca meta-analyses, and created something of a meta-meta-analysis of lcas. it’s bad science all the way down.

we need to stop ALL CO2 emissions where they aren’t necessary and unavoidable. Meat consumption (in the current industrial scale) is.

meat consumption doesn’t emit co2 though

it would free up land for reforestation.

there is no reason to believe the land would be reforested instead of being further developed.

not only does vegansim have the biggest positive impact on the environment that can be made with a personal choice

there simply isn’t any reliable data to support this claim.

When talking about GHG emissions, it’s a really bad idea to use % of total emissions as an indicator of impact.

we have a tool for mitigating your concern: we rate greenhouse gasses by their co2-equivalence. the co2e of methane is 28.

a single counter-example would disprove this