But that’s the great thing about Lemmy - you can just go to another instance and continue using Lemmy if you disagree with some admins decisions.

What’s your complaint?

Thanks. China looks like it might have a big problem on its hands with that large volume of young men without partners.

Big yikes on that pyramid. Please could you share where you got it from?

Bear in mind that graph that I copied overlaps more due to it being relative to high-meat diets (hence no error bars on that group).

The supplementary data shows much less overlap of 95% confidence intervals.

This seems needlessly pedantic, presumably because of a similar argument as the other commenter - that veganism is a philosophy and not just a diet. However, as the other commenter highlighted, veganism begets a vegan diet.

You also don’t have to follow an entirely vegan philosophy to follow a strict vegan diet.

Not to mention “100% plant based” implies you don’t eat fungi!

The study is about diets and their consequent impact on GHG. Why does it matter that it’s not about philosophy?

Eh, cows are the biggest contributor but all ruminants are applicable as another poster highlighted.

Also the study does include fish eaters too, as a separate dietary category.

For anyone interested, high-meat diet was defined as >100g meat per day.

Never mind the fact cows release methane which is 25 times more warming than CO².

I’m not really sure the point your trying to make here.

If they sold them in the supermarket, I would absolutely have cricket-fried rice.

No, the title is correct as far as I can tell from quickly skimming the actual Nature article.

Unrelated rant - I hate the fact independent.co.uk hyperlinks the word ‘study’ which just searches it’s own site for the fucking word ‘study’ rather than linking to the actual source data. Fucking shitstain practices.

I found the original article by plugging the independent article into ground.news. Fucking love that website.

Edit: what’s more is that it’s eating more than 100g of meat per day is 4 times more GHG than eating vegan. Eating <50g per day is about 2 times more than veganism.

Yeah - what I meant by ‘unilateral’ is that beehaw defederating from .world is that .world users can’t interact with beehaw communities, PLUS beehaw.org users can’t interact with .world communities.

Unilateral defederation to me would mean the first case, but not the second.

You sure about that? I’m pretty certain that unilateral defederation is not possible yet.

All those pesky staff, costing me money to produce value.

Does it? That tweet sounds like both Microsoft & Activision and the CMA have agreed to pursue an appeal ASAP, not that Microsoft/Activision have the go ahead from the UK?

The purpose of the fediverse is to have things that are spread out and can talk to each other, right?

My point was only beehaw trying to cultivate a safe space that is closely policed isn’t easily compatible with that baked-in interaction with other spaces which they can’t police. Unless they play server whack-a-mole.

And then once large instances are cut off because they contain too many users to police when they interact on beehaw.org - what’s the point in being part of the fediverse? Why not just be any other type of link aggregating forum?

It would make a little more sense if you could defederate unilaterally (i.e. non beehaw members cannot post on beehaw, but beehaw members can go interact on other instances). But as far as I understand that’s not how it works.

The Fediverse is a niche product too, frankly.

And the disruption is the problem. The whole point of EEE is to choke growth of competition.

How is ActivityPub and the Fediverse insulated from this?

I don’t think any fediverse user is concerned about their data being taken. The concern comes from the obvious threat of embrace-extend-extinguish.

Meta’s intent is irrelevant; EEE is basically a given of a large corporation because it helps maximise profit.

https://ploum.net/2023-06-23-how-to-kill-decentralised-networks.html

Sure, but I don’t think beehaw’s philosophy suits the fediverse very well. They want to create a safer space where discussion and disagreement is encouraged, but more closely policed. Which makes sense for a closed system - not one where “unpoliced” users can interact with your community. Otherwise you end up playing server whack-a-mole… exactly like beehaw has done.

Beehaw.org defederated lemmy.world, so after that time point no new lemmy.world content is pulled to beehaw.org

Not sure why the lemmy.one isn’t up to date as they haven’t defederated with lemmy.world. It should be the same?