Pretty confident in my solve. The only ones I didn't get myself were 20-down, 29-down (obvious in retrospect), and 21-across (inferred the word, but didn't know the tool).

        N I X O S
        O     P   K     C P
G T K   O     E M A C S   R
N   D E B I A N   L   C L I
O N E     T   S   I   R   N
M         H   U     M I N T
E D I T O R   S       P     H
  O       E L E M E N T A R Y
  N U C L E I     A   I     P
L G     S   N     G E N D E R
  L S       U     L   G     L
  E         X F C E         A
L S       P     E   L       N
S       Z O R I N O S     C D
          P     T

Very first impressions since I literally just downloaded before writing this, and haven't read the manual, I may change my mind with more experience.

• It's incredibly snappy, to my eyes as fast as Helix.
• A lot of stuff that took me a while to figure out in VS Code was immediately obvious. How to toggle inlay hints for Rust? Parameter Icon > Inlay Hints (with the keyboard shortcut there for easy toggling).
• Interactive is generally intuitive because it seems pretty permissive. Tab vs Enter to autocomplete? Either! ctrl-shift-Z vs ctrl-Y to redo? Same thing!
• After being so used to Helix I often reach for keybinds that don't exist. I might have to learn Vim keybinds because I'm definitely going to keep trying Zed.
• Not sure how I feel about what seems to be an inline discord-like chat/voice-call feature.

Going to check out if there's git integration, because I couldn't easily find it.

Probably somewhere around the legume cluster. They're really pulling their weight there, as expected, though peanuts are quite the dark horse.

They're talking about the desktop application.

I mean, two nuclear bombs were used in war and a bunch in testing, unless I'm forgetting something. I feel like tectonic activity could definitely be much worse than that, judging by the early earth environment.

I read it as pro-gyn-nova

• Pro: as in professional/effective
• Gyn: woman (from Proto-Indo-European *gwen), like in gynocology
• Nova: new (in many romance languages)

It rolls off the tongue and encapsulates three important aspects. I'm sure there are other readings of it too.

A "cure" in this situation means an essentially guaranteed method of treatment. Cancers vary greatly, with some being benign, some being very treatable, and some being extremely deadly (at least with current technology).

As horrible as those people are, it's not like they're just belching carbon dioxide into the atmosphere for fun. They're fulfilling demand. That 40% wouldn't disappear just by spreading ownership of the factories to more people. That's not to say that individual action is the only thing that works. Regulations need to be put in place to curb emissions, incentives should reward producers for investing & transitioning to more sustainable practices, and yes, monopolies need to get split up.

But the fact remains that some products are just bad for the environment. As as long as people continue buying those products they'll keep being produced. And when animal agriculture accounts for about as many emissions as the entire transportation industry, this seems like one of the easier steps to make.

The "my actions won't end this problem so I don't need to do anything" mentality never comes up in any other field (politeness, crimes, social change, voting). Yeah, choosing to never hold open doors for others wouldn't noticeably affect the global rate, but I doubt you'd use that logic to justify being rude.

There are high caloric tasty vegan foods available, and when they are not it's usually because they aren't in high demand. How is the onus not on the consumer for picking animal products over those?

I'm all for vilifying the Animal Agriculture industry, they do some terrible stuff that goes way beyond the harm intrinsic to factory farms. But how exactly would they meet demand without factory farming, a brutally efficient way of producing animal products?

Governments should cease subsidizing animal products (maybe help their producers transition to other production), subsidize other foods more, and enact many other policy changes besides. But in most places it can be cheap and delicious to be vegan now. I don't see how you get around personal choice being the main driver.

There are many problems in the world. Some people like to focus on the ones with the largest impacts, where you can personally do something about it (like veganism). Others like to focus on those where few cause grossly disproportionate harm, as they seem more addressable (like private jets).

Debating the merits of focusing on one problem over another is interesting, but in my mind the time for it is not when media is being shared that bolsters a cause without coming at the expense of any others. It hurts all movements when people always undermine issues, pointing to another more important from their perspective.

I highly doubt that most people think you aren't doing enough for the environment. And I don't understand why you'd assume that as the implication of this article.

In situations where the harm is caused by the industry's approach, I'd agree. But animal products' harm is pretty inextricable, and its production is caused by consumer demand.