They also only ever believe that when it's about work THEY have to do. If it's about other people, or it's about things that directly affects them, the tune suddenly changes.

I can't, as an individual, end rape culture. Is that therefore an excuse to keep making rape jokes, defending rapists etc.? Obviously not, but by the logic of "people against individual change" it's entirely logically consistent. As long as I say "rape culture bad", I can keep supporting it. I just have to wait for magical "systemic change without individual change" to rain down from heaven.

Ironically, I learned Rust first, and later looked at Go. I found a lot of the syntax needlessly "different". That being said, it's still a decent language. Point being, a lot of the weirdness subsides once you understand why it's there.

Personally, I don't actually care about the lifecycle and memory management stuff. What I like about Rust is:

• An enforced error type that is very convenient to use with the ? operator. No more err != nil spam, but same amount of safety
• ADTs with a host of wonderful features, like exhaustive match statements. Go enums are horrendously basic, let's be honest
• NO NIL!! Non existence is expressed with an Option type that, like the error type, comes with many conveniences
• Generics from the start, meaning you don't have older code that throws away type safety anywhere
• Traits/Interfaces can be implemented for foreign/external types and types can implement external interfaces (duh)
• Great tooling, good formatting tools, good LSP, that kind of stuff. Golang has that too

Why learn Rust? For the same reason everyone should learn different languages. To learn new concepts and see new perspectives on old problems. It'll make you a better developer even in your previous languages.

For bigger projects, anything with MANDATORY types is a must for me. Optional, not compiler checked hinting doesn't cut it.

Not that i hate the language, but I do hate the tooling around it. I don't think I've ever had a pleasant experience with setting up a Python project. And all the data stuff is just wrappers for code in other languages, making the packaging story even uglier, even harder.

Technically, veganism requires only what is possible and practicable. If you genuinely needed to eat a hundred grams of chicken each week for unavoidable health reasons, you'd still be vegan, if you abstained from any other animal consumption.

It also doesn't have to work for everyone, just for most people. If you 20% of people were vegan, we'd end up with a snowball effect that made the world a better place.

So in the end, there's zero principle involved here, and it's all just picking and choosing which DLC YOU happen to think is totally fine. For reference, what you just described is like 90% of the day one DLC ever. Some basic skins, some inconsequential ingame items/things, maybe some art or music.

This all would be fine, but it's the insane vitriol everyone else is throwing at microtransactions AND the mightier than thou attitude of the game devs that makes this horrendously hypocritical. I don't have a problem with this DAY ONE DLC FOR BG3, but I'm also sane enough to not pretend that all microtransactions are evil, categorically.

We could absolutely regulate veganism. Hell, it's the other way around at the moment. For pretty much every animal rights law, there's an exception specifically for farm animals. Just removing those exceptions would make factory farming (and therefore like 90% of meat production) illegal.

And in a more general sense, we absolutely can regulate carnism (aka the opposite of veganism), exactly how we regulate a million other moral questions.

NO! That is how the court system, and therefore the state sees him in regards to punishment and treatment. That does not mean, and has never ever ever ever meant, that being declared not guilty means they are proven to be innocent. Just that there's wasn't evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

It's 90 billion every year. If their suffering is 15000 less significant, that's one holocaust a year, every year, since many years. Why are you using Shoah, if holocaust is so obviously only one thing? And why are the voices of holocaust victims/survivors/relatives totally fine to silence? Many have made that comparison, shouldn't they know best whether it's comparable???

You are correct however that this argument is utterly stupid and useless to make, esp. online, where there is zero context.

Here are some quotes for you. From holocaust survivors and their relatives.

“I totally embrace the comparison to the Holocaust. I feel that violence and suffering of innocents are unjust. I believe that the abuse of humans and animals and the earth come from the same need to dominate others. I feel that I could not save my family, my people, but each time I talk about cruelty to animals and being vegetarian I might be saving another life. After knowing what I know about the Holocaust and about animal exploitation I cannot be anything else but an animal rights advocate.

-Susan Kalev, who lost her father and her sister in the Holocaust

“I believe in what Isaac Bashevis Singer wrote, ‘In their behavior towards creatures, all men are Nazis.’ Human beings see their own oppression vividly when they are the victims. Otherwise they victimize blindly and without a thought.” [tweet this]

-“Hacker,” Animal Liberation Front member & Holocaust survivor

“What do they know—all these scholars, all these philosophers, all the leaders of the world? They have convinced themselves that man, the worst transgressor of all the species, is the crown of creation. All other creatures were created merely to provide him with food, pelts, to be tormented, exterminated. In relation to them [the animals], all people are Nazis; for the animals, it is an eternal Treblinka.” [tweet this]

-Isaac Bashevis Singer, Yiddish author, Nobel Laureate, & Holocaust survivor

“I spent my childhood years in the Warsaw Ghetto where almost my entire family was murdered along with about 350,000 other Polish Jews. People sometimes will ask me whether that experience had anything to do with my work for animals. It didn’t have a little to do with my work for animals, it had everything to do with my work for animals.”

-Alex Hershaft, Farm Animal Rights Movement founder & Holocaust Survivor

“When I see cages crammed with chickens from battery farms thrown on trucks like bundles of trash, I see, with the eyes of my soul, the Umschlagplatz (where Jews were forced onto trains leaving for the death camps). When I go to a restaurant and see people devouring meat, I feel sick. I see a holocaust on their plates.” [tweet this]

-Georges Metanomski, a Holocaust survivor who fought in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising

“I dedicate my mother’s grave to geese. My mother doesn’t have a grave, but if she did I would dedicate it to the geese. I was a goose too.”

-Marc Berkowitz, Animal activist & survivor of Josef Mengele’s “twin experiments”

“In 1975, after I immigrated to the United States, I happened to visit a slaughterhouse, where I saw terrified animals subjected to horrendous crowding conditions while awaiting their deaths. Just as my family members were in the notorious Treblinka death camp. I saw the same efficient and emotionless killing routine as in Treblinka, I saw the neat piles of hearts, hooves, and other body parts. So reminiscent of the piles of Jewish hair, glasses and shoes in Treblinka.”

-Alex Hershaft, Farm Animal Rights Movement founder & Holocaust Survivor

"Jews have been, while animals still are, treated like nothing, as if their lives don’t matter. You can also compare the two holocausts this way. [...] Go to the nearest cow or pig slaughterhouse and remove the animals and replace them with humans. You have now re-created Birkenau."

-Gary Yourosky

Sure, and if we could only do one, we should choose accordingly. We can do both, simultanously. Exactly like how we don't have to choose between eating less meat and driving less cars.

Some beliefs lead to immoral outcomes. I'm absolutely certain you can think of quite a few beliefs like that, right? Just picture a hill billy from Alabama, are all his beliefs fine?

In the end, morals is applied ethics, and politics is applied morals. We absolutely should legislate and not tolerate bad beliefs. The vague idea that "everyone has their own belief/opinion and we have to respect it" is a thought terminating cliche that makes the world a worse place. My dad wants me to respect his antivax beliefs, my grandfather wants me to respect his climate change denialism beliefs. Should I?

Transport is a teensy tiny part of the climate/environmental impact for food. In 99.9% of cases, a plant-based food will beat out any meat from next door.

That being said, local in the sense things that actually grow locally and are in season is still a good idea, though more from a community building perspective.