There is a concept that my maternal grandmother had that they would always having their own husbandry (cows/buffalos) within her village and yes, they didn't eat eggs as well.
My maternal grandfather was a teacher which was a really prestigious job at that time, the only reason that they had their own cows was because of the belief. Reflecting upon it now, I believe it to be a good faith belief, they took care of the animals as well in terms of personal care from what I've heard of stories growing up, my mother still remembers some of the cows/buffalos and their names and other things so that's nice to hear as well :)
I wish this form of Veganism was more well-known. I know a few Vegans who went down a similar path and who were told by a few people they were no longer Vegan. They took the easier path and stopped calling themselves Vegans, which I thought was sad given their objectives when becoming Vegan were clear from the get-go.
It's by definition not vegan to consume animal products. I'm happy that the term is considered so virtuous that people want to self-identify as such (I've even heard meat-eaters say they're vegan "except from time to time"), but I don't think it's intolerant/bigoted to simply look at the definition.
Here's the definition from the guys behind the word "veganism":
> Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals
The short definition you're talking about is abridged for time saving, it miss the essence ["for the benefit of..."] and the necessary feasibility adaptations ["as far as is possible and practicable"].
That quote seems to be reinforcing my point but your excerpts indicate you disagree, so I'm.not sure why you posted this: I will assume you're disagreeing, sorry if I misunderstood.
The adaptations in that quote are about the animals who will be harmed without your intending to do so during your own attempts to survive, like the insects killed during harvest. The essence and the last sentence of the definition are also in line with what I am saying. Eating dairy by choice while identifying as vegan is not due to one coming to the limits of 'as far as possible', under any definition of 'possible' or 'practicable'.
A word may have different meaning depending on the usage: who, when, context... Formal language isn't the norm for better or for worse. I mostly agree with your two messages but also wanted to add a touch of pluralism: veganism origin and ideal has something to do with ethics by (more or less) avoiding unnecessary harm by avoiding animal exploitation but the goal and means to achieve it may differ.
The interpretation of "possible and practicable" you gave is aligned with my understanding but I can understand other people may include:
- [as the article subject] the only food you can eat contains flesh, because you're detained in prison/stay at the hospital
- The social pressure is too strong for you to possibly cope with it
- Avoiding to use any toiletry that contains carmine, collagen or glycerin may be a hassle when one is away in holiday or work
Also, some people consider excluding bivalves from the list keep intact the goal of harm avoidance.
The cursor is subjective. I can grasp how someone may define themselves vegan and for whatever reason consume some animal products. However debating of the definition itself does not serve the shared cause of animal condition consideration. Instead it is far more effective to focus on shifting the laws (see the article) and bringing the questions/solutions to the public debate, which would solve most of the social pressure. Let's team up for 90% of the animal cause together and when it will be acquired we'll discuss the last 10%.
To end this message, I wish you a pleasant day and share with you a conference I had the chance to assit 2 days ago, I think it's very pertinent - but also in french, I hope the auto-translation are good. It's called "Do vegans harm the animal cause?" : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLCRdLa99DE
The vegan who ignores the last sentence and the definition "In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals"
It's kind of like the Christian who ignores the conversation in the gospel of John:
"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another."
Basically, if you're vegan because you object to industrial farming practices, and value animal welfare, eating animal products (or even meat) that you personally produced, while personally overseeing the animal welfare and farming practices doesn't necessarily violate your values.
I get that in a literal sense you wouldn't be vegan anymore, but if you're maintaining the same ethical framework that led you to veganism, it's not unreasonable to want to express that.
No animal evolved solely to produce food for humans and to be property, and I think that's a major blindspot that people have, which allows them to believe into this idea.
Buying an animal, restraining it in your property, subjecting it to whatever's needed for it to produce (look this up if you need to), consuming said products, and in the end of its useful life selling the animal (and let's not imagine that it's sold to animal sanctuaries): none of this is in line with being vegan. All of it harms the animal in some way and normalises the dismissal of animal life, independent of whatever the person wants to believe.
Someone who believes veganism is the right way, but is not personally vegan, can say just that: it's a perfectly tenable philosophical position to have. Self-identifying as vegan while not being vegan is where it becomes absurd.
> It's by definition not vegan to consume animal products
Definitions can change, especially when it comes to personal beliefs of what is right and wrong. Christianity, for example, has split countless versions as people redefine what it means to them. Yet they all still call themselves Christians.
I seriously feel like I'm being DDoS'd, because this position is so absurd and has so many counters to it (can you really not realise this?) that I don't know where to start.
The definition of veganism includes more than just not eating animal products, but that aspect of it leaves no place to ambiguity.
What's the appeal of including vegetarians and carnists into veganism? It's not like vegans wield political power or are privileged in some way, where does this strange type of inclusivity at the detriment of reality come from?
I've heard that one of the core tenants of veganism is about not being cruel to animals. In the case of raising your own chickens where you have full knowledge of how well they are cared for and no cruelty is involved, what's the philosophical harm of eating their eggs. In the case, this core tenant of veganism is maintained.
I wish more Vegans were able to accept this form of spectrum that you are talking about. Food is quite a social thing.
JaidenAnimation has done a great video[0] summarizing something like this of her vegan journey and exactly this type of nuance as well, I highly recommend checking it out
Let me give you a personal example as well, I am Hindu and Milk is very very preferred where I live. Due to my taste preference, I dislike Milk but I am really expected to have something milk based so I like Yogurt.
Even just this small act of preference of yogurt rather than Milk which could seem pretty small has genuinely left my relatives asking many many questions and I am sometimes forced to drink milk when I go to people when I would prefer otherwise because of social pressure.
I can probably take vegan yogurt if I particularly want so but we take milk fresh from the milkman who owns the cow in their house. where I live, the way people treat animals in their house is a very ethical point of view, its basically like how pets are except they help in livelihood/income
So I have some sympathies to people who you are talking about. There is enough social pressure from the people around you.
More broadly speaking, Veganism might perhaps land better as a spectrum rather than a binary switch. It has a lot of things going for it which could help its future but at the same time, it gets a large amount of flack from a loud minority and bad clips
I'm not following. Doesn't the outbox pattern just pass the buck?
The motive seems to be a naive process that enqueues a message and then commits to a database - two independent actions. But a well-behaved process would commit to a database, and then only if successful enqueue a message. That's better but still not atomic - commit, crash, and no message queued.
So the solution is a two-table write - the outbox pattern. But the process that reads the outbox must commit both a query and delete before sending the message. That's the same risk as the agreement well-behaved program - commit, crash, and no message queued. Except now you introduced another pipeline element so your overall complexity increases, and so too risk.
What if you never delete messages from the outbox? Well, what you have now is no longer an outbox nor a database nor useful for large volumes. What if you implement a database to track procesed messages. Return to square one - that's the same problem you were initially trying to solve.
What if you fetch, enqueue, and then delete? Ohh... that works. In case of a crash the message remains in the outbox. It may be processed in duplicate, but eventually if successfully it will be deleted from the outbox.
The message broker then receives a possibly duplicate message. It must consult its internal database, and if the message is unique, route it. So right back at square one. Can't have atomicity and uniqueness.
Outbox's power is that it turns an atomicity problem into an idempotency problem. You atomically write to the outbox, then you have an idempotent "workflow" that processes events from the outbox. This turns "at most once" semantics (where an event could be dropped entirely) to "at least once" semantics (where the event processing could run multiple times). For many systems, that's a big improvement.
That's true for duplicates, but even if a message is processed once, that doesn't tell you whether the validation step for that message actually finished before the commit that made it happen.
That's a good tradeoff I suppose. I've been racking my brain trying to find a solution recently that solves both of these but haven't been able to.
What I had landed on was idempotency on a best effort basis and just made the event processing safely retryable without violating any system invariants.
Too much work. Don't try to act as the sender yourself. The outbox pattern leaves that as an exercise for the reader. How many receivers do you have? Do they come and go while you're trying to send messages? Do they need to find out about old messages that were send before they came online?
There is much better alternative than this motte-and-bailey argument of "outbox GUARANTEES blah for a distributed system - but only within a single node".
Just write down what happened in Kafka. N followers read from Kafka to find out what happened.
Kafka is actually distributed tech. You can lose nodes and keep operating.
No need to design for atomicity. You either wrote to Kafka or you didn't.
The message is written to the outbox table in the same transaction as the database changes. Only if the transaction completes, the message is actually created, and other tables are updated.
In a second step the message is taken from the outbox and gets sent to the queue/broker. Only after it was sent out, the message is removed from the outbox. If the sending fails, it stays in the outbox and is retried. If the deletion of the message from the outbox fails after sending, it's getting re-sent later. So you can get a duplicated out-message.
Message brokers usually don't de-duplicate messages, they don't have a database that keeps messages, the receivers need to do that. Either with idempotency, or by tracking message ids. Event sourcing brokers can de-duplicate, because it can stores all messages.
If you never delete messages from the outbox, then they are re-sent all the time. You are going to notice such a bug really quickly.
Inbox pattern works very similarly, but the other way around.
No, you're right. It basically just passes the buck. But the general idea is that if your transaction succeeds, you KNOW that there is a durable record that some external thing needs to end up in a message bus. And then something else can sit there and spin retries until it happens. It gives you the opportunity for retrying getting it onto the message bus, out of band of the process that is trying to initiate the enqueue.
And the outbox pattern isn't bs - it DOES help a lot in practice. But exactly how much it _guarantees_ something happens is of course still quite limited. And yes as you note it's an At-least-once strategy.
Or a nihilist, or a fatalist, or a pessimist, or an antinatalist, or a realist.
Don't go putting people into boxes. That's the path of persecution.
You have the inalienable right to say what you want on a plane, limited by what the government is allowed to prosecute. In a confined space, that is a bit riskier. That's a solely personal choice - no laws are being broken. The Captain has the right to ask you to conform or leave, but that's a separate issue.
People are being overly sensitive. A wifi name is not a protest. It does not disturb personal privacy and tranquility. It's about as offensive as an article titled "We’re All Gonna Die!" from your favorite news outlet - which by the way, is not an uncommon headline.
What if my wifi name was "peanut butter for all!" but unbeknownst to me and by some rare cosmic coincidence everyone on the plane was deathly allergic to peanut butter. Does that make me a terrorist? No! But I swear someone would try to drag me through decades of litigation regardless. These people seem to have divorced words and meanings from the mechanics of how the world works. Like, "this piece of paper says you shouldn't say this, so off with your head".
> The Captain has the right to ask you to conform or leave, but that's a separate issue.
It's not a separate issue, because the captain very likely will err on the side of caution if he has to decide whether you are a terrorist or a nihilist.
I think advertisements are socially acceptable and actually expected to be as blatantly offensive as possible. How would people react if it were "Boeing go boom. Fly Airbus now! Text 777 NOW for Airbus discounts."
More energy will be required than radiation absorbed by a spherical (ish) data center. You'll have massive solar panels piping energy in, and so the temperature would by higher than thermal equilibrium at that distance.
There can be reasons for reinventing something, both good and bad. But I was more talking about the cases where people regiment something because they either didn't bother to do the slightest bit of research into what was already available, or because they didn't care and just wanted to do it themselves, inflicting their inevitably poor solution on everyone else.
How was Amandla even identified? Stingray at the protest? Then how was the phone number linked to Google? Facial recognition at the protest? I guess his details are on file under terms of the visa? So then the government simply asks Google for all details on the individual by name? Either is pretty disturbing.
What about the find-my-phone BLE database, for which I just learned modern phones broadcast even when off? Is that controlled by the OS (Google, Apple) and not the carrier?
For supported devices, which include Pixel 8, Pixel 9, and Pixel 10 series, the Find Hub network can locate your phone for several hours even if the battery runs out or the device is powered off.
"""
Not entirely. An iPhone can be "located" with it's find-my-phone features even if powered off (on by default, I believe you can disable this feature). Even if you disable it, you are trusting that it isn't discoverable in some form.
Guy seems to have earned himself a ban from entering Cornell’s premises[1]. They seem to be letting him finish [2], which tracks—they’re pretty chill IME. Something might’ve went down…
This disruption, according to a University statement, involved shoving police officers, making guests of the University feel threatened and denying students the opportunity to experience the career fair.
Sun reporters on the scene did not observe any physical violence towards law enforcement but did note distress among recruiters, students and administration involved in the career fair.[1]
To be honest, it's that plus the fact that this article omits things we already know. It wasn't just that he "attended a pro-Palestine protest at Cornell University," they shut down a jobs fair. I went to a liberal college too, I know that a lot of these "peaceful" protests are actually quite forceful and infringe on others' rights more than anyone ever reports.
My bias is in the other direction if anything. The author was protesting the US involvement with Israel, and even if he did something wrong, I believe he was targeted for this reason only. If you ask me, Israel has way too much control over US politics and other institutions. AIPAC and ADL ought to be classified as foreign entities because they de facto represent Israel's govt here, and there are some people in those orgs I consider outright traitors to the USA because they're making us pay taxes to a small country overseas. We need like a Tea Party 3.0 (unfortunately 2.0 already happened).
> because they're making us pay taxes to a small country overseas.
I read recently that 80% of the money the US commits to Israel has to be spent in the United States. Similar to the US funding Ukraine it is largely just buying from domestic US manufacturers or old stockpiles. It's a sort of stimulus program that funds the US military industrial complex and prop up allies. There was law passed that 100% of foreign military financing has to be spent in the US in 2028.
Israel gets $3b/yr, Egypt $1.3B/yr, Jordan $1.4B/yr, Taiwan etc. Lebanon recently started getting financing. Pakistan used to be a big beneficiary.
Think of it as us giving them weapons for free, either way we're paying for it so their taxes don't have to. Egypt and Jordan's aid are for Israel's protection too. The only thing that has ever rivaled this was Ukraine aid, which wasn't bipartisan as we've seen.
This is the exact same logic as the people who complain about NASA "wasting" money.
But beyond the fact that the aid is basically a subvention for American defence companies (Israel spends way more than 3 billion on American weapons), it also protects American weapons manufacturers from Israeli competition through other terms in the agreement, which is actually a serious threat to them.
Yep it's the same logic. Everyone knows NASA is expensive, but people disagree over whether it's worth.
That full amount of weapons aid is a cost to taxpayers no matter how it's spun. Republicans cut aid to Ukraine because it was too expensive and other countries weren't giving enough, and the hypocrisy wasn't lost on people when our govt turned around and boosted the aid to Israel instead. If weapons aid were free like you're suggesting, that $10B+ Israel gets would also go to Ukraine and anywhere else we care about. And the Mid East is unimportant compared to Europe or east Asia, that's why no other major powers are fighting over it, so our "great adversary" is just the backwards country Iran.
$10B+? Israel gets $3B a year, and spends approximately $30B on American weapons. I guess if you don't like gas in your care, the middle east is unimportant, yes.
$3.8B is only the baseline scheduled amount. We give more each time there's a war, like $17.9B for Gaza. There isn't a net cash flow to us either, they're getting it all for free. Where did you get the $30B figure?
During peacetime, there's enough oil production outside the Mid East that OPEC has no teeth, as we saw in the 2010s. Not that our strategy of supporting a non-oil-producing country has helped us get oil from the Mid East either. We sanctioned off one of the largest producers, and the others are always a fine line.
The laws closed that loophole a long time ago. You have to either present a photo ID to buy in a brick and mortar store or sign for the package when delivering to an address.
Does it have a carrier service when it arrives? That is the part that matters. They don't care whether you have a piece of hardware that just sits idle. They don't want people placing phone calls that can't be traced back to an identity that can be physically located and arrested.
The only way to be vaguely safe is to disable or not bring a cellphone with you, travel to and from places in some form of disguise, and to pay with cash.
That's interesting. So you want to train language, linguistic reasoning, and tool use, but otherwise strip out all knowledge in lieu of a massive context? Just grade they model on how well it can access local information, perhaps also run tools?
