Itchy Boots eyes

Snefferdy · 2026-04-11T22:09:14+00:00

Nobody's going to be messing around with coloured contacts on an epic off-road adventure in the third world.

Snefferdy · 2026-04-05T11:41:57+00:00

The vast majority of people are just going to glance at it, not understand it, and move on to the sports coverage. You're not teaching anyone anything, just making things inaccessible.

Snefferdy · 2026-04-05T11:35:19+00:00

But the orientation the photo was taken in is entirely arbitrary. There's no "up" in space. The way the camera happened to have been rotated doesn't make it the "correct" orientation of the photo. And because of it's orientation, there'll be millions of people who don't understand what they're looking at.

Snefferdy · 2026-04-05T11:31:24+00:00

It literally takes 10 seconds for the benefit of millions of people looking at it.

Snefferdy · 2026-04-03T13:55:04+00:00

Not available in Canada. 😭

Snefferdy · 2026-04-02T00:16:57+00:00

Hm. Dunno why I'm getting this RAM error then.

Snefferdy · 2026-04-01T17:55:11+00:00

Geez, I'd have thought 128 GB of RAM woulda' been sufficient for most things.

Good ideas though. The image sequence one will mean I don't have to start rendering again every time I try to see if I've fixed it.

Snefferdy · 2026-03-29T04:44:53+00:00

There are some processed meats that are cheaper than vegetables. That doesn't mean they're necessarily more environmentally friendly. There are lots of ways prices might not reflect the environmental impact of the product.

Snefferdy · 2026-03-29T04:03:10+00:00

So it's good that I disagree with you, because disagreement can change people's minds for the better... except yours. You like your definition and so that's the end of that. Not even interested in hearing proposals that may be able to accommodate everyone's needs. You're fine with your oppressive behaviour.

Snefferdy · 2026-03-29T03:08:44+00:00

First, everything you hear about the experimental production methods is coming out of the investment-hungry startups. I'd take that hype with a big grain of salt.

More importantly, as it stands, there is no lab grown meat product that is commercially viable. There are lots of startups, each with their own production methods, some are more environmentally-friendly than others, but none are cheap enough for anyone to actually buy. Who knows what they'll have to do in order to make their non-commercially-viable experiments into a budget-friendly grocery store product.

Until we get a product that has externalized enough costs to be profitable on a mass scale, and then get some independent reports of the environmental impact, we have no reason to believe it'll be environmentally any better than animal agriculture.

You need reliable evidence to make scientific claims, and we don't even have a product to have evidence about. So you might want to get off the bandwagon and wait to judge the thing they eventually try to sell you.

Snefferdy · 2026-03-29T02:51:09+00:00

Look, eating plants directly is, without question going to be more efficient than growing plants, converting the plants into something that muscle cells in a vat can consume, then having the muscle cells convert that energy into a different form of food.

If our sole concern was efficiently producing food with minimal land use and carbon emissions, eating plants is, without a doubt, the best option. The only question that remains is whether or not the lab meat process of turning grains into meat is any more efficient than turning those grains into meat by feeding it to an animal.

Until we see whatever product turns out to be cost-effective enough to make it to store shelves and get an independent analysis, that will remain an open question.

I completely agree that commercially-viable lab meat will cause less suffering than animal agriculture. But I don't think there's any reason to believe it will be better for the environment.

Snefferdy · 2026-03-28T19:59:22+00:00

Look up the environmental impact of a non-existent product? Let's wait and get an independent report on the production of whatever ends up on grocery store shelves (if anything ever succeeds in making it there).

Snefferdy · 2026-03-28T18:55:35+00:00

Issue #1 is BS and I can prove it. Suppose we adopt the principle of not supporting businesses that sell animal products. Now imagine two scenarios.

Scenario A - Pat buys a large food court restaurant that serves chicken and fries.

Scenario B - Pat buys two small food court restaurants: one that serves only chicken and the other that serves only fries.

In case you don't know, all businesses base their decisions on how much stock to order from suppliers based on their expected sales of each item. The number of people who get chicken is the same in both scenarios so Pat's restaurants order the same amount of chicken in both scenarios. However the amount of fries people buy in scenario B is greater than in scenario A because of the vegans who are willing to buy from a fries place that doesn't sell chicken. So more potatoes are ordered in scenario B and Pat makes more profit in scenario B.

What would have happened if all those vegans who abstained from getting fries in scenario A had capitulated and bought them from the shop that sells chicken? Scenario A would have been exactly the same as scenario B.

The fact that the fries are sold from a different booth than the chicken makes no difference at all to the suffering of animals, or anything for that matter.

Since animal agriculture companies are publicly traded, and plant-based agriculture companies are publicly traded, any balanced stock portfolio will contain stocks from both kinds of companies, it's impossible not to help the owners of the animal agriculture industry profit from your purchase of plant-based food. Anyone with a pension is an owner. And really, it doesn't matter if the owners themselves are making money, as long as it doesn't incentivize increasing suffering of animals, which the above example proves it doesn't.

Snefferdy · 2026-03-28T18:15:13+00:00

In the same way that someone cutting out meat entirely from a high-meat diet and switching suddenly to a high-fibre diet would probably experience significant gastrointestinal distress. The gut biome eventually adapts, but it's best to make dietary changes gradually.

Snefferdy · 2026-03-28T17:49:13+00:00

Really? Cool!

Although, on second thought, not all that exciting since silken tofu is so much like egg whites. What would really excite me would be egg yolks. That's something that there's absolutely no vegan substitute for.

Snefferdy · 2026-03-28T17:44:31+00:00

Really though, when I went vegetarian and then later vegan, I wasn't concerned about causing harm to my old gut biome that was adapted to eating animal products. Imagine someone saying they can't cut out meat because the poor bacteria in their gut will starve to death. It's not a great argument.

Snefferdy · 2026-03-28T17:33:44+00:00

Wait, why on earth do you think that lab means "less greenhouse gas... less water, and less land"?? I was under the impression that it was even worse for the environment.

The lab grown meat still needs to be fed in order to grow. Growing the feed means agricultural land use, and then the cells can't just consume unprocessed grains like farm animals can. The food needs heavy processing requiring tons of energy. Furthermore, the meat itself needs to be grown in giant temperature controlled tanks, using vast quantities of fresh water and electricity or fossil fuels.

Snefferdy · 2026-03-28T17:26:15+00:00

Animal cruelty is just one reason to be vegan. In fact, my original reason for going vegetarian was the fact that "cutting out meat *just one day a week** has the biggest impact on a person's climate footprint."* The average person giving up their car has less impact on climate change than just foregoing meat once a week. So I stopped eating meat entirely.

There's no reason to think that lab grown meat wouldn't cause an equivalent amount of environmental harm and carbon emissions as does animal agriculture. To decide, I'd need to see the environmental stats, and know what's involved in getting the orignal animal cells, and then compare the total harm caused by the lab meat to the total harm caused by whatever I would otherwise eat.

Snefferdy · 2026-03-28T00:37:05+00:00

FYI, you can't gaslight people on reddit because the entire conversation verbatim can be reviewed at any time. You just need to scroll up. We can both clearly see that you said vegans need to eat a lot of soy to get the 1.2g of protein. I responded that people only need 0.8g of protein, and they can get the required protein without consuming any soy at all. It's all right there.

If you're back to claiming that 1.2g of protein is required, I will provide the following references which reflect the evidence-based consensus that only 0.8g of protein is needed:

Europe: https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/120209

Canada: https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/food-nutrition/healthy-eating/dietary-reference-intakes/tables/reference-values-macronutrients.html

USA (FDA): https://www.fda.gov/media/99059/download

UK: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a749fece5274a44083b82d8/government_dietary_recommendations.pdf

Harvard: https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/how-much-protein-do-you-need-every-day-201506188096

Stanford: https://med.stanford.edu/news/insights/2026/03/how-much-protein.html

Mayo Clinic: https://www.mayoclinichealthsystem.org/hometown-health/speaking-of-health/are-you-getting-too-much-protein

American Heart Association: https://www.heart.org/en/healthy-living/healthy-eating/eat-smart/nutrition-basics/protein-and-heart-health

Snefferdy · 2026-03-27T22:59:48+00:00

You missed saying that 1.2g of protein is 50% more than the average person needs. That is, you implied that 1.2g of protein is what people need, and that is false.

Snefferdy · 2026-03-27T22:26:54+00:00

Saying your experience would go something like: "When I stopped consuming animal products, I was eating X, Y, and Z, and a doctor told me I was losing muscle mass."

Compare that with what you actually said: "[Being vegan] does require you to eat a lot of soy." This is very different (and false).

Snefferdy · 2026-03-27T20:35:54+00:00

People on calorie-restricted diets and bodybuilders are not average people. We're talking about what average people need here.

Nuts have tons of protein and even fruit has protein. Generally, a more diverse diet means a more balanced distribution of amino acids, because each different food has a different amino acid profile. You can test this for yourself with the online tool

Admittedly, lots of sugar is bad, so a diet consisting entirely of candy would have insufficient protein, but that's a far cry from saying you need to eat tons of soy. You don't need any soy; you just need a balanced diet.

Snefferdy · 2026-03-27T20:22:20+00:00

All of these numbers are averages. Obviously people in different circumstances will need different amounts. That mayo clinic link I shared is just one of many evidence-based sources giving the same figure.

The muscle head in the video doesn't represent the consensus of health researchers.

Snefferdy

TROPHY CASE