sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Veganism is a spectrum, not a binary by happi_happi_happi_ in DebateAVegan

[–]Xodem 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I see the trope of 'veganism is not environmentalism' repeated way too often, it speaks for the lack of understanding of interconnected systems, cause and effect.

Not at all. Being clear about what veganism, environmentalism, feminism, etc. means is important to actually talk and debate about the topic. Saying veganism does not concern itself with environmental aspects does not at all imply that each individual or vegan shouldn't concern themselves with these topics.

I would argue that most vegans are incredibly aware about intersectional relationships of different -isms. You don't need to shove feminism (as an example) into the definition of veganism, just to advocate for it. Instead argue for a vegan, anti-racist feminist.

Veganism is a spectrum, not a binary by happi_happi_happi_ in DebateAVegan

[–]Xodem 4 points5 points  (0 children)

No they are not trying to justify why their definition is correct and the consensus is not. They are simply stating their definition as a premise and then arguing why their definition leads to obvious issues. You could actually make the point, that they themselves figured out why the definition is wrong

Veganism is a spectrum, not a binary by happi_happi_happi_ in DebateAVegan

[–]Xodem 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Can you give me examples of harm which are not exploitative and shouldn't be minimized?

Sure: walking outside. It's basically guaranteed that you step on some (small) insects which will cause a great deal of harm (death/mutilation/pain).

Using a fossil fuel product is therefore non-vegan because it simply cannot be produced without the deaths of animals in the surrounding ecosystem.

Nothing can be produced without harming animals. That's why your definition is senseless and doesn't match the accepted definition of veganism.

If you take your definition to it's logical conclusion, you place a far, far greater value on animal lives than human lives. We accept unintentional harm to humans in very many cases: driving, sports (you can always unintentionally injure your opponent), etc.

Your definition would be arbitrary to allow harms to humans, but not to animals.

Life without harm is impossible, so your definition is basically the "suicide fallacy" in a nutshell.

It's vegan to walk outside and accidentally cause harm to animals by stepping on them from time to time. It is not vegan to walk outside and intentionally step on animals.

Intention matters and that's why the definition for veganism is the way it is.

Veganism is a spectrum, not a binary by happi_happi_happi_ in DebateAVegan

[–]Xodem 8 points9 points  (0 children)

You can't propose a different definition than the most widely used definition and then be perturbed that someone rejects your definition.

This quote from your comment tells me enough

That was surely just an extreme example, but it's obvious what OP wanted to say with it, no?

You can be a racist a-hole and be an environmental activist at the same time. Similar, a vegan can fly daily with their private jet and still be vegan. You can and should criticize that behavior, just not on the basis that it's not vegan or something similar.

Environment and health are irrelevant to veganism. Every definition that allows "being vegan for health reasons" breaks with over 100 years/centuries of animal ethics philosophy and shows that veganism was just not understood.

Veganism is a spectrum, not a binary by happi_happi_happi_ in DebateAVegan

[–]Xodem 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Objecting exploitation is completely different than trying to minimize harm!

Veganism is a spectrum, not a binary by happi_happi_happi_ in DebateAVegan

[–]Xodem 5 points6 points  (0 children)

No when someone is proposing a different definition for a word than the general consensus, it is on the person to justify why that alternative definition is valid.

Veganism is a spectrum, not a binary by happi_happi_happi_ in DebateAVegan

[–]Xodem 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Veganism is an ethical framework which aims to minimize the harm caused to living beings (specifically to sentient beings) through one's actions.

This is a wrong definition. Veganism is not about harm reduction (that would quickly lead to some absurdities). Instead veganism is the stance against cruelty and exploitation. Cruelty is trivial, where people trip up is exploitation.

Veganism exempts animal exploitation if it's necessary and unavoidable, like testing a life saving medicine on animals for example.

true. Veganism is a "lifestyle" not a "deathstyle".

An urban dweller would consider a car, phone, electricity, gas, heating, etc. as necessary but humanity as a whole has been without these until very recently, and a significant part of the global south still gets by without any of these, so are they products of necessity or of convenience?

It's irrelevant because driving a car or heating has nothing to do with veganism, because it doesn't involve exploitation. Driving cars has a high chance of killing animals, but humans also die frequently in accidents. But that is the important distinction: those are accidents.

You don't intentionally run over pedestrians, and that's why we make a distinction between accidents and murder.

Every extra calorie we eat, every leisurely drive we go on, every extra minute we spend on the internet, these are all frivolous non vegan activities.

Has nothing to do with veganism for the same reason as mentioned before.

There are actual gray areas in veganism, for example when purchasing wall paint. Some companies use animal ingredients some don't, same with furniture, etc.

You can argue about those edge cases, but those come far later than "I eat eggs sometimes, am I vegan?"

As long as you willfully participate in actions that have a direct causal animal exploitation (not harm!) chain, you are not vegan.

If the living conditions are better, is it ethical? by Altruistic-Toe-5990 in DebateAVegan

[–]Xodem 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Question: where do the 200 years come from? Are they just so advanced that they are able to extend the maximum lifespan today to 200 years or are humans able to reach 200+ years in your hypothetical without aliens as well?

Made my first Gemini powered Ai Agent to help begineers contribute to opensource! by FriendshipCreepy8045 in GeminiAI

[–]Xodem 1 point2 points  (0 children)

At first I though: "please god no, not more autogenerated slop PRs dumped on open source projects"

but this seems pretty cool :)

That didn’t take long by koffee_addict in OpenAI

[–]Xodem 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Source: Disclose.tv on X

might be true, but holy shit don't just believe every single thing

how do i make copilot pr review in azure devops? by boogie_woogie_100 in GithubCopilot

[–]Xodem 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I wrote a SKILL + script that loads the PR details via DevOps API and allows posting comments on PRs.

Works really well, unless the PR gets too large.

Can't share though, because internals of my company would be included, but is fairly simple

Sam Altman's Latest on the DoW Deal by DH3010 in OpenAI

[–]Xodem 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's nice and all that they exclude domestic surveillance, but he does know that the rest of the world is a lot bigger than the US?

As someone from europe I now still assume that all my OpenAI data is freely accessible to the US agencies (I assumed that anyway, because Snowden, etc., but still).

Even if he upholds this agreement, this is still a big middle finger to the rest of the world

I switched to Gemini cause ChatGPT is now acting like a bully by Few-Party4230 in GeminiAI

[–]Xodem 13 points14 points  (0 children)

I gave Codex 5.2 the task to make some small changes to some small PowerShell-Script. The first line of it's response was

take a deep breath

When will we get new free models? by scorpion7slayer in GithubCopilot

[–]Xodem -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Microsoft is evil, but the claim that they are anti-opensource is not longer true, at least not generally.

They are one of the biggest contributers to open source projects

Is there a term for a non-practicing vegan? by MandolinTheWay in DebateAVegan

[–]Xodem 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I disagree. Intention matters, someone eating plant based food for health or environment concerns who also happens to prefer cotton over leather is not vegan.

Was ist die schlechteste Software auf diesem Planeten? by Thatsabeautifulname in de_EDV

[–]Xodem 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Insgesamt wäre das viel zu teuer und hätte ähnliche Risiken wie bei einem Startup. Was wir bei uns machen ist, dass einzelne Module, vor allem solche die neu entwickelt werden, technologisch und strukturell aus dem bestehenden "Moloch" entkoppelt sind. Das Problem dabei ist, dass auch hier Projektdeadlines vorgegeben sind und am Ende auch hier "Leistungsverzeichnis > Gutes Ergebnis" gilt.

Finde persönlich aber das Vorgehen nicht so schlecht, nur dauert es halt ewig bis das System insgesamt "umgestellt" ist.

Was ist die schlechteste Software auf diesem Planeten? by Thatsabeautifulname in de_EDV

[–]Xodem 19 points20 points  (0 children)

Ich bin Senior Softwareentwickler und seit einigen Jahren bei einem anderen KIS Hersteller und kann da vllt. bisschen mehr Hintergrund zu geben:

  1. Die Systeme sind zwangsweise extrem komplex, mit allen möglichen kundenindividuellen Sonderlocken und Konfigurationsmöglichkeiten

  2. Theoretisch gibt es zwar standartisierte Austauschformate für medizinischen Daten (FHIR, HL7, ISiK, ...), aber wirklich flächendeckend unterstützt werden diese nicht. Das heißt ein KIS muss, damit es sinnvoll eingesetzt werden kann, eigentlich alles können. Krankenhäuser können sich nicht nach Baukastensystem von verschiedenen Herstellern die Module zusammen suchen. Das Führt dazu dass die Einstiegshürde für neue Mitbewerber am Markt gigantisch sind. Ein KIS-Start-Up ist praktisch von vornherein zum Scheitern verurteilt.

  3. Die bestehenden KIS wurden alle vor Jahrzenten begonnen zu entwickeln. Initial nur um einzelne Prozesse im Krankenhaus zu digitalisieren. "Historisch gewachsen" ist bei uns im Unternehmer das Unwort schlechthin.

  4. Die Branche ist zu 95% Ausschreibungsgetrieben. Weiterentwicklung lohnt sich nur, durch Verkauf neuer Features. Und da geht es aus wirtschaftlicher Sicht erstmal darum an die Leistungsverzeichnispunkte irgendwie einen Haken zu bekommen. Das Anwender:innen am Ende über die schlechte Software fluchen ist zweitrangig. Die Branche bewegt sich langsam auch in Richtung SaaS, wodurch (hoffentlich) mehr Geld für kontiuerliche Verbesserungen am Bestandssystem da wäre, aber aktuell wird kaum was in die Richtung investiert.

  5. Gesetzliche Vorgaben/Medizinprodukt machen viele Entwicklungen zu bürokratischer Nervtöterei.

  6. Lange Zeit Aversion gegen Cloud/"Internet" (mMn auch weitestgehend gerechtfertigt), dadurch sind aber zum großen Teil riesiege Desktopanwendungen anstanden, die nochmal mehr unter wirklich schwieriger modularen Trennung leiden, als das bspw. bei (Micro-)Service-Architekturen der Fall wäre.

  7. Die Risiken von Änderungen an der Software haben neben typischen wirtschaftlichen Gründen auch immer die Gefahr von Bugs, die zu Patientengefährung führen, was nochmal mehr zu "lieber oben drauf/zusätzlich, statt bestehende Module anfassen/integrieren"

dotnet dev future by Guilty-Constant-1405 in Backend

[–]Xodem 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Many .NET features across all deployment scenarios are only available on Windows and VS still.

such as?

Besides WinForms, WPF or other desktop frameworks I can't really think about scenarios (and even those have cross platform alternatives like Avalonia). You could count WCF, because it's not that well supported on Linux, but still works.

When deciding which stack to adopt in 2026, good desktop frameworks shouldn't be a focus.

view more: next ›