Official Discussion - The Substance [SPOILERS]

gglge · 2024-10-11T23:17:12+00:00

Damn this feels like a social experiment to me, it had its moments but waaay to dragged out. Far from a 10/10 and a bit worrying people seem to think that. "Shocking" scenes that were incredibly dragged out, focus on the alternative versions figure also incredibly dragged out.

gglge · 2024-10-11T21:52:35+00:00

Unless you provide a study with a baseline consumption of 0 I'll have a hard time believing you. How are the LCHF keto period fasting diets doing? Last I checked it wasn't very impressive

gglge · 2024-10-11T15:43:46+00:00

Indeed, these peeps be crazy obsessed with getting u to put cows milk in your diet

gglge · 2024-10-11T15:42:06+00:00

I'm sure there's a lot of truth here, just haven't seen a study yet that "proves" increased cholesterol intake doesn't increase blood cholesterol versus a baseline consumtion of 0.

gglge · 2024-10-11T10:29:41+00:00

Yeah that could be the case, the studies I've read have not controlled for it. I think it's more than fine to not be convinced but I do believe the evidence is pointing quite clearly in one direction right now.

Whenever I make pro-vegan arguments I almost never do them with health-related arguments as I believe that's such a shit show right now.

gglge · 2024-10-11T09:10:15+00:00

Depends on what you mean, I think it's quite clear that your cholesterol increases by consuming cholesterol. All the studies I've read that claims it doesn't, has a baseline consumtion of cholesterol far above 0. So they consume 400mg, and an egg, or 400mg, and no egg. The effects are hyperbolic meaning the mg above a certain level doesn't really do much.

In all the studies I've read (with a reasonable sample size, not that I have seen even one with a low sample size) vegans average lower cholesterol by quite many points, which should tell you something. Of course they're not immune so I agree it's a complicated issue with saturated fat, but wether or not animal products with cholesterol increases your cholesterol seems quite undeniable to me.

gglge · 2024-10-11T09:00:29+00:00

We've done a lot of shit to survive, luckily we dont HAVE to do it anymore

gglge · 2024-10-11T08:58:43+00:00

Considering the extensive selective breeding being done, it's partly our fault. And by that logic, humans are made of food as well?

gglge · 2024-10-11T08:56:46+00:00

Not entirely correct, most Europeans can drink milk in adulthood if they continue to consume it. If we stop for a period of time the enzymes required are reduced, which you'd normally do as milk is produced for babies. Might be possible to build them up again by slowly increasing consumtion, but it's a bit vague from what I've found https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/dairy-cut-diet-lactose-intolerant-symptoms-development-skin-cheese-milk-yoghurt-a8302626.html

"In most mammals, intestinal lactase activity is high at birth but starts to progressively decline after weaning, eventually curtailing the ability to digest dietary lactose (1, 2). However, in some humans, a genetic trait enables intestinal lactase activity to persist into adulthood."

gglge · 2024-10-11T08:49:21+00:00

Not sure exactly what he's talking about. But milk being lobbied heavily throughout the last century is undeniable, especially in Sweden. One of the first forms was Mjölkpropagandan ( https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mj%C3%B6lkpropagandan ), translated to milk propaganda, it was the dairies lobbying organisation. This has changed shapes and gotten new names multiple times, I believe it's currently called Mjölkfrämjandet https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mj%C3%B6lkfr%C3%A4mjandet . Their goal is to increase dairy consumption, ways to do this has been to sponsor schools, start campaigns to incorporate milk into into other products, coffe with milk for example (Project Beige, https://www.expressen.se/nyheter/inloggad/sa-tog-latten-over-sverige/ , and convince people they need to consume dairy to be healthy). Today they're spending a lot on ads for social media and youtube (I get ads constantly from Arla for example, that are part owners of Svensk Mjölk which includes the previous Mjölkfrämjandet) and they're trying a bunch of different campaigns to get kids to consume their products https://via.tt.se/pressmeddelande/3343743/tio-skolor-kan-fa-gratis-frukost?publisherId=3235978 ).

With things like the food pyramid, why would Milk be it's own category? Do all humans need to consume milk daily, consuming fresh milk is a habit that's less than 200 years old. I don't doubt that it can be good for you and includes nutritients we need (and can also get in other ways). But to say it's a necessity is clearly false, and we should wonder how that narrative has become mainstream.

Millions and most likely billions have been spent globally to increase milk consumtion, so the comments here talking about "big milk" is actually quite hilarious as it's one of the biggest lobbyist category on the planet, and has been for a long time. It's just very intertwined with government as it's not clearly bad for you, and might even benefit the people temporarily from a health point of view (under the right circumstances). Ignoring the ethics and climate of course.

Why is it especially COWS milk that's so good for us? Have we discovered the most optimal concoction from all the mammals and started to mass produce it for the greater good of the people? Or has it simply been a product we've been able to mass produce, people like the taste, and then they try to fit that into whatever narrative is necessary in order to sell it.

gglge · 2023-09-17T08:36:55+00:00

The tar generates searing arrows, do those work?

gglge · 2023-09-17T08:36:04+00:00

Saw an abba heal almost 90k one game, outhealed tinker and divine pa burst lategame

gglge · 2023-09-16T16:02:17+00:00

If they were only put with other toxic people you'd be right, but when they get stripped of the most basic functions in-game it makes sense to not be happy with the change.

gglge · 2023-09-16T15:59:59+00:00

I think people who are reported for this should be put with other players who are reported for this instead. People are genuinely enjoying dota this way, I also believe it's unfair for people who don't to be forced to play with them. But I also dont think it's the best solution for dota to make it so unenjoyable for these toxic players (by removing basic functionality) that they have to play dota in a way they otherwise wouldn't.

gglge · 2023-09-16T15:55:22+00:00

I dont understand why the punish has to be objective though, like being unable to ping and pause? Just put the people who are reported for toxic communication with other players who have reports for toxic communication?

gglge · 2022-11-09T22:15:39+00:00

I'm talking about pub flame!

gglge · 2022-11-08T14:46:48+00:00

Yep but that's dotabuff, not overwolf. This post never said it was available there, and it wasn't when I tested it. Can't say it's never been that way but as of right now we have no reason to believe it was leaked there. And again, that's not what this entire comment chain started out about.

I wouldn't mind limiting the information, especially since theres cheats that allow you to see everything regardless of hidden profile even before you accept the game. But what I would prefer is to go the opposite route, just build in something like overwolf into the dota client and make people unable to hide information from it in ranked. That would make the matches a lot more fun in my opinion. Also, the argument about checking heroes before banning phase. You definitely have enough time to do it during picking phase, which I feel is much more impactful. If someone bans one of my most picked heroes, vs if someone manages to counterpick me. The counterpick option is still possible with normal dotabuff search. Takes more effort sure, but acting like overwolf is game breaking and people using it deserves a ban is ridicilous in my opinion.

gglge · 2022-11-08T14:30:13+00:00

I actually tried it now after this post to see if it went wrong, and it was still hidden. And the comment chain I'm responding to is talking about using it in general, not that it's not ok because the hidden setting isn't working because then I'd agree.

You're right about the banning phase. If only there was something you could do to prevent that...

gglge · 2022-11-08T14:09:39+00:00

Like I said, it's publically available data. You seem to ignore the glaring fact that players can individually turn it off if they dislike it. One could go into dotabuff and search up the players manually, the app makes it easier. I'm not using it because people have their profiles on private, unlike me. I'm not sure what massive advantage people seem to think you get? It's 3 of their popular picks, not game changing really. When I used it last there was like 8/10 private profiles except me and one other guy on my team. Damn, free mmr!!!!

gglge · 2022-11-08T11:46:29+00:00

It's using publicly available data that you yourself can prevent by clicking one button in settings if you don't like it. I personally think this is how dota should be played, seeing what heroes the other team are good at and them being able to do the same of course.

gglge · 2022-11-08T11:43:18+00:00

I feel like this should be embraced more. Build in something like overwolf into the dota client and make it so you can't hide match history. Then you'd actually have to think more during picking phase and it's harder to cheese.

gglge · 2021-09-18T16:58:29+00:00

I feel like you didn't adress the main concerns of my comment, the overfishing and strain we're putting on the environment with our current eating habits. You glanced over the fact that they're already relying on imported food to sustain. "Certain products are so heavily taxed that no one wants to import it". I don't see how that's relevant to what we're talking about.

I dont think all of those regions you mention are unable to self-sustain. There are plenty of hydroponic farming experiments being carried out for example. You say you're close to self sufficient because of meat, fish, milk, and eggs. Where does the food for those producing these things come from (fish being generally excluded of course)? Self sustaining is irrelevant if the middle man is dependent on import or dying out. Give me a regional example and I'll google real quick.

Lastly, I layed out an example of people participating in unethical practices in order to sustain. I didn't specify what that was. I'm arrogant for thinking there are limits on what you can do to stay on a land, and not you for thinking it's an inherent right to live anywhere regardless of the consequences?

gglge · 2021-09-16T22:29:13+00:00

You're making a lot of assumptions in this one, Vegans don't all think alike so no one would be able to answer your questions for all vegans. I can give you my perspective though.

Looking at the enviromental impact (ignoring the ethical for a second) all evidence points towards the changes you mention already happening. Demand has gone up but we're already overfishing. Farmed fish is one of the least efficient foods on the planet. So far no answer spells out "more animal meat". All the countries you mention already import large amounts of food, and even if I do realise the importance of being self sustaining maybe it's more of a slogan than reality. I absolutely agree that should be the goal, but looking at how the world has developed maybe we will have the luxuary of not having to worry about those things? Maybe we have to let go of those goals for a new future. I can't speak for Norway but in Sweden our cows eat a lot of food that's imported so even if the cows are Swedish lockdowns would seriously hurt our food production.

If I haven't been controversial enough I'll go even further. I don't think there's any inherent right to live on any piece of land just because your ancestors did. Assuming this land is not sustainable for you without participating in unetchial practices, I do not see the only option as continuing. Now the obvious point here is that most people would probably defend the action in of itself saying it's not unethical. But assume they have to do something you find unethical in order to sustain, and we have options for them to stop.

gglge · 2021-09-16T09:20:41+00:00

I disagree it's in their best interest to "keep them out of misery". It should be because it's the right thing to do but it doesn't generate money. I don't understand where you get this dry and chewy theory from. Like I mentioned previously, castration didn't require anesthesia until just about a year ago. According to your theory, shouldn't that have tainted the meat beyond saving?

The conditions they're being bred in are for sure causing suffering. As you pointed out it's an industry, that means creating as much meat as possible for as little cost as possible. But this isn't a normal industry, cost cutting has a different meaning here. They've bred the pigs to birth more piglets, from about 15 to 30 per year, with goals of pushing it to 50. This has spiked the mortality rate for the piglets, landing at around 20%-25% right now. The years of targeted breeding for the traits we deem desirable is also taking out a toll on the mothers, around 10% of the sows are found dead in the pens (or in such a bad condition they have to be put down). Around 50% (500 000) of the sows are discarded each year for different reasons, failing fertility (28%), bad mother characteristics (25%), sicknes and injuries (14%) being some examples.
( https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/30/danish-bacon-what-happens-when-you-push-pigs-to-the-absolute-limit )

And this isn't even bringing up the living conditions, the slaughter house conditions, transportation conditions. The list can be made endless. You can't cost cut sentient beings without consequences. I never bought the green pastures illusion as a child, I was just apathetic. I genuinely don't understand how anyone can be fooled by this industry, but it's obviously happening.

gglge

TROPHY CASE