If left-handed people were way more dexterous or something and they had a huge material advantage in life over right-handed people, that might make sense.
There is no desire to take something away from a minority that the rest of us have. Just a desire to make them have a slightly lower exponential difference of money and power.
Well I consider what makes "the individual" that is me the composition that makes up the brain and body I have. If you can recreate that composition I consider both people to equally have my individual point of view.
The problem with that is that it means that consciousness is not bound to your body. Two people can share the same consciousness and from that point on it is very easy to imagine that you are sharing the consciousness of your parents and their grandparents and so on until every organism on earth shares the same consciousness. This means consciousness has to be a property of the universe. Making a clone doesn't grant you immortality because you already are immortal.
The opposite scenario is that there are now two consciousnesses. If the original dies so does its consciousness and you failed to achieve immortality. Your clone is just your offspring with an identical body and set of memories.
So which is it? I personally picked it based on what I want to believe in, because even if it is a lie it helps me shape the world into one in which I want to life in, rather than one that I do not like and would prefer to get rid of.
Using vim keybindings with emacs has been way better then any other vim keybindings thing I've tried for other programs. And if there's anything missing you can customize it.
Because it's making this statement about what others should do based on a personal preference, and not taking into account at all why people stop eating meat?
As someone who was raised vegetarian I also have next to no interest in meat replacements personally, but they should be great for people who love the taste of meat but want to give it up for ethical/environmental reasons.
This reply is worth a thousand down-votes. I see where you are coming from and I appreciate that you shared it in words, not just a click on a down arrow. Thank you.
But I still think the down-voters are taking it personally. I don't believe anyone is actually being chastised for their position by this commenter. I took it as offering another option - instead of telling someone who likes meat that you have a great substitute that tastes just like meat and they'll never know the difference, try saying "there are many ways to prepare any of a large variety of vegetables - maybe you can enjoy vegetables as much as you enjoy meat if you find some recipes you like". Maybe those dishes will taste "meat-like" or whatever, but there is value in saying "Stop trying to fake it. Embrace the choice to do it differently."
For the record, I personally believe that this is a more honest tack for someone who is pursuing the option for ethical/environmental reasons.
Why must I not fake it? Who cares?
If someone wants to eat meat substitute, who are you to tell them otherwise?
You sounds like when the LED lightbulb that reduces energy usages of the old light bulb by 100 times, you will say "Why fake it? If you want to reduce energy usage, you must live without electriciy! Using newer, more energy efficient light bulb just means you don't save the world the true way".
I think your analogy is poor - an LED does not produce fake light. Is a candle fake light compared to the sun?
But anyway, you missed the point - I am not telling you what to do. I am simply suggesting the alternative of "not faking it" by adding to a comment I felt was doing the same. If you feel like you are being told what to do, I apologize.
This was the first I'd heard of it too, but I looked it up and saw this page (as well as various similar pages). It looks like canned has way less nutritional value when compared to cooked from dry.
Removing agency is exactly what you should do when you're talking about a widespread problem. If I have a personal friend I'm absolutely going to tell them they can make the right choices and overcome their problems, but you can't do that with a society. You have to look at incentives and environment and change those to change widespread behavior.
Early versions of facial recognition had difficulty working with darker skin due to genuine technical challenges, namely lower contrast between facial features and the background skin color (e.g. dark eyebrows on dark skin vs. dark eyebrows on light skin). This was not solved by hiring dark skinned engineers, it wad solved by a different technical solution: infrared cameras that could better sense features regardless of skin color for example.
The developers of facial recognition tools were aware of the early devices' limitations, and dedicating resources towards an approach that worked better on subsequent iterations. Why people think things would have automagically worked on the first iteration if the teams building the devices were more diverse, and why people continue to use this as an example of the necessity of diverse teams is a mystery to me.
If you've got a lot of experience and connections, finding freelance work on your own is easy. The thing that feeds sites like upwork is people with less of that, people that will work for pennies, often from third world countries. For me, a few years ago I was in school and wanted some income from programming. I managed to get some work on a site that has since been bought by upwork, worked for $10-15 an hour. If not for that site I'd have never gotten that work, and be much worse off now.
There is no desire to take something away from a minority that the rest of us have. Just a desire to make them have a slightly lower exponential difference of money and power.