Thats some premium triple-distilled trolling right there, congrats

Edit : I want going to ask, because I didn't want to ruin the magic but I can't help myself.

How do you pack it all in like that?

so concise, its almost a haiku.

hmm, a somewhat narrow definition, but in that case, sure.

Less harm is better than more harm. It’s also impossible to walk around without ever stepping on insects, but just because some harm is inevitable that doesn’t mean I should walk around and slaughter everything that I can find.

Agreed, it then becomes a decision about the cost/benefit ratio of how you spend your time/energy trying to reduce harm.

That doesn’t mean that veganism is ‘perfect’ in all aspects. Who knows - maybe in the future we’ll find ways to produce healthy and delicious food straight out of air and electricity without any involvement of living organisms and thereby further reduce harm. But for the moment doing what we can would be a huge step forward.

Veganism might not be the maximally effective activity from an ROI point of view.

I personally see it as a "doing what we can live with" as opposed to "doing what we can", the difference being the impact personal decisions have on the choice of harm reduction activities.

It's borderline pedantry on the face of it, but the distinction is important for me.

ah, that's my bad for not properly phrasing my question.

Like how, "bacon = not vegan" and "cheese = not vegan" and "honey=controversy, for some reason".

Is there some sort of ruling passed down from the vegan starchamber that says "animal fertiliser grown plants = not vegan" or is it not a common enough consideration to have an agreed upon consensus?

Hmm, i know this is probably sarcasm.

Real question though, does animal based fertiliser have an actual impact on vegan choices ?

I hadn't even considered it until just now.

yeah, like most of these patents, it seemed to be more about the chilling effects than the actual enforcement.

There were a few variations in games over the years.

don't mac/ios runners require an actual mac/ios device ?

I don't do apple stuff so i'm not sure.

Depends on what issue they are trying to fix.

Chromium is a problem but it doesn't seem like that's what they are trying to address here.

I was talking about the technical monopoly wrt to rendering engines and web standards, Chromium is a problem but it doesn't seem like that's what they are trying to address here.

From that article it seems like they might be trying to separate chrome in hopes that that will enable the new owners to "decouple" it from google search.

If that's the case it's a dumb move if it's the only move they make, all that would happen is google would just build the new owners a scrooge mcduck swimming pool to make google the default search. Same thing they do with firefox.

It even says that in the article.

It would be interesting to see how they'd deal with the decoupling of the built in google proprietary panopticon bullshit.

They'd struggle to shift that over to chromium without upsetting...well..everyone.

D-O

Ah, so it's a mutual block but initiated from one side.

Thanks.

Are you suggesting that generation-specific vernacular is a sign of poor education?

TL;DR;

The rules might be considered a list of "immoral things" but in my experience it was treated more as a list of "distracting things", YMMV.

Then why is it on the list of horrible things?

You mean the list specifically titled "precepts" ?

It does indicate that it's a list based on what is considered "moral conduct" so i suppose it could be considered a list of "Immoral" things.

I personally read it as "Rules and Guidelines to prevent distraction during the process".

While i don't personally prescribe to that kind of moral absolutism i was willing to adhere to the guidelines for a short period to experience the process in it's intended form.

Attendance isn't mandatory so people will have to make that call for themselves if they are considering going.

The list doesn’t mention communication, and in fact specifically prohibits lying. That suggests that speacking truly is permitted,

The section titled "Noble Silence" 4 paragraphs down, specifically goes in to the details of the non-communication i was referencing.

and this is a list of bad things

Not sure what you mean here, but hopefully i've covered it above.

That’s a list someone makes when they don’t approve of sex (or intoxicants, but that’s another conversation).

Very possibly and i'd guess it comes from the Buddhist origins.

I will state that my experience is that it wasn't preachy at all, the video recordings do reference some Buddhist stories/teachings but only really to use them as examples for teaching the meditation process.

Given that you aren't supposed to be communicating in general there is very little leeway in which preaching could occur.