Both health and ethics reasons. Healthwise coconut oil has even higher saturated fat levels than palm oil does, but both are quite high.
Ethics wise coconut is similarly not sustainable, at least not in terms of being yet another monoculture. I would say it’s arguably not vegan because of the harm that comes to animals and their habitats because of the coconut industry.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/by-the-way-doctor-is-palm-oil-good-for-you
Yup, to be honest I’m surprised that Butler’s has zero direct competition. To the best of my knowledge there is no other whole-bean single-ingrediant meat substitute, all of the other closest competitors are tvp-based.
That’s where the soy curls come in. TVP would be a nice addition, but I lean more in favor of a whole-foods approach. TVP = chemically stripped soy, mostly protein. Soy curls are the whole beans boiled and reformed into a surprizingly incredible and versatile meat alternative.
As a vegan it might be strange and interesting to try to replicate the “authentic” Texas Red recipes. No beans, no tomato. The basic recipe would be an almost purely pepper-based stock, probably use both Beyond Ground and diced Beyond Steak. If I recall, the most original known chili recipe called for a substantial amount of added pig fat. I’m not big on high-fat foods in the first place, so to me it’s dubious whether to even include an alternative. But if I did, the most comparable choice would be coconut oil, but I avoid coconut/palm oil to the best of my ability, so probably a bit of added avocado oil would work best, though it’s worth noting that Beyond products are already high in one or the other of these (avocado Beyond is best). Spices don’t need to change.
But then, is that really superior chili? Sorry but midwestern bean and tomato/pepper extravaganza chili is way better, and will continue to be my main. But with some added crumbled soy curls? Gonna have to try that soon.
Seeing the state if discourse in the B4 movement threads makes it so obvious that the present community on lemmy is wildly sexist and misogynistic. Like how egotistical and selfish do you have to be to see a movement that is a rational response to women having their bodily autonomy taken away from them in real time, and interpret that situation in a way where you perceive it as a threat to your personal chances of getting laid?
You could be seeing this movement and choosing to recognize that it is coming from a place of justified fear, anger, and suffering of women all over the country, and decide, “This situation is wrong, we need to fight this.” It’s not hard. Just be an ally.
I lean in favor of rebirth, but via naturalistic processes rather than projections of our own moral wants. I don’t need a supernatural explanation to recognize that whatever is most irreducibly “me” was born at least once. Why would I assume it would only be once?
If we follow from that premise, we can also chart a kind of probabilistic, umm, not karma but something not far off: If we’re reborn after death, how do we determine what kind of life our next one is going to be? Pretty obvious actually, just look at what kind of life everyone has already. If, for example, only 1% of humans have an especially good life, it looks like there’s a a really slim chance any one of us is going to be the one who gets to have that kind of life.
By contrast, 99% of humans are living in increasingly bad conditions, lower wages, higher prices and virtually every economic card stacked against us, as well as *gestures broadly*. It’s remarkably more likely that anyone would be reborn as a 99 percenter.
But why should we assume that we would only ever be reborn as a human? The total human population right now is 8.2 billion. There are estimated to be about 20 quadrillion ants in the world. And more than 44 billion animals have been bred into existence and slaughtered for food this year alone. Are you more likely to be reborn a human, an ant, or someone else’s property?
There’s a consequence here if rebirth is the law of the land. It would mean that death is not an escape after all. The only way to give yourself your best chance of a better next life would be to put in effort to make the world better for everyone. There is no way out, only through.
It would be more accurate to say it’s like requiring you to make the source code for ZSNES available if you were distributing copies of ZSNES.
What, where do you get that? Any publicly conveyed copies of gpl-licensed software must make their source code available, and be published under the same license. This is true regardless of modifications.
Came in to say this. Linux on ARM is getting so close to daily driver ready.
I know it would have the same issues as the Unreal Engine - all the training, engine building, and systems integration it’d take to get a game released, but I think it’d be cool if Bethesda were to make an Elder Scrolls game on their ID Tech engine. That codebase is pretty celebrated.
Would you care to elaborate on what you feel like when you try living on plants? What do you tend to eat? How long does it take before you start feeling like shit?
Judging by your last comment about it “not hitting the same” my initial thought is that the issue might not even be nutritional, possibly more psychological/subjective.
Mint is literally a slightly modified Ubuntu.
Or just use flatpak or Appimage.
Is the Snap backend available and open-source? If not, then it’s antithetical to software freedom because Canonical is trying to close their users into a walled garden in the ways that Apple and Google are with their app stores.
There are plenty of software packaging systems that work just as well or better than Snap, and promote software freedom (Flatpak, Appimage, or even just traditional package managers). By using and promoting Snap over these, you are working against the growth of digital rights.
It’s impossible to have a fully free system?
https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html
But more to your point, it’s a false dichotomy. Even before the latest changes to the Debian install media, for years it was maybe unintuitive but still easy enough to just choose the “nonfree” install iso. That one would automatically include all the proprietary bits that are necessary for a fully functional Linux system.
But now those nonfree parts are in the Debian install by default, so there really is just nothing that you get from Ubuntu that can’t just as easily work in Debian - especially since everyone is moving toward flatpaks, and appimages anyway.
This.
But you’re also promoting Ubuntu’s continued use, when Snaps are just one example of Canonical being antithetical to free software values. Mint is all the benefits of Ubuntu without that garbage, so why not that?
Snap should be reason enough that everyone should abandon Ubuntu, especially when Mint is right there. The last thing we need is to make Linux more like Android+Google Play.
I don’t blame you for not knowing any better, there’s a lot of persistent myths and outright lies about veganism, plant-based lifestyles, and nutrition. But you are spreading misinformation again, about protein. Our society’s obsession with protein has little to do with science, and a lot to do with marketing. In the first place the vast majority of people do not need nearly as much protein as they think they do. It’s so easy to get adequate protein even on a plant-based diet, that as long as you’re at least mostly eating real food and getting enough calories, you are getting enough protein without even having to worry about it.
Even the whole “plants don’t have complete proteins” is a myth. Just about all plants have all essential amino acids. What the protein combining myth points to is that the amino acid ratios in plants are a little bit different than the ratios in our muscle tissues, with some plants being low in a key amino, and other plants being high in that amino but also low in another. Getting what we need is as easy as being sure to eat a variety of plants. A person does not even need to make sure they’re eating rice and beans in the same meal - they could do just as well by either eating a larger helping of one or the other, and/or eating one and then the other at another time or day.
The big takeaway here is to consider that maybe your perspective on plant-based lifestyles is being informed in the same way as if someone who only ever ran Windows started trying to tell you what it’s like to use Linux. Maybe it’s worth checking out the perspectives of people who actually have experience with the thing and know what they’re talking about.
I understand that everyone has different circumstances that make a plant-based transition easier or harder, or maybe even entirely unfeasible, and that’s okay. We’re okay as long as we’re doing what we can with what we have.
On the other hand consider trying to shift your perspective on it. I commented in another thread about the remarkable benefits of going plant-based for my depression, and the thing to understand here is that going plant-based can have near-miraculous benefits for a wide range of things like that. So consider the possibility that a lot of what might be making it hard to switch is that the consumption of animal products is keeping everyone in suppressed, unmotivated, lethargic, or even outright depressed states of mind.
It’s a bit of a chicken and egg problem, but instead of seeing a plant-based transition as a burden, consider that working through the challenges might be just the medicine that a person needs to reach a state of mind where, say, things like home cooking begin to feel possible again.
Again I want to be clear - I know there are circumstances where it’s not realistically possible for a person to go fully vegan, and not realistically possible for a person to do their own cooking. We should be seeking ways to fix that on a societal level. However what I’m telling you is that what everyone thinks is possible is being perceived through the lens of lifestyles that are making everything that much harder - working through that tough transition to being fully plant-based expands the range of what we think is possible. Life becomes significantly more doable on plants.
Oh, and for both health and ethics there is no meaningful difference between which particular animals you choose to eat. For example you’re still progressing heart disease regardless of whether you’re consuming 29 grams of saturated fat, or “only” 23 grams. And a chicken is every bit as capable of contemplating their own suffering as a cow is.
Middle Earth itself has been described as the “ring” that Morgoth poured his own power into. Since a river is an extension of Middle Earth, it means Morgoth really was the true Lord of the Rings.