There are a lot of people and organizations that are just slow to move and don’t really know where to go.

Don’t get them, even if she goes down, the number 2 of this party is much younger so he wasn’t involved in this and he could take her place easily. In my opinion he’s more dangerous, he doesn’t have the stain of the Le Pen name, he’s 29 and he has avoided stupid political mistakes/crimes so far as far as I know. He’s part of the party’s new “impeccable” generation created by Marine Le Pen learning from her father’s mistakes (such as being openly racist in the media).

You have to pick the right petting options to unlock the boon.

You have to bury your face in the fur to restore stamina.

Probably the two IT nerds who manage the Vatican systems.

I’m worried a failing economy could actually motivate them to get into war to divert the people’s attention and stay in power, I think it’s a common political tactic.

Does it also pull support for old Linux distributions?

To justify the investment, it would need to become mainstream.

I think they also disagree on the choice of axioms, like are they too much or not enough and are they truly independent? See the criticism part of the article.

Depends on the kind of information, but I guess you mean politically sensitive? Then I would say from someone they personally trust, and if the information is contradicting their believes, then it should presented as a different point of view that doesn’t directly try to contradict theirs, rather than the “truth”, to prevent emotional rejection. Give them the bits of information while trying to not trigger blockers and let them make the connections by themselves.

My experience is mostly discussing about my rational skepticism views with religious/superstitious people without creating personal conflicts.

When you are not an expert of the domain, it is easy to get mislead by arguments such as the one you gave, maybe you’re correct, maybe you’re misleading, I don’t have the knowledge to verify by myself. That’s why I need to rely on reputable source, and it’s hard to do more reputable than a meta-analysis in Science. If you are correct, the rebuttal will eventually be published in a peer reviewed journal, I’ll will be happy to read the conclusions then.

I am skeptical that researchers and reviewers of Science wouldn’t have accounted for that. I made some research about rebuttal to this study, so far the only ones I have found are from farmer related or anti-vegan communities, which are likely more biased than a scientific journal. I will need at least a contradictory peer reviewed article to convince me this meta analysis is incorrect.

I don’t have the current knowledge nor the time to reach the level of researchers in the domain to make my own meta analysis. Where can I read a reputable rebuttal to this meta analysis?

Do you have a source more reputable than the Science journal and the Oxford university?

Since you’ve been using Linux for a while, why not buy hardware that you know are more compatible like AMD GPUs? Do you need the latest top range GPUs for your activities?

Yes, since many of them work out-of-the-box today. My PreSonus sound card worked fine when I made my setup four years ago.

It depends on your use case, do you have non-common needs like specialized software that may not work out of the box?

The majority of the plants humans grow through crop-based agriculture are fed to non-human animals.

It’s not that clear, it depends on the country. See the part about share of cereals dedicated to animal feed in this link, it’s about 15% in the USA and the rest of the feed is byproducts of crops used for human reasons. https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets

This is also covered by the study and the article I shared above. It would require using more lands for crops that feed people, but that’s ridiculously small compared to the land that would be regained from stopping animal agriculture, which is 75%. Just removing cows would do the vast majority of that.

Crops for feed can be regained and if most pasture land is inappropriate for crops, some are, so we would gain from freeing those too. Furthermore, this land can be given back to biodiversity, which will also benefit us in the long term, if just protecting biodiversity for the sake of it is not a good argument for you.

Again, I am not vegan, I mostly advocate for reducing, not forbidding, consumption proportionally to ecological impact. If some people for medical reason require meat, I’m completely fine with it, this would likely be a small percentage of the current consumption.

Omnivore, not obligate carnivore except for a few exceptions maybe, so we could use a low meat diet or a fully plant based diet fine.

They are also fed grains and soy in varying percentage depending on regions and countries.
There is also still the use of land, energy, fresh water and the methane emissions typical of cows.

This is another break down of the above-mentioned study: https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets

You can see that indeed, the USA does better than other countries on not dedicating crops to animal feed, but it is still about 14%, while the world average is around 40%. Isn’t that a lot that could be earned back?