usernamesAreTricky

@usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

usernamesAreTricky,

Not quite like that but there is a thing called live patching that some distros offer. It’s mainly to used fix security issues rather than a typical update

Ubuntu livepatching and kpatch are some different tools out there for that if you want to look into it

usernamesAreTricky,

Click and hold on the link and you’ll get those options on Jebra if it’s in a comment (unfortunately doesn’t seem to work on post links usually)

usernamesAreTricky,

Their comment is missing the point. It essentially boils down to “the current infrastructure is bad” which is entirely what people advocating for less car centric design have been saying for a long time, but instead of using that as a reason to advocate for better they’re using it as a reason not to do anything

usernamesAreTricky, (edited )

That’s changing the subject again. I was saying the commentor was effectively advocating for doing nothing because current infrastructure is poor.

It’s worth noting that car centric infrastructure is extremely expensive as well and requires constant upkeep. Bike infrastructure can often be made incrementally by simplying just requiring new/updated road to have bike lanes for instance

That is part of how the Netherlands got really good bike infrastructure and how a number of cities are getting better at it

EDIT: I should also mention that the car centric deisgn of many suburbs in particular is a large contributer to why they don’t have much money to begin with. The upkeep costs start to pile up and make the regions net negative for the local government’s income

The more a place is car centric, the higher these costs for upkeep will be (more traffic causing more damage in more places)

usernamesAreTricky, (edited )

For the first part, yes that will vary place to place. That’s why I said “often”, but it’s a viable method in quite a large number of locations. Especially in those which are currently some of the worst places for walkabilty/biking/public transit at the moment. Places with narrow streets are generally speaking more walkable to begin with. There are still other ways to make improvements anyhow

For the second, I am also talking about the quantity of roads (the more places part). More car centric places are going to have more roads to maintain in general.

But it’s still worth mentioning that car centric design can still can lead to trucks being used in places where there are viable transportation methods like trains (this applies more so for longer distances than just delivery to houses but a number of cities do have highways that run through them).

usernamesAreTricky,

It’s worth noting that in countries like US, it’s really only things like beyond burgers and impossible meat that cost more. It doesn’t require eating those for a plant-based diet nor are people typically eating those every meal, is why plant-based diets generally have lower costs

Compared to meat eaters, results show that “true” vegetarians do indeed report lower food expenditures

www.sciencedirect.com/…/S0921800915301488?via%3Di…

It found that in high-income countries:

• Vegan diets were the most affordable and reduced food costs by up to one third.

• Vegetarian diets were a close second.

• Flexitarian diets with low amounts of meat and dairy reduced costs by 14%.

• By contrast, pescatarian diets increased costs by up to 2%.

ox.ac.uk/…/2021-11-11-sustainable-eating-cheaper-…

usernamesAreTricky,

Americans earning less than $30,000 annually are more likely to identify as vegetarian. Nine percent of this group say they are vegetarian, a higher percentage than is true of Americans in the two higher-income groups. Differences in levels of veganism among these three groups are not statistically significant.

Gallop poll

usernamesAreTricky,

Many of those types of crops used for feed aren’t really aligned all that well. Corn for instance isn’t going used so heavily in a plant-based diet as it is subsidized (corn is the most subsidized crop in the US). There is also separate food-grade and feed-grade soybeans. 90% of US soy production is going to feed (and not to mention a good portion of the other 10% is going to soybean oil which is not super helpful for a plant-based meat)

90% of U.S. soybeans produced are used as a high-quality protein source for animal feed

soygrowers.com/…/animal-ag/

Further, they are still getting massive amounts of direct subsidies

The Department of Agriculture has spent almost $50 billion in subsidies for livestock operators since 1995, according to an EWG analysis.

By contrast, since 2018 the USDA has spent less than $30 million to support plant-based and other alternative proteins that may produce fewer greenhouse gases and may require less land than livestock.

ewg.org/…/usda-livestock-subsidies-near-50-billio…

Also worth mentioning that beans are not particularly highly subsidized unless you are counting soybeans mentioned earlier.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • localhost
  • All magazines
  • Loading…
    Loading the web debug toolbar…
    Attempt #