I'm sorry, I've been vegetarian (mostly vegan, no eggs or milk) for over 10 years, and I crave meat. A juicy burger. Spicy chicken wings. Actually those are mainly it.
I am so thankful of advances that let me eat something my brain enjoys. I get the best of both worlds - no animal harmed in the process.
Why do vegs have to neg on other vegs for what they eat? I hate that. To each their own. I encourage everyone to be vegetarian to support animal rights, but I also would never tell them that their cravings aren't real or how to go about doing it.
> Why do vegs have to neg on other vegs for what they eat?
It's not a "neg", it's my opinion. I don't think you need to crave meat, you are just lacking the proper cuisine that would satisfy you completely. Try Gobi 65 and you'll never crave "spicy chicken wings" again. I feel like people go veggie by just removing meat from a cuisine that is centred around it. Imagine British food without meat: nothing and mash, nothing and chips, roast nothing... mmm... delicious. You need to completely change. There's nothing "missing" from a vegetarian Indian meal.
What about people who have eaten extensive quantities (and variations) of vegetarian Indian food but still crave meat? It's not a matter of exposure, it's also a matter of taste.
I don't agree with your conclusion, but just wanted to say the segment on "roast nothing" was hilarious and absolutely true. Quite right that many cuisines depend on meat to be worth eating. I'm just happy that the food I eat no longer consumes animal lives; the mechanism to do that is a triviality compared.
In commercial operations they are also raising chickens much faster - maybe only 6 weeks for a meat chicken, so you only need half as many at any one time
This is why I no longer do atomic commits. I've just never had it be a benefit to walk through and guarantee that each commits tests and builds successfully. I so rarely back out changes that when I do, I test then that everything is working (and let's be honest, I back out usually at the PR level, not the commit).
The other benefit of this is the git bisect workflow. If you can’t build your intermediate commits then you likely can’t easily identify whether a bug was present on that commit (for many types of bug), and you therefore can’t identify the commit that introduced the bug.
I often wonder what the point of using git at all is at this point. I suppose it's just your interface to the source repo, but a massively overly capable one. If you don't care about atomic commits then you might as well just do `git commit -a --amend --no-edit` periodically (you could even do it on every save). Then the reflog is your "undo" but you don't pollute the shared repo with shit commits.
If you want atomic commits, you need to set up your CI/CD to ensure that each intermediate commit builds and passes tests.
Most pull requests should probably be squashed to appear as a single commit in the final history. But you should have the option of leaving history intact, when you want that, and then your CI/CD should run the checks as above.
You don't need squash here, though. If your CI/CD ensures that merge commits (PRs) are atomic/build and pass tests, you can `git bisect --first-parent` to just bisect your merge commits/integration points/pull requests, without tossing the other history from the git DAG.
I would say most workplaces have settled similarly.
Sit in draft until you're ready to use the CI - which you verified locally or run manually in draft, before convert to reviewable - then review, maybe tweak, merge.
Atomic commits would endanger me losing unfinished work or eventual dead-ends with no record. This seems inefficient.
Yes, it should be the default, but ideally you have the option of preserving history (for PRs where that makes sense) and then your CI/CD should also check that the individual commits build and pass tests.
In general, your CI/CD should make sure that each commit that appears in the 'public' history of main builds and passes tests.
I'm as skeptical as anyone, but have you ever heard of companies like Oracle, which got rich off a database or Snowflake (current market cap 65B)? Companies pay oodles of money for that capabilities.
I follow our local market very closely because we're considering moving and have never seen this. I've even seen houses delisted and relisted, and the full pricing history remains on Zillow. Can you share an example?
Although both listings display full price history, there’s a key difference in how the information is presented. For the Mellwood Avenue example, a “Price cut: $16K (8/1)” notice appears directly above the listed price, making it immediately visible to users. In contrast, the East Washington listing does not show any price reduction at the top. Instead, users must scroll down to the Price History section to find that detail, easy enough to do but it is an attempt by realtors to obscure the market.
Also when the listing is removed and added, it resets the Days on Market count. This can obscure how long the property has truly been listed, which is a critical indicator of whether the current price is sustainable or if the buyer should negotiate down.
I disagree, YMCA lessons are not accessible. First off, you don't know what level your child is, and I remember being stressed trying to read our Ys website to understand what the levels meant. This is important because 2, the classes fill very quickly. You have to know what you want and sign up as soon as they're available. And finally, the classes are at very specific times, which certainly do not work for all working parents schedules. For example, it will just be tue or Thur at 5:45pm. If you can't make that you are SOL.
Put them at the lowest level if you don’t know. That’s easy.
As far as schedule goes, who’s taking care of the kid? At age 3 or 4 when you do this, it’s not like they are in school so some adult has to be around at 5:45pm.
Look, I'm telling you this from my perspective as someone who tried to do the exact thing you're saying. If those things stressed me out as an adult who knows about swimming, and crucially prevented me from signing up my kids for swimming lessons at the Y, then it is going to be even more true for people who are low income and not knowledgeable. These are real barriers. Acting like they're not is just putting our collective head in the sand and letting the problem perpetuate.
Your barrier sounds like some other anxiety issue unrelated to economic status.
You know how important swimming lessons are and yet just gave up and skipped it entirely? Or are you actually privileged and had other swimming lesson options for your kid and just didn’t want to bother with the affordable system’s constraints?
Lots of lower middle class/poor including me when I was growing up went to this without a problem. 25 cent public bus ride with mom was an adventure
reply