You fail to realize that this is the most meaningful action that the UN General Assembly can take against the US on this matter. The UNGA can be very effective in facilitating international cooperation and settling minor disputes but really has no tools in its arsenal to meaningfully effect action to stop something like this.

I can hopefully demonstrate this by asking you what lever(s) the UN can pull to actually directly address this. Before you say “send aid!”, they are. And before you point to something like its past military intervention in Korea, be fully aware that that’s not at all applicable here: the US has a permanent seat on the Security Council and therefore absolute veto power; the only reason the UN was able to intervene in Korea was because the USSR didn’t use their Security Council veto; and the US is not capable of being directly matched militarily by any nation on Earth, let alone in their home waters. And before you say “sanctions”, well I’ll give you one guess what organ of the UN controls sanctions.

It’s still worth voting to show the basically unanimous agreement. 187–2–1 (with one of the ‘Against’ being the US itself) is a clear expression of overwhelming disapproval – to an extent that even I, a US citizen who supports lifting the restrictions, didn’t know how pervasive and long-lasting it’s been until seeing this. It forecloses on any sort of bullshit argument that “that was then, this is now” or that it wasn’t like that for some period of time or whatever. And it showcases the complete abdsurdity that no country on Earth except the US itself and what’s effectively a US protectorate actually thinks there’s any merit to this policy.

For what it’s worth, it’s actively strengthened my already strong resolve that this policy is insane.

(Linus is, incidentally, not a billionaire; he has a net worth of about $150 million.)

No evidence this is anyone in the RustDesk team + shitty/possibly LLM-generated response leads me to believe this is a troll.

No evidence this is anyone in the RustDesk team + shitty/possibly LLM-generated response leads me to believe this is a troll.

Everyone get out your tiny violins.

Oh yeah, to be clear, no disrespect to people who use trucks routinely for their intended purpose.

Up to you if you want to adopt this, but I’ve taken to calling those tiny, useless afterthoughts tacked onto modern trucks “vestigial beds”.

A truck is a tool

Nah, that’s usually the person driving it.

We all know that CIA prison escape segment was harder than any of the bosses, though.

I’m sorry, I’ve read the paper, seen absolutely nothing wrong with it (and seemingly neither have other experts in the field, as I’ve yet to see any peer-reviewed rebuttal of its findings), and definitely trust an expert on food sustainability from Oxford and an agroecology expert from Agroscope as well as their publicly available and well-reasoned findings compared to some rando on the Internet who just whines with zero elaboration that LCAs are “abused” and can’t seem to figure out that they could’ve said all this in one comment instead of four.

I bet Poore and Nemecek would’ve figured out how to use the “edit” button. (And yes, I did link to the correct article, as the only attempt I could find to debunk this paper was from, again, a disinformation outlet whose lies are explored in that AFP article.)

Okay, link to the academic paper refuting it. Or is your source just a shitty, Z-tier disinformation outlet called “Farmers Against Misinformation”? “your claim about the environment may be true” 💀 Don’t muddy the waters here: it is true. This was the only error noted in the paper, and the erratum correcting it still comports with the authors’ original findings that dairy is abysmal for the environment when compared with the alternatives.

Is your entire purpose on Lemmy to spread anti-vegan, pro-animal agriculture disinformation?

Trump and co. trying so, so desperately to have their own braindead, low-rent version of the Reichstag burning that someone like MtG just insists that the Democrats created Helene.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

Point of clarification: the article was semi-protected, and “locked” is an oversimplistic description of it (understandable, since a lot of people who report on Wikipedia don’t really understand how it works). Technically there’s a way to lock a page such that only the Wikimedia Foundation staff can edit it, but realistically, full protection (i.e. only administrators and those above them can edit it) is probably the closest thing to a proper “lock” that ever gets used.

Semi-protection (the grey lock with a little person in it) just means that you need to be autoconfirmed (technically confirmed works too, but that system is basically disused). If you’re autoconfirmed, that means you’ve made at least 10 edits on Wikipedia and your account is at least 4 days old – an extremely low bar to clear that largely keeps out spam from IP addresses and sockpuppet accounts. The semi-protection on this article is set to expire in three days.

There’s also extended protection (the blue lock with an ‘E’ on it) that you’ll generally see on highly contentious topics such as ultra-high-profile political figures, enormously contentious disputes between nations (Russia–Ukraine, Israel–Palestine, and India–Pakistan, to name a few), and then some miscellaneous ones like ‘Atlantic Records’ and ‘Whopper’ (the latter was because Burger King launched an ad which is designed to trigger your Android device to read out the first part of the Wikipedia article, making it red meat for vandals). This requires an account to have at least 500 edits and be at least 30 days old.

From Wikishittia, the free enshittepedia

Every once in a while, a comment like this comes along and makes me wish Lemmy had awards.

This exactly. I would say one of the main reasons a lot of people don’t currently drink plant milk is that per unit volume, it tends to be more expensive. This is seemingly starting to even out as the plant milk industry expands, but the most dirt-cheap dairy milk and the most dirty-cheap plant milk are still nowhere near each other on price. I’m willing to bet that if all subsidies were taken away altogether, plant milk would be cheaper, and moreover, if it were flipped in such a way that existing dairy subsidies went to plant milk, it would be game over for dairy milk. Plant milk prices would be through the floor, and dairy milk would be seen as a luxury product. There are a ton of good reasons for this:

• Dairy milk is far worse for the environment than every kind of plant milk by every conceivable metric.
• The dairy industry is one of the most absurdly cruel institutions in the world. (NSFL)
• Plant milk is generally better for you than dairy milk. The downsides to plant milk health-wise are lack of protein (this is only 8g per serving, though, out of the 0.8g/kg/day that you need, and some plant milks are beginning to add protein) and the fortification with D2 instead of fortification with D3. It makes up for this however by generally having more calcium and Vitamin D, the potential to not have any sugar (compare ~8g of the sugar lactose), mono- and polyunsaturated fats without saturated fat and LDL cholesterol, and substantially fewer calories.
• Plant milk takes months to go bad, whereas dairy milk that’s not ultrapasteurized (and therefore dramatically more expensive) takes maybe a couple weeks at most from the date of purchase.
• Plant milk has an enormous amount of variety compared to dairy milk – there are so many types that enumerating them becomes exhausting, and for the most part (not you, rice milk) they’re all good. You can get essentially whatever you want, compared to dairy milk, where you’re basically stuck with that (subjective) weird, slightly sour aftertaste.

Climate change is a bitch, huh, Republicans who’ve spent thirty years denying it? (My heart goes out to all the people in the southeast who actually didn’t spend decades denying its existence and hampering efforts to slow it.)

At least for right now it’s just a test on a 100-meter length of track, but this reeks of a startup trying to innovate its way out of NIMBYs not wanting to put solar panels where they actually belong without considering why nobody has put solar panels in the middle of a railroad track before (cough rocks, dust, wildlife, vibration, and vandalism cough).

PV Magazine is neat for reading about potential new innovations, but one thing I really dislike about it is that it basically just regurgitates what solar companies say about themselves in press releases in a way that’s completely uncritical. For instance:

Similarly, removal and installation tests will be carried out to demonstrate that the Sunways pilot installation is perfectly adapted to the constraints related to maintenance work and the operation of the line.

Depending on what you have going on down there, you’ll either want to tuck your parts into your socks or your socks into your parts.