and to the delegation of responsibility, just as is required in any society.
you are making all that fuss about community, family, town, ... only to pass this authoritarian construct labeled "society" under the table. Massive "social groups" require central authority and organization, communities don't or in reverse the size of community is determined by the ability to decentralize decision and avoid hierarchy.
If we were to agree that between power and wealth there is little difference, for the past few centuries it is clear that both oppression and exploitation happens with an economic motive. In earlier human development it was a mixture but mainly very concentrated power accumulation that formed such relationships. So it is not "human" but "capitalist human" that is responsible, and capitalist human stops at no moral, ethical, or ecological barrier to accumulate profit.
Going further back the centralization of power (and therefore wealth) became a characteristic of societies that started agriculture, due to the stability of communities (geographically) and the activities of accumulating, processing, storing food. Hunting gathering and therefore seasonal nomadic communities as far as we have discovered didn't create centralization of either power or wealth. They all did the best they could daily and shared what the could bring back to camp.
Ecologically it is wild forest that can sustain the most life of all forms, not clearing and growing food (vegetable or meat), it is actually the definition of sustainable forest, the maximization of quantity of variety and quantity of life. Monoculture results to eventual death of the object and its ecosystem, and this should include a monoculture of human (urban areas).
But today, the only thing that can really change anything is the elimination of capitalism, not to alter consuming habits within capitalism.
No problem, it seemed kind of odd to be characterizing me this way out of the blue. Here is my elaboration to my position
https://lemmy.ml/comment/3153547
In a world without exploitation and oppression of humans by humans, animals too will be less exploited and abused.
Our difference in perception and empirical experience may be political in itself. Let's assume the vast majority politically belong on the left side of the spectrum but a significant portion may be morally on the general left but don't care much about specifics. In my mind those that really count as being political are anti-capitalists, reformers are just as procapitalist as any. Specifically, there are those that think that without ending capitalism, this aspect of consumption can change, and people can stop consuming animal products as a moral choice. Others think there is nothing you can change within capitalism that can make a significant change, markets and governments adjust to consumer habits, but in general markets shape consumer habits and not the other way around.
It takes 8 times more land to produce beef than it takes to produce vegetables with nearly all the nutrients on would get from beed. There was an estimate in late 20th century that there were 300 more cows on the planet than they were in late 19th century. Both those numbers if nearing truth are political (economo-political as per land use) and this makes the proposal (veganism) very political, but it never walks far enough as a moral choice.
If it wasn't for the exploitation part (of workers that produce animal products) which is ultimately producing wealth (profit), would beef be promoted? Dairy products? Poultry? It is the system of exploitation of humans that is the motive for this overproduction. In Marx's time agriculture wasn't yet intensified and tuned for maximum profit, so it was perceived as not industrial. 20th century development made agriculture a real industry with specific stages and specialties of the process and labor organization just if it was a Ford plant.
In any case, I think consumer-based movements are a-political and lead to nothing other than fashion that capitalism can further exploit and digest into profitable businesses. In the case of individual electric substitution of oil/gas consuming machines, the "green" alternative to power production, not only is a fad it is developing as a disaster of an ecological problem. It has promoted energy industry to take over public lands in alarming rates, even coastal and deep sea areas in international waters, and minining and recycling of toxic metals has gone up 7 fold in just a few decades, yet oil consumption and carbon oxide production is going up and up. This land use pressures the food production and reliance to industrial agriculture even more, leaving populations absolutely dependent on markets for survival.
Eat up on Cavendish bananas, they are about to become extinct. Take a picture while you do so, as proof to the next generation that there was such a thing as a banana. Unrelated to the subject? I don't think so, an industrial product challenging the ecosystem and losing.
First of all, in my long and wide experience, and I was a vegetarian for a while probably longer ago than you have been alive, not vegan, were never poor but "chose" to live a poor lifestyle. It was the lifestyle they were after not the moral/nutritional choice that was part of it. Was my experience biased, I'd let here people think of it and judge for themselves.
Your statements are full of what "x SHOULD do" ... and this stems from a "moral choice" about consumption, robed of all political content, as if a conservative pro-capitalist can do all other things but not use animal products (leather shoes and triple stack hamburgers included). This is problematic alone, politically, to separate this agenda from all else being wrong in the world, society, community (politic-,soci-,economic-, ally). Having said this, about 30-40% of anarchists I know are vegetarian/vegan, but usually quite about it till meal time (like when a grocery was raided to bring food back to an occupied university campus, 30-40% of them went straight to the produce and cereals part of the store, no salamis and ham blocks) ... ... I was told, it is good to keep an eye on them and what they do :) It is the a-political vegan who can be a clerk at a bank authorizing or rejecting student loan applications, unsure of who to vote for all the time, attending church/temple ceremonies, ... but wouldn't dare eat sushi, unless it is sea-weed and organic rice.
For being a critic of veganism as a lifestyle this makes me a "colonizer corporatist"?
Wow, what an "either you are with us or against us" polarization. I thought most of us here were the ones banned or moded in reddit for having a "non main-stream" attitude and being critical of it. Maybe I am wrong, but a colonialist and multinationalist-corporatist ... ?moi? ... most of people around me would crack up to hear such a characterization of me.
There is political content in vegetarianism/veganism that is often overseen by mainstream lifestyler veganists. The fact that it takes 4-8 times more land and soil nutrients to produce x amount of animal proteing and general nutrients than vegetables, THAT is political. Land use in general. Having an industrial monoculture of modified soy to mass produce soy products for NW European and N.Am. vegans, is detrimental to land and peoples' nutrition world wide. You tell this to most vegans and they DON'T care, it is better than eating deer meat caught by sharpened wooden sticks in the hills near you. Your "organic" soy smoothie may still be a GMO industrially produced product, boar's steak is not.
Argentina has gone bankrupt more times than any country in the world, with all the social and economic anxiety this has caused, for being the largest beef monoculture in the world, supplying NW EUrope and N.Am. with beef. Poor people in Argentina can't afford good beef, but their vegetables are pretty expensive because of this land use. Meanwhile kids can be staving in India with cows walking all around them.
The problem with veganism is it is just another -ism, derailed and integrated into the socio-political system as a lifestyle, robbed of political content and sterilized for mass consumption. Highly decorated Marxists teach at the same universities some of the world's most prominent economists and corporate consultants come from. It is amazing what amount of enemies this system can digest and incorporate into its toolset.
Battery: dead --> 2 senarios 1 Battery shows the right voltage but can't retain much charge, the voltage drops right away with a small load. 2 Battery can still have capacity to be charged but never reaches the required voltage.
In both cases, 2 separate reasons for battery problem, the battery is useless for what is needed.
If a battery is rated at 4amph and it is 99% discharged (dead), and it takes 4hr to fully charge then it is charging at 1amp/h, at 2amph it would charge in 2hrs. Why do you actually want to know the number of Amps passing through? It may further confuse you if you read your charger is rated at 2amph and is only charging at 1.7amps
2amps at 5V = 10W, and 4amph of 4.4V = 17..6Wh
acpi vattery battctl can all provide some relevant info, but basically it is simple formulas of volt x amp x time = power/Wh measurements. The software may actually confuse you more as things in charging, discharginj and rates are not very linear and understood outside physics and practical electronics.
For example, some software will tell you your battery is at 0, when in fact the battery may be 18% charged. A battery for example rated at 4.4V may actually show 4.6 when fully charged, When it begins to fall off given the load it is presented by the machine, the voltage may drop below a threshold the manufacturer considers safe, say 4.1V, and therefor the machine shuts down.
Take the battery out and measure it and it shows 4.38V but give it a load, say a small 4-5V light bulb (a resistance) and it drops to 4.05V. Plug the charger on and measure it, it shows 5.0V Weird? No, this is how it works, car, motorcycle, e-bike, laptop or vaper. A 12V battery for a car that unplugged shows 12V, it is nearly dead. A tiny moped battery may show 12.6V, if you try to crank a V8 engiine with it will drop to 0.4V and it would stilll be pretty well charged, for the moped. A 12.3V from a boat may crank that V8 car engine like when it was new. + You have a large tank of 200lit and at the bottom through a pipe you measure 5psi, you have a little tank with 4.1psi, you connect them and there is flow, till the flow stops from the large tank to the little one and both have 4.6psi, no flow. Exchange psi for V and this is what a charger does. Take 5 lit off of the large tank, it still shows 4.59V, take the same from the little tank and it drops to 3.9V/psi. A boat 100amph battery can charge many 4.4V batteries at little loss, and the transfer works just like tanks equalizing each other through pressure in the transfer pipe.
Practical:
If a battery shows as fully charging at very little time and lasts very little time is either on a machine with a short or the battery is dead. Fast charging is never as good as slow low rate charging, because: Fast charging tends to heat up the battery, when the battery gets hot it gives a false reading of higher voltage telling the charger it is full, when if you let it cool, it may take more charge. Trickle charging is best, charge, pause, recharge, pause, recharge, at lower rates keeping the battery cool.
One of the things that libertarians (a subgroup of anarchists) passed on to most anarchists is that decision process must be made by a group through consensus except for very special occasions of urgency, critical to make a decision, and a persistent insignificant minority unwilling to be convinced.
Both representation and the allowance of a majority to enforce their decisions to a minority are globally rejected by most anarchists. So to ask this is like asking what is the best way for muslims and jews to eat pork. Simple, no way!
An election process requires that all discussion has ended, the proposals to choose are clear, those who concentrate power and represent groups are also clear, and one group is going to force things on another group (or rest of the groups) by counting votes.
Having said all this and to keep track of history, the CNT (the most famous libertarian mass organization, a huge federation of non-hierarchical unions) was first in developing an election system as part of the decision making system. The earliest group using consensus for decision making were mormons' in the US west within the committee of elders.
Note: Libertarian as in pro-capitalist and the resulting libertarian socialist "tag" are products of N.American propaganda and anti-communism, spread by people who are either on a payroll or have not read a single book in their life, and spill over to the english speaking world of such people. For the rest of us using such terms the American way is a laughing matter. Emma Goldman and Errico Malatesta were libertarians, Howard Stern is an obnoxious rich capitalist freak, pop-star!
There is such a high demand of allowing scripts to run on your system in order to even view messages in discord that it is like a dummy terminal to an NSA supercomputer.
Yes but the purity of ideological orthodoxy points to the one true Skotsman.. I mean leninist.
:)
In order for MS and Apple/ios to block people from booting linux on "their" machines, they came up with the secure-boot scheme. Commercial puppets and traitors of open free software rushed to be part of the scheme so all the rest of the linux distributions couldn't boot but their systems could.
Now we are accused of being elitists and not alarm new users of true garbage distributions?
If anyone is stuck trying to disable secure-boot and couldn't it is their own damn fault for buying garbage machines. Gigabyte (not Gigabit) has created some monstrosities of bios software that look like a video game and it is hard to count in how many places you have to disable the crap in order to boot open and free linux.