It is theft though: they are taking something that would otherwise belong to someone else (the wealth difference that would have been accumulated), and they’re keeping it for themselves. That fits the definition of theft. The method may be more indirect, but the end result is the same. Inventing euphemistic terms to describe something that can be described with a simple existing word, will only end up muddying the waters in my experience.
It’s not going away any time soon. There’s currently 2 to 3 times as many humans as what would be long term sustainable with the way that we live. That means that it’s going to be a problem for at least many decades, but more likely a few centuries. It’s definitely not yesteryears problem. And sustainability should always remain a concern, in everything that we do. Many countries (not the USA obviously) are already taking steps to be more sustainable, but it’s baby steps compared to what is needed.
To sustain the current amount of humans, we are using unsustainable methods. That makes us unsustainable as well.
Some estimates from Wikipedia: “Climate change, excess nutrient loading (particularly nitrogen and phosphorus), increased ocean acidity, rapid biodiversity loss, and other global trends suggest humanity is causing global ecological degradation and threatening ecosystem services that human societies depend on.[9][10][11] Because these environmental impacts are all directly related to human numbers, recent estimates of a sustainable human population often suggest substantially lower figures, between 2 and 4 billion.[12][13][14] Paul R. Ehrlich stated in 2018 that the optimum population is between 1.5 and 2 billion.[15] Geographer Chris Tucker estimates that 3 billion is a sustainable number, provided human societies rapidly deploy less harmful technologies and best management practices.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_population
Would the outcome have been the same without people in the media repeatedly bringing this to everyone’s attention? Probably not, because there would have been no public pressure against it, while the shadow groups that want this would have still been lobbying the politicians.
Something bad is going to happen.
Some people advocate to stop that bad thing.
Even more people are holding their clutches that the bad thing might happen.
Because of public pressure, action is undertaken to prevent the bad thing from happening.
Thanks to those efforts, the bad thing is successfully averted.
Some random person: that bad thing was never going to happen, look at all those gullible people who were panicking over nothing, we could have just done nothing and the outcome would have been the same.
Also known as the “preparedness paradox”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preparedness_paradox
I found a moment to look up that edible part that you found: "For the purposes of this part, ‘meat’ means edible parts of the animals referred to in points 1.2 to 1.8 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004, " So no, they do not define meat as the edible parts of the animals, they define meat as the edible parts of the animals referred to in points 1.2 to 1.8 of Annex I etc. You can’t just ignore parts of a definition.
1.2 to 1.8 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 is:
“Meat” means edible parts of the animals referred to in points 1.2 to 1.8, including blood.
1.2. “Domestic ungulates” means domestic bovine (including Bubalus and Bison species), porcine, ovine and caprine animals, and domestic solipeds.
1.3. “Poultry” means farmed birds, including birds that are not considered as domestic but which are farmed as domestic animals, with the exception of ratites.
1.4. “Lagomorphs” means rabbits, hares and rodents.
1.5. “Wild game” means:
—
wild ungulates and lagomorphs, as well as other land mammals that are hunted for human consumption and are considered to be wild game under the applicable law in the Member State concerned, including mammals living in enclosed territory under conditions of freedom similar to those of wild game; and
—
wild birds that are hunted for human consumption.
1.6. “Fanned game” means farmed ratites and farmed land mammals other than those referred to in point 1.2.
1.7. “Small wild game” means wild game birds and lagomorphs living freely in the wild.
1.8. “Large wild game” means wild land mammals living freely in the wild that do not fall within the definition of small wild game.
Afaik fish is not considered meat, definitely not in colloquial language. With a quick search I found another EU article which mentions meat and fish, and they list meat and fishery products as being different things: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/hygiene-rules-for-food-of-animal-origin.html
What that article includes under meat: “Meat, including domestic ungulates (bovine, porcine, ovine and caprine species); poultry and lagomorphs (farmed birds, rabbits, hares and rodents); farmed and wild game; minced meat, meat preparations and mechanically separated/recovered meat; and meat products.”
From the eu Parliament document: *3. ‘Meat products’ means processed products resulting from the processing of meat or from the further processing of such processed products, so that the cut surface shows that the product no longer has the characteristics of fresh meat. Names that fall under Article 17 of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 that are currently used for meat products and meat preparations shall be reserved exclusively for products containing meat.
These names include, for example:
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-10-2025-0161_EN.html Use ctrl+f “burger” to find it in the text.
This not only affects vegetarian food, but also salmon steak for example. It’s a populist political move that doesn’t seem to be backed up by any linguistic science, as if mystery sausages haven’t been a thing for centuries. As long as it looks like a sausage, it is a sausage imo. It’s also not law yet, the member states still have to approve those amendements.
Ps, this gave me an idea for possible vegetarian branding: names like “not a burger” seem to still be allowed, so a line of foodstuffs called “not a sausage” etc might be fun.
This is going to depend on the country that you’re in. Germany for example is pretty notorious for also going after the small fries.
I assume you mean DeepSeek? And it doesn’t look like it, according to what I could find, their biggest innovation was “reinforcement learning to teach a base language model how to reason without any human supervision”. https://huggingface.co/blog/open-r1
Some others have replied that chatgpt and copilot are already modular: they use python for arithmetic questions. But that apparently isn’t enough to be useful.
I hadn’t heard of that protocol before, thanks. It holds a lot of promise for the future, but getting the input right for the tools is probably quite the challenge. And it also scares me because I now expect more companies to release irresponsible integrations.
I would rather not have it attempt something that it can’t do, no direct result is better than a wrong result imo. Here it’s correctly identifying that it’s a calculation question and instead of suggesting using a formula, it tries to hallucinate a numerical answer itself. The creators of the model seem to have a mindset that the model must try to answer no matter what, instead of training it to not answer questions that it can’t answer correctly.
A large language model shouldn’t even attempt to do math imo. They made an expensive hammer that is semi good at one thing (parroting humans) and now they’re treating every query like it’s a nail.
Why isn’t OpenAi working more modular whereby the LLM will call up specialized algorithms once it has identified the nature of the question? Or is it already modular and they just suck at anything that cannot be calibrated purely with brute force computing?
“Label swindle” is the closest literal translation I think.
My last cat was the same, he expected every exit to lead to a different outside, and they all had to be checked before he would deign going on his litterbox.
Yep, undisputed. Except by religious zealots who resort to bad faith arguments when some of their cultist beliefs are not accepted as fact by non believers, but on those subjects, those people aren’t taken seriously by anyone except others from their cult, so yes, pretty much undisputed.
Then check the sources listed under that wiki article.
If you couldn’t be bothered to look up something as simple and undisputed as this, then it’s really silly to make a stand with “Wikipedia isn’t a source”, it just makes you look like a bad troll.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh
You should have just looked this up yourself. It’s going to be the first result in most search engines.
I think no one mentioned these yet: My favorite tablet games are the ports of old BioWare classics like Baldur’s Gate 1+2, Icewind Dale, … Excellent ports imo, bur I did play them on a 10" tablet, I wouldn’t try to play them on a phone. https://www.beamdog.com/games/
At the time when I became inactive on Reddit, Azerbaijan was building up to finish the Nagarno Karrabach conflict once and for all. There was a lot of blatant anti Armenian, pro Azerbaijani misinformation being posted in relevant discussions (that they were tolerant, only wanting peace, there was never any ethnic cleansing, …), and most of those comments went without anyone posting a simple fact check to debunk it.
I suspected that they had been sharing a blocklist and had blocked most of those who would call them out on their bullshit. I didn’t bother either since I just expected to be blocked as well and I had basically given up on the platform anyhow. I found swapping accounts to read threads annoying as hell, so it was easier to not comment and just be silently disappointed in humanity.
The fact checks that I did see at the time, were mostly posted as a reply to the top comment of the chain, hoping to go unnoticed by the one spreading misinformation, but that will only work for so long. Reddit is fucked when it comes to discussing political news or gauging public opinion (imo), it’s now designed for spreading misinformation (imo again).
One of the other replies said that: “1”+(2+3) is “15” in JavaScript.". So my last theory as to what was going on, was that the creator of the meme had as cell contents =“1”, 2 and 3. And then copilot used python code to sum those, not sum() which would have answered 5.
But since the answer is a black box, who really knows. This blind trust that open ai+ms expect, makes it unusable for anything that needs to be correct and verifiable. Indeed incomprehensible that they think this is a good idea. I’ll have to try finding something better on lm studio the next time that I have a math problem, thanks for that tip.