If I want to go home and celebrate all that hard work with a perfectly seared steak, that’s not going to kill the environment.
It is tho?..
Animal products are incredibly harmful to the climate and are inherently wasteful.
Those corporations get their money from people like you.
Yes regulation would be the best to stop them but you know that's not gonna happen any time soon, especially when everyone refuses to change their own habits, politicians aren't gonna force through regulations that get people angry because they want their steaks.
Why do you want to continue to participate in something bad until it's legally not allowed anymore?
Why not do what you can (stop consuming animal products) while also advocating for regulation and political change?
What does holding evil corporations accountable look like if not refusing to give them your money?
A bad thing giving you pleasure(tasting good in this case) doesn't make it okay to do the bad thing.
and there is such a thing as sustainable farming for animal products. We did it right up until the turn of the Industrial Revolution and things were fine.
It requires a shit ton of plants to feed animals for animal products, way more than using plants directly, nothing sustainable about that when we can just use plants directly instead.
What do you think sustainable farming of animal products looks like?
but all you’re doing is annoying someone who is potentially on your side with unnecessary dietary restrictions for the sake of “it’s overall better, do your part”. I am doing my part.
You are not on my side if you support needlessly killing animals for profit/taste.
You're not doing your part if you willfully support super damaging industries that have readily available alternatives because "tastes good".
Also can you explain why you only have this reaction to my comment and not the parent comment which is the same but about conservatism? Is that just as bad? annoying people who might be on our side.
As I mentioned if you want to fire shots, take aim at the corporations that’s are the ones truly causing all this harm.
What does taking aim at corporations look like if not refusing to give them our money while advocating for regulation?
The individual has almost not impact in comparison to one corporation.
The reason these corporations do bad things is to earn money, they get that money from individuals.
If people who think these corporations are doing bad things stop supporting it then suddenly the corporations have less money.
Why not be on the right side of history?
Why do you want to be forced into not doing bad things instead of just changing on your own?
Dude you gotta chill a bit, this is the point he was making. Having a huge argument to get one single change in lifestyle (a huge effort for that person btw) when everyone does a million things in their lives that also contribute to these issues is not pushing the fight forward meaningfully.
And if we are going to drop meat, let's also push people to stop driving, stop flying, stop buying gadgets, stop buying all plastics, stop using air conditioning, and on and on. I can live without plenty of that, just like meat, but which of these do you think you can get enough of a mass of people to give up? It has to be aimed at governmental bodies to make these changes on a meaningful scale.
Avoiding animal products really isn't that difficult, I made the change myself.
when everyone does a million things in their lives that also contribute to these issues
That's exactly the problem, our modern way of living is extremely wasteful and destructive, giving up because there's a lot of issues isn't gonna help, we should be talking about these things and making changes.
And if we are going to drop meat, let's also push people to stop driving, stop flying, stop buying gadgets, stop buying all plastics, stop using air conditioning, and on and on.
Yes, exactly, now you're getting it.
We all need to make meaningful changes to fight climate change, that's what this thread is about.
"World's hottest day since records began" should be a wake up call to not continue as usual.
but which of these do you think you can get enough of a mass of people to give up?
I never claimed fighting climate change was gonna be easy, that doesn't mean we should give up.
It has to be aimed at governmental bodies to make these changes on a meaningful scale.
Yes, I've continually said we advocate for regulation which can be done while changing our individual habits and lifestyles to match those changes we are advocating for.
Does it make sense to ask politicians to make regulations while you yourself are supporting the thing you want regulated?
Going vegan is one of the most impactful changes a person can make in terms of climate impact and it really isn't that hard.
This singular line always sets off mental alarm bells, for me. From movies to historical speeches, I associate it with deception or extreme evangelism. I'm certainly not claiming you are doing either but did it feel it socially prudent to bring up.
Come on buddy, starting a debate and then refusing to actually debate is very silly.
I'm not forcing anything on anyone, this is an internet forum, you aren't a victim for reading some words.
Being against animal cruelty and climate change isn't trying to control peoples bodies lol.
I'm specifically trying to get people to stop using animals as property, controlling their bodies..
If I want to eat meat, that is my right as a living, breathing, functional and helpful human of this planet.
What about the rights of other animals?
Should they not have a right to life without you needlessly torturing and eating them?
I'm sure this will lead to a flood of quality content on Reddit. More seriously paying people to make content for your social media site while you sell information about them to advertisers is an interesting business model, to say the least.
The kind of people who stick around because you pay them aren't the people you want to stick around.
Coincidentally I notice that Conagra Brands, Inc. (CAG) is trading down at the moment (28.01-0.28) so if you'd like to buy some shares in one of the biggest producers of popcorn in the world now's a good time lol
They also had this ridiculous policy of not allowing you to browse their site without an account. I wonder if it actually led to signups. In my case I just got frustrated and blocked the site from search results.
And the content that makes up top posts isn't what you want to make top posts..
X now rewards Premium subscribers with an ad revenue share tied to the number of impressions, or views, of ads a user generates in their tweet replies," he said.
"This incentives X users to post content that sparks the most replies, and the characteristics of content that typically generates the most replies is content that is divisive, polarising, provocative, and controversial... exactly the sort of content that brands do not want to have their ads placed amongst.
Don't trust particle physicists! A lot junk science articles come from particle physicists specifically because it's a big part of their job to look for new particles and they get a lot of their funding from making bold claims like this. lol I'm mostly kidding, but always take into account what a person's motivation (monetary motivation specifically) before believing what they say.
I admit I'm taking your joke a little too seriously - Dr. Hossenfelder's misguidedcrusade against particle physics has made me sensitive to this - but this isn't so much a new particle as it is testing a prediction of quantum theory against experimental results and confirming 20 years of discrepancy. Amusingly, the reason they're getting excited now is because they're getting closer to refining the calculation to a 5σ difference from theory - in other words, they already knew it was potentially new physics, and this is trying to confirm it.
I recommend the PBS Space Time video if you want a thorough (if a bit technical) explanation, or Fermilab's which breaks it out a bit more simply.
I got called out in a very good way! You're absolutely right that I got that opinion from Sabine Hossenfelder who does have some weird opinions tbh. For example, she seems to be obsessed with Elon Musk (EW!).
Start with the classical representation. A compass points in the direction of North when taken out and laid down. What is happening is that the magnet in the compass is aligning with the external magnetic field of the planet Earth. That is the classical mechanic and there is a quantum analog, which is what this whole experiment deals with.
On the quantum level we express the magnetic moment using the Dirac equation for bodies that have no internal structure as µ = g(e/2m)S. The e is the elementary charge, the m is mass of the particle, and the S is the spin angular momentum of the particle. In quantum mechanics spin plays a major role in magnetic moments, so we must consider it here. That g is the g-factor that the experiment is dealing with. It is a dimensionless quantity that characterizes the magnetic moment and angular momentum. Basically it serves as the thing we tweak to ensure µ lines up with things we observe.
Take two electrons that strike each other. They have the same charge (negative) and thus, they should repel each other. But "HOW?", they aren't allowed to touch each so what pushed them away form each other? Like, really really does the pushing? Not that, oh well their charge fields touch each other. There's got to be "a something" that literally pushes them. And that is the exchange of a virtual particle. Getting into what a virtual particle is a deeper dive into the fields, but here's a quick run down.
The universe is a bunch of layers that we call fields all sandwiched together. So all the things that exist are just point in that field that are excited (that is they have energy to bring them to a level that we call existing). So an electron, that's actually just a point in the electron field that has enough energy that we call it actually existing. Now there could be a point in the field that has energy that's below that threshold of calling it actually existing. That's a virtual particle. Virtual particles participate in interactions, but can only do so if everything stays the same in the end and momentum is conserved. Like we can conjure a virtual electron and a positron (anti-electron) to exchange energy, but they must cancel each other out (by running into each an annihilating) in the end. There's way more, but that's outside what we need for this.
So picture two electrons hitting each other and then they bounce away. Something has to push them. That something is a virtual photon. As the electron on the left approaches the electron on the right, they fire off a virtual photon which reduces virtually the energy in the electron. However, this loss is virtual, the books must balance in the end. Which the photon on the right ALSO fires off a virtual photon, virtually reducing it's energy. The left electron absorbs the virtual photon from the right electron and vice versa for the right electron. Thus, the balance is maintained, the electrons return to their original energy. But! Momentum MUST be conserved. The photon from the left electron was moving right so now the right electron, having absorbed a photon moving right, must move rightward, the right electron was moving left towards the left electron, but now it is that motion MINUS the motion of the emitted virtual photon PLUS the motion of the right moving virtual photon. So this is what is actually pushing the electrons away form each other. This is what the repelling of two like charges actually is at a very deep level.
However, in the end the books just have to be balanced. So it's balanced in one virtual photon exchange, but there could be two virtual photon exchanges. As long as it's balanced, it's all the same. In fact, we could have five virtual photon exchanges. One of the virtual photons could summon up a virtual electron/positron that cancel each other out to make a virtual photon. There's no end to the number of exchanges that could happen, there's an infinite number of exchanges that could happen. Richard Feynman indicated that the more and more exchanges that could happen all impart smaller and smaller "corrections" to a calculated event. So basically, if there were 126,347,428 virtual exchanges between two electrons, the conserved values (that motion that we call repulsion) would change very, very, very, very, very, very little if there were 126,347,429 virtual exchanges. Basically after the tenth or so virtual exchange, the additional repelling that would be added by the eleventh virtual exchange would be insanely small, but not zero. And everything thereafter would just get smaller and smaller and smaller, but still measurable.
So back to our equation µ = g(e/2m)S. If the exchange between two electrons is just a single virtual photon, that g = 2. But if say the electron emits two virtual photons and then absorbs two virtual photons, that g now equals 2.0011614. We can find this value out with some fancy math. And this "correction" as it's called was first calculated by Julian Schwinger in 1949. But as we go, we can toss into that calculation three virtual photons. And then toss in three virtual photons plus one of them become a virtual electron/positron pair, that cancels each other out into a virtual photon. This moves that g a tiny bit up to 2.0023193.
Eventually we hit a point where calculating this by hand gets hard to do, but we have super computers now that can do thousands upon thousands of theses corrections and we arrive at a g-factor of 2.0023193043552. However we measure by spinning, physically not the quantum spin, an electron in a particular direction and then setting that spinning electron in an external magnetic field how long it takes the electron to align with the external field. Much like the compass and Earth's magnetic field eventually align. Now the electron can never perfectly align because of the particle's quantum spin and so the electron has a precession (much like a top will precess around its axis) , we can also measure the g-factor of the electron from this precession called Larmor Precession. We measure the g-factor this way at 2.00231930436146. The difference between the g = 2 and the g-factor we measure or calculate is the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron. The difference between the calculate and the measured g-factor comes down to the fine structure constant, but they agree.
Now we move to the muon, which is like the electron but much more massive. Chances to exchange with virtual particles is the square of the mass of the particle, so a more massive particle the more likely it will exchange virtual particles. Since the muon is so much more massive (40,000 times massive) than the electron, the likelihood that there will be virtual gluon exchange or virtual Higgs exchange is much more likely. So we do our thing of plugging all of that into a super computer to get the calculate g-factor. We then do our experiment where we spin it like a top to get the g-factor that way. Then we look at the two values and take into consideration the fine structure constant. And that's this experiment. And what they found is that the two numbers are off, by a quite a bit. Enough to point out that our super computers aren't taking into consideration all the various virtual exchanges that COULD happen. AND THAT is what the big deal is.
The super computers have all the expected virtual exchanges programmed in, so if we're off enough to indicate that we don't have all the virtual exchanges programmed in, then we're missing a fifth kind of virtual exchange that needs to be programmed in, and that may mean there's a fifth force (since all virtual exchanges derive from an actual field).
However, this won't tell us WHAT it is. This is just one way of finding a path to go down. We'll need entirely different avenues to take that path down to discover the actual force. Basically, we're balancing our checkbook and the bank statement, but in the end the checkbook is off by a few dollars. So there has to be some bank transaction in the statement we forgot to write down. So this being off tells us that we're missing something, but doesn't tell us what we're missing.
Additionally, Fermilab confirmed with a sigma of 4.7, which is short of 5 sigma which is needed to claim a discovery. So spinning muons that decay in a few microseconds is pretty hard and with just random cosmic electrons and nuetrinos and what not flying through the air, there's a lot of "noise" on the wires that are measuring the spinning of those muons. So they have to keep working to get a cleaner and cleaner signal. Additionally, once they hit five sigma, they have to repeat it. And then, they have to submit their experiment so that someone else can independently do it as well and they have to hit five sigma. Because in the end, the very experiment they're doing might be what's tossing all the values off to begin with. That is their machine is just fundamentally flawed. That's that consistent but inaccurate that gets covered in high school science. Independent confirmation ensures that someone else builds a machine that aims for the exact same goal but in their own very special way.
So it's a very long road ahead, just so that it can be shown that there is indeed something missing from the calculations. But that's way better than where everyone is right now, not knowing where to look for more physics. If this all pans out, what it points to is there is a fifth force that is very, very weak and that means it'll be difficult to coax it to come out on display so that we can study it. Just the fact that on a muon were talking differences of just a few thousandths means this force is much weaker than the weak force. What role it plays? What does it mediate? No one knows, that'll have to be different experiments. In fact, just like it might not be a single transaction that throws your checkbook off from the statement, same diff, we may be talking about multiple forces, no one knows.
But like all things. This will CONFIRM we are missing some part from the standard model. And that is a big deal. Because right now, everyone thinks we're missing some critical parts, like dark matter and dark energy, but we've got equations that might be right that allows our universe to exist without dark matter and dark energy. But we don't know either way. THIS WILL CONFIRM WE'RE MISSING SOMETHING. That is hugely exciting. Not often you hear people getting excited over "WE DON'T KNOW EVERYTHING!!"
Sure, but treatments of something that complex has to start somewhere. It seems to go in the right direction and upcoming treatments may build on that. I am not sure that anyone could have expected after many failures to just find the magical cure that completely cures Alzheimers.
The results regarding amyloid plaques just keep going back and forth over time, I'm very curious how this will ultimately play out. I suppose even if the plaques are a symptom rather than the underlying cause it can still be helpful clearing them away.
bbc.com
Popular