partial_accumen

This is heartwarming news that two nations which have been such bitter enemies are looking to a long term peaceful coexistence. This can only benefit both nations and their citizens.

I’d also think that birth rates are higher for those at lower incomes. Meaning that Medicaid recipients would also be the largest demographic of domestic births. So instead of incentivizing more births by ensuring solid healthcare for families that want to grow, the GOP kneecaps them and blames them for fewer births.

Services that aren’t traditionally profitable — such as women’s health and pediatric care — will be the hardest to sustain, Anderson said.

Yet the GOP continually claims that the falling birth rate is a huge problem that should be corrected then they pass the legislation that does this.

I don’t know if its possible, but when reading instead of focusing on the pronunciation of a word (because its not needed at that time when you’re just reading), I skip right to determining the meaning or the concept the word describes. The only time this gives me difficulty is when the author of what I’m reading is trying to do word play or make something rhyme. Since I don’t “hear” it, I don’t get those meanings. This is rare though. Other then that, this gives me the most comprehension when I’m reading in my non-native language.

Vance wasn’t talking about an America that’s entirely closed off to new immigrants; rather, it’s an America where “heritage” counts as much as values.

So Vance is saying, we of European origin need to self-deport out of the country and give it all back to the Iroquois Confederacy, the many Algonquin origin tribes, Cherokee, Navajo, Shawnee, Lenape, Nehinaw (Cree) and hundreds of other Native Americans and First Nations people that have unambiguously more heritage to this land that any of us that had ancestors that landed on these shores?

TSA logic:

If you’re not willing to concede that a future state of people skipping beef meals does lower demand compared to those same people choosing to eat beef instead, then I don’t think we have any basis for continuing to have a discussion.

I couldn’t figure out what pedantry you’re trying to play at, nor any value for it. The best I could guess is you like dancing around on word play for some reason. That is not an interest of mine. Then I looked at your post history and see this behavior is entirely on-brand for you with your conversations with most folks. Feel free to reply to the void. I’m not interested in your games and won’t be interacting with you anymore.

some people are eating fewer beef meals

And for those people that eat fewer beef meals that does help. That is unambiguous. We’re talking about choices individuals can make for themselves to affect positive change. Those that eat fewer beef meals remove themselves as demand drivers of beef for those beef skipped meals. Were those individuals that would have eaten beef chose to eat beef for those future meals, then demand would be even higher with even higher climate impacts.

Do you disagree?

I was thinking this pullback wouldn’t have occurred until someone made an asbestos t-shirt and wore it on a tour of a government building, then casually mentioned the shirt materials on the way out. If the trump administration would have said asbestos was safe, then this wouldn’t have been a problem right? I’m glad cooler heads prevailed and asbestos ban is still on.

I’m sorry to see you go. If you change your mind, we’ll be here to welcome you back with open arms. Be safe.

it’s not theoretical. plenty of people (claim to) have cut back on beef, but production continues to rise.

Then you skipped the entire first half of my statement where I said “If people are eating fewer beef meals,” So sure, if you ignore half of what I said then you can say I am wrong. At that point what are we even talking about?

i don’t think that’s true, if meat production continues to grow.

If people are eating fewer beef meals, where is the beef production growth coming from in your theoretical?

The most important takeaway for the target group:

“If you’re trying to reduce your carbon footprint, eat less beef,” Rose advises. “You don’t have to give it up entirely, but cutting back or making substitutions can make a significant impact.”

Any fewer beef meals you have helps. We’re also just talking beef here. If you choose pork, chicken, fish, or even game meat over beef you’re helping the climate.

“allows”

The meme game is incredibly weak compared to here (thanks PugJesus, The_Picard_Maneuver, cm0002, Stamets, LadyButterfly, etc.). Lemmy has an incredible amount of fantastic memes for it’s size.

I’d like to echo this. My entire knowledge of meme culture is supported by these diligent individuals.

I’ll also add the prior work of @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world . Miss you, squid. Hope you’re doing well in your new home.

“The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, officially the Treaty of Non-Aggression between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics,[1][2] and also known as the Hitler–Stalin Pact[3][4] and the Nazi–Soviet Pact,[5] was a non-aggression pact between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, with a secret protocol establishing Soviet and German spheres of influence across Eastern Europe.[6] The pact was signed in Moscow on 24 August 1939 (backdated 23 August 1939[7][8]) by Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov and German Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop.[9]” source

The time, yes, but the resources? There are monetary limits to many “firsts”.

First, I think you should stop living in an AI generated picture.