they might claim they’re harmed if the information is distributed for free. I don’t care. that’s not theft.

since the defendant is also a capitalist firm, I can see the similarities, but if someone were to simply be liberating the information, I don’t see that as stealing.

thebadspace has no real rhyme or reason either and lists a lot of folks I think are fine, and also gives (almost) no reason or receipts.

the Lemmy block system works as intended. if you want some other system, use some other service. but being a federated system, you can’t actually stop the data from being visible, or someone from creating a new user and interacting, if your post is public.

stealing others’ work

Reuters still has their analysis. nothing was stolen.

Whether you support IP or not, the AI company is clearly in the wrong here.

they’re both wrong to restrict access. if legal analysis is necessary to understand the law, then restricting access to that analysis, or it’s free dissemination, is also wrong.

I don’t trust that judge’s ability to determine whether they were copied if it wasn’t verbatim. which is what copyright is. to control an idea, you need a patent.

tragic. no one should need to pay to read the law

right. I just thought they’d made the news today or something.

what did PayPal do?

no, it’s not. harm reduction is when you recognize the bad thing is going to happen and you do something to mitigate the problem.

voting is not harm reduction

literally anyone asks me to set up my grill at the protest. I’m down.

even if fossil fuel emissions were eliminated immediately, emissions from the global food system alone would make it impossible to limit warming to 1.5°C and difficult even to realize the 2°C target

since fossil fuel emissions are unlikely to be eliminated entirely, the food system isn’t exactly the issue. it’s still fossil fuels.

i don’t have acces to the full text of your third paper. can you provide it?

Environmental impact data using life cycle analysis (LCA) often do not include measures of variance, and therefore the reviewed studies did not provide confidence intervals for environmental impacts.

this is exactly my problem with poore-nemecek 2018. this analysis, unlike poore-nemecek, admits that it’s a major gap in the methodology, but still suffers from this gap.

Primary source data were collected and applied to commodity production statistics to calculate the indices required to compare the environmental impact of producing 1 kg of edible protein from kidney beans, almonds, eggs, chicken and beef. Inputs included land and water for raising animals and growing animal feed, total fuel, and total fertilizer and pesticide for growing the plant commodities and animal feed. Animal waste generated was computed for the animal commodities.

the actual data isn’t exposed in this link. do you have the full paper?

your ourworldindata link relies heavily on poore-nemecek, a paper I don’t trust at all. do you have another source?