Fad diet? Until recent history, and coincidentally before the prevalence of vast diet-related disease, most of the world lived on a mostly vegan diet. You are welcome to cite some of this advanced scientific evidence refuting McDougall or suggesting protein deficiency is a concern anywhere in the Western world.
Flawed argument because animals still eat 10x the amount of plants vegans do. So if plant suffering was a legitimate concern, one would still be vegan, which is a lifestyle to reduce harm to animals.
A study by a pill manufacturer whose business is sickness, promoting a sick diet for more obedient consumer customers.
Adult humans require surprisingly little protein. So little, in fact, it's virtually impossible to be protein deficient eating an adequate isocaloric diet with even a modicum of variety. This is a very well cited page which explains most misconceptions and falsehoods about protein in diet https://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2007nl/apr/protein.htm
You seem capable of looking up the definition of "survival" on your own. Anyway, this discussion is not worth having on this oppressive site, because any controversial opinion is just flagged and censored by the majority of fragile-ego dimwits.
I already said I agreed survival is justification for eating animals. But this is not survival, this is sport, because they have a choice to eat something other than animals and still thrive.
That is not by accident. The history of gun control in the USA (and mostly elsewhere) is deeply rooted in racism and classism. The very idea of an armed minority challenging the status quo terrifies individuals living lives of relative privilege and prosperity. Even if they don't consciously apprehend their bias (and most lack the emotional and spiritual maturity to do so), they are useful in promoting the false narrative of "only the State must monopolize power" as they are the benefactors of it.
There is one gun store in all of Mexico and a two-tier ownership/permitting system where only the oligarchy class actually has rights to arms. No wonder it isn't safe when the average person is deprived of the means to defend themselves.
Linux is not a "safe" operating system by any stretch of imagination. The only saving grace is the fact Linux users are not profitable to malware authors due to very low market share. Still, I think it's naive to view it as a secure operating system/kernel because it is not designed nor built for that goal explicitly. OpenBSD on the other hand is a worthy contender against a determined adversary and is developed by skilled and highly paranoid people.
Almost all happened in Latin America where individual rights, including to own and defend yourself with potent firearms, is severely limited (except for agents of the state). Without this fundamental ability and political right, lawful good individuals will suffer and fail. History is replete with examples of this basic and obvious fact. Armed minorities are more difficult to oppress.
No, I don't think anything is safe from a determined adversary with near-infinite resources, especially if they are specifically targeting you. This is a basic tenet of infosec.
I can't even tell it's crappy. Just a blank screen with Javascript disabled. Sites aren't worth visiting if they don't care about usability and accessibility, and promptly get added to my shit-list of domains.
Actually I read the entire documentation and browsed the source code.
https://www.talos.dev/v1.0/learn-more/philosophy/ "Security" section makes no mention of independent audits. It just boldly claims "There are no passwords in Talos" as if that was a panacea for security.
The existing integration tests don't verify any assumptions about security, only that the configuration is valid. Please correct me if I'm wrong or missed anything.
If you're going to call something "secure" you need to prove it.
I'm sure this article will change the opinions of millions of people who watched Apple's TV spots gloating over PCs getting viruses and consequnently formed an opinion.