> If you're wildly successful at something with significant real world influence, why would you care so strongly about something as relatively inconsequential as a board game or a video game?
It’s possible that exact personality trait is what drove them to such success in the first place. Perhaps like an obsession with winning.
Will not have to admit. The term has nothing to do with rate of fire. Normally purchased weapons, assault or not, are semi automatic. Rate of fire only applies to automatic weapons.
> Aside from the fact that red meat is not particularly nutritious in terms of calories or nutrient variety
Animal proteins are generally more complete, containing all essential amino acids, which is more difficult to find with plant protein.
> and has well established health hazards for us,
Mostly correlative studies, I wouldn't call them well established.
> The amount of water, land, and feed that goes toward growing cattle until they're old enough to go to the slaughterhouse is enormous
These stats are fairly deceitful. Cattle are raised on low quality "marginal land" that would otherwise not be able grow proper crops. Cows with their four stomachs can digest rough grasses that grow there, making the otherwise useless land useful. Generally when you hear the "amount of water" required to raise a cow, this is simply rainwater. These headlines that get thrown around imply a massive amount of resources being diverted away from growing crops to raise cattle instead, but that is completely false.
This is such a bizarre post. Tools are built to serve man. AI is just another tool. When mechanization replaced human labor there were no questions about prioritizing machines over people. This is no different. You have a distorted framing of the situation.
It’s possible that exact personality trait is what drove them to such success in the first place. Perhaps like an obsession with winning.