Its also funny how you chose to infer how I feel about your choice to eat meat, which I actually never addressed. That's just how YOU feel about what I said. What's funny is that you are the one appealing to emotion, with your strawman argument about religion. In reality, this article makes conclusions based on a body of peer reviewed science. You claim you don't like their slant and expect everybody to come along with you, when frankly nobody asked your opinion and in reality that is closer to what religions do in demanding atheists disprove god. This article actually demonstrates proof of facts with cited science. You claim those studies must all be wrong because they don't prove your argument without so much as offering an alternative demonstrated by anything we can verify. So you're essentially appealing to the idea of meat eating as an infallible diety for which you will accept no proof that contradicts its divinity. Again, its 100% emotion. Its just hilarious at this point. I'm having fun. You?

Or: All my emotions are science, by Mr. Rational himself. Its actually hilarious how much time you are willing to spend showing that your emotional responses are actually scientific with more emotional rhetoric and how little time you are willing to put into showing a single way that a single point in the article is wrong using science that shows otherwise. "I don't like the rhetorical slant of the article," does literally nothing to disprove the science they useto support their conclusions. But you are clearly the one single person on this planet that doesn't let their emotions guide what they believe. Ok.

Wow, another emotional comment from Mr. Rational himself. Did I hurt your feewings?

Sure, but that legislation is not on the table because the meat lobby wont even let people see what the inside of a slaughterhouse looks like and actually because of their lobbying power the exact opposite of what you are suggesting is true; instead of taxing meat, our tax dollars go to subsidize meat to keep it cheaper than plant based alternatives. We do actually need people to change individual habits, because the political machine has huge incentives not to change at all. Perhaps if the plant based lobby could become big enough to challenge the meat lobby we could make bigger changes, but that will require individuals making small changes in their diets first.

Again with appeals to emotion. What proof do you have that this is an agenda and not valid science apart from you don't like the conclusions?

Bidens state department openly enables and encourages genocide and then they feel slighted by his sub 40% approval (blaming the people for your poll numbers is really not helping the situation for anybody that needs to hear this). I don't know what is so hard for them to understand. Nobody is happy with the course of action. A great way to reverse these poll numbers would be to stop providing Israel with material support for genocide and to provide Palestinians material support for simply existing, but Biden has made his bed with a base of liberals that is a rapidly shrinking block and without them he has literally no support what-so-ever. The message that these tone def liberals will inevitably not take from all this is that the democratic party needs to change dramatically if they ever want to win a national election again. Honestly this is the message they needed to get in 2016 and failed to pick up on when they went all in on Hillary. They took winning in 2020 with Biden as a mandate from the masses, which they misread incredibly (He won because we all had enough of Trumps shit and promptly learned that hey, actually Bidens shit is worse somehow) and they are now running on the mandate nobody ever gave them. Trump is going to trounce any Democrat they could run in 2024, because the one thing the Democrats don't get is that the demographics have changed. Liberal boomers are not a viable course to victory and Black and Latino voters are much more conservative then they want to believe and are finding the modern democratic party just as racist as the modern republican party, so why not vote their religious values. The math is not good for a democratic base which makes a plurality of about 37% of likely voters. If the Democrats want to fill in that gap they need to do things to pull in more young voters, who don't want genocide in Gaza. Denying it is happening is the most tone def way to appeal to a generation of voters who actually know what gaslighting is.

I'd say that the wood lovers are the most dangerous for 2 reasons. There is a phenomenon called wood lovers paralysis that occurs with large doses of those species that are found growing on wood. It appears to be most associated with Psilocybe Azurescens, but has been reports with Psilocybe Cyanescens and Psilocybe Ovoideocystidiata as well. There are also extremely poisonous look alikes. Gallerina Marginata and other members of the Gallerina genus can be pretty hard to distinguish from many members of the Psilocybe genus. Most psilocybin containing mushrooms will stain blue when bruised even slightly. This blueing should be significant and does not occur with Gallerina mushrooms, however, you do need yo positively ID each individual mushroom as they share the same habitat and distribution and flush at the same time. I have personally observed them fruiting in the middle of a patch of Psilocybe Ovoideocystidiata. The potential for mistakes is a lot higher than people realize. Essentially all poisonings associated with psychedelic mushrooms have been a case of misidentification. Among those that I know of being commonly used recreationally there are none that are thought of as poisonous on their own. However, the habitats in which they occur can really lend themselves to contamination. Especially with Psilocybe Ovoideocystidiata. They grow in some pretty disgusting environments, filled with goose poop and standing muck. Furthermore, they also share environments with copperheads, which I have personally encountered and almost stepped on. So these are mushrooms not without their own perils. All of which should be taken in as necessary parts of an environment that are working together and should demand respect.

Is it attached to the log under the duff or is it growing from the ground? It looks like it could be a weird morphology of a lobster mushroom (Hypomyces lactifluorum), but I've never seen a white lobster mushroom(I've been told they do exist though). The Russula Bevipes that becomes the lobster mushroom is white colored. Where was this found?

I love bookwyrm. Great for tracking, reviews and though it has no recommendation engine, I get tons of reccomendations from it.

I think this is a good use case for creating white lists for federation as opposed to black listing the blocked ones and I figured one day it might come to that. We'll have to put together some registry where new strains nstancea can sign up to be included. I know that sounds antithetical to federation, but there are solutions to the problems threads is creating.

The problem with federating with anything owned by meta is that it is a data syphon. I don't think we can fully protect ourselves from that. If they want the data most of it is easy to come by by just having any ol mastodon account or running a malicious instance or just scraping what is public and inferring the rest. However we shouldn't be inviting a threat like that into our backyard. We should definitely not be federating with them. Furthermore it gives them the opportunity to bloat things down with ads or DOS small instances with amounts of traffic and data they can't handle and they could make it prohibitively expensive to run an instance that federates with them. Nipping those problems in the bud requires showing them the door early.

El silmarillion, it is a Spanish language version of my favorite J.R.R. Tolkien book.