This is a false equivalence; the answer is “neither”.

Veganism doesn’t seek to end all animal suffering, but not to exploit animals for humans’ sake. We don’t need animal products to survive, so we shouldn’t add to whatever misery already exists naturally.

In the case of livestock, we should just stop breeding them. No vegan is arguing for dumping all cattle in the savannah to be hunted by lions.

I’d already be very happy if everyone took your approach, but it’s not the entire story for veganism. Sustainability is an important factor for myself and many others, but so is animal welfare.

It’s a bummer that animal welfare is pretty much inversely correlated with emissions. Packing chickens together and making their lives miserable is much better for the environment than having them roam free.

Veganism happily aligns with environmental sustainability. But when you believe we shouldn’t exploit animals at all, just pushing to eat what’s sustainable ignores a lot of pain and cruelty.

On the other side of the spectrum, I really like Patrick H. Willem’s take on the best sequel ever: Mamma Mia 2.

Not the best movie that is also a sequel, but biggest improvement over the original.

In Europe, this is hardly a problem. I’ve recently been on the road more in the US, and it sucks. But I think it’s more so due to cars being ridiculously big and their lamps being way off the ground.

Whooo ooooh no.

Hotel California. I refuse to elaborate further.

Let’s gamble, try merging

I’m not sure Aliexpress is a shining beacon of workers’ rights either.

The Fox and the Hound: part 2

What’s the general consensus on Arch? I really like the UX, although I stuck to Firefox on mobile.

Good on her doing charity work

It might just be your vote that flips a city or county

It’s always your vote that flipped the seat; everyone who voted after you just showed up as backup.

“Well you’re stupid.”

• “Nuh ahh!”

You mean the senile senior, Dementia Don? 34 times convicted felon and racist rapist?

Also has a secondary interpretation: out of the many countries in the world, one of them. Putting the US on equal footing with the nations of old — despite not having a king with a divine right to sovereignty.

I like this interpretation because anno 2024 it also counterweights US exceptionalism.

Imagine you have a book that’s written in Korean. If you gave it to me and asked me to read it out loud, I wouldn’t be able to make sense out of it. If you gave it to a Korean person, however, they could read it perfectly fine.

The book itself hasn’t changed — just the person reading the book. And that person has a different set of skills (or instructions, if you will).

In June of last year four separate cyclists, ranging in age from 31 to 65, were found guilty of breaching the PSPO, with all four being fined £220 and ordered to pay almost £300 in costs, before a month later Lauren Cullum was ordered to pay £1,150.

In contrast, in the same week at Grimsby Magistrates' Court, Paul Berry pleaded guilty to driving at 50mph on a 40mph road. He was disqualified from driving for seven days, fined £60, and ordered to pay a victim services surcharge of £16.

🤦‍♂️

Seems to be Cyprus from the letterhead.

Macron is the president and head of state. He’s elected directly by the citizens of France.

Attal is (was) the prime minister and head of government. He’s elected by the members of parliament. He’s appointed by the president but needs majority support in parliament.

“To form a government” usually means that someone is tasked by the head of state (president or king) to come up with a group of people (cabinet) that has majority support in the house(s) of parliament. That’s easy for Starmer when Labour has a majority. In other countries like the Netherlands, Germany, or Italy, that usually requires a coalition.

That will now also be the case in France.

I wouldn’t do it from this guide. Germany will trip you up.