It seems the bridge didn’t see the reply. Might be something worth making a bug report about. (Also, ignore the update profile entry, I clicked the icon by accident)

Your reply is there? Did it just take a while to go through?

Screaming at my single-threaded, synchronous web scraper “Why are you so slow, I have a 4090!”

Why would an RTX 4090 make Python faster?

You can, it’s just that individual accounts need to opt into the bridge.

You can go to the trouble to learn Rust, and then fight with them to get your modifications accepted or…

Can you actually point to any instances of the devs dragging their feet on accepting changes or is this just conjecture? I’ve contributed to Lemmy, and plan to do so in future, and my experience is that they’re fairly accepting of changes.

Zoxide, lets you quickly jump to places in your filesystem. E.g. z pic will put you in ~/Pictures.

Lemmy’s upvotes are same thing as likes, and downvotes are dislikes. This is kinda hard to tell because Mastodon doesn’t federate likes, so Lemmy posts will always show up as having no favourites.

They did mention Lemmy in the article.

No, the devs have explicitly stated they don’t want to add following users to Lemmy.

It’s performative cruelty to desperately claw back some points in the polls.

I think being indifferent to the suffering you cause on those around you is a moral failing. You said yourself you aim to treat people how you want to be treated, do you not care if those around you inflict suffering on you? I don’t see how indifference to suffering can be universalised.

Edit: didn’t see your edit before posting, I still don’t think you’ve justified why the unnecessary killing/causing suffering of a person and animal are different. Your argument seems very circular on this, killing humans and animals are different because they are different.

Why not? If actions I take cause you suffering, shouldn’t I try my best to prevent that?

Is disease prevention also amoral?

Do you think we shouldn’t try to minimise unnecessary suffering?

No it’s not. Disease is a natural phenomenon and is bad.

i don’t know what it’s like to be a chicken or a pig

But you do know what it’s like to suffer. And you know pigs, chickens, and other farm animals can suffer. Does that not count for anything? Or do you not consider suffering to be an inheriently bad thing?

OK, so this is literally an appeal to nature. I seriously don’t see why behaviour should get a free pass just because it’s ‘natural,’ except the very natural phenomenon of humans killing each other.

living things are in competition and killing is a matter of course. it is natural.

And?

i think a special case must be made against killings. among humans, there are many (distinct) arguments against killing. among the ones i’ve heard, the ones which would also apply to animals are not ones that i personally believe.

What do you believe? From what I’ve been able to gather from your replies to me and others, you put hold the following two beliefs:

1. That ‘human’ is a distinct category of being that makes us the only thing worthy of moral consideration;
2. That the practice of killing animals is so widespread, so normalised, that it must be morally OK, because if it were wrong, we wouldn’t practice it so widely;

I don’t think these are sound arguments.

I’m not saying there are, but just because we currently murder pigs is not justification to continue killing them.