Same. I don’t care if it’s thicker to accommodate the camera system.they can make the whole phone as thick as the cameras to remove the camera bump, and fill all that extra space with a huge battery and better speakers. Sounds perfect to me.
The iPhone Air and iPhone 13 Mini have about the same volume (external dimensions). If you used the shrunken hardware from the Air with a thicker, but squatter due to reduced height, battery you'd probably be able to get comparable battery life out of the hardware in a Mini sized phone. Maybe better since you'd also have a smaller screen (less power draw, not sure it's enough to make a big difference).
> they can make the whole phone as thick as the cameras to remove the camera bump, and fill all that extra space with a huge battery and better speakers. Sounds perfect to me.
Please! The bump is so stupid. All I want is the original SE with new internals.
N=1 from my own experience but other than occasionally disabling it in Safari for websites it seems to work flawlessly for me. I've had it on MacOS and iOS for about a year now.
I had to stop after 6 months because my testosterone dropped so much (serious, blood test confirmed). Felt way better for the first few months, then slowly lower energy and not like myself. Eventually realized more vegetables is good, but nailing is protein wise on true vegan diet is very very hard.
It is absolutely not "very hard." It is challenging at first because like anything else, the startup costs of new habit formation can be high. But tofu, soy milk, seitan, tempeh, lentils, and many other plant protein sources are highly available and easy to cook with once you try. Been at it for a few years myself and at this point, it's extremely easy. I take protein shakes when working out, just like I did when I ate animal products.
Everyone is different, but if you weren't actually able to hit protein macros then I think that's a skill that isn't too hard to improve for most people (if they have a decent reason for wanting to go vegan in the first place).
I’ve been vegan for 14 years. Protein is not very very hard, unless you have multiple dietary restrictions on top of plant based. Which, if I can be frank, tend to be self imposed when people complain about this to me after dabbling in plant based.
Correlation is not causation, especially in a sample of 1, the plural of anecdote is not data etc etc. Protein is easy, just eat some beans and rice, tofu, tempeh etc. You can't just take the diet you had before and subtract things and expect it to work, you have to substitute. Make sure to get B12, D and maybe omega 3 and creatine either as supplements or fortified in foods, and get your levels checked every year or so.
I've been vegan for 15+ years, and I'm willing to say there are zero health benefits over a healthy omnivorous diet. The people who find one are misattributing it. It's not that vegan is healthier, just that what they were doing before was decidedly unhealthy. For a lot of people going vegan is the first time they actually think about what they eat, read labels etc, which is where most of the benefit comes from.
There is no gray area when it comes to veganism. Just because there is no word for that diet, does not mean you can just twist the definition of vegan for your convenience.
You could easily just say your a pescatarian who doesn’t eat dairy or eggs, and that would be more correct.
Sorry for not being perfect like you. For ethical reasons, I do not consume dairy or meat (except for fish). The vegan community should be more open to other perspectives, especially when someone is actively making an effort towards reducing harm.
Vegan Puritanism is totally antithetical to our collective goal of reducing animal suffering. Rather than being motivated by the prospect of claiming moral superiority, our goal should be to help the animals.
It's not really a moral issue, it's simply the definition of the word. Using an incorrect term to describe yourself knowing it is incorrect can be perceived as virtue-signaling or claiming your own moral superiority. For example, one could ask "why call yourself a vegan if you eat fish?".
There's no policing body here, but people are rightfully calling the double-standard out here.
Edit: Would also love to hear the ethics of why fish can be eaten when cows/chicken/pigs cannot. Doesn't sound ethically consistent to me at all.
I actually prefer not to call myself a vegan IRL both because of the issue you’re describing and because veganism is (rightfully) associated with having a toxic and intolerant culture. The only reason I said “vegan except fish” in my comment is because the title of the study used the word “vegan” and because the study was talking about veganism in a purely dietary/scientific lens, not an ethical one. I think this was a pretty reasonable thing to do.
If it doesn’t make sense for people to say “vegan except for chicken”, “vegan except for beef”, then why on earth would it make sense to say “vegan except fish”?
Fish aren’t lesser beings, they are living creatures like anything else.
Just stop saying “vegan except fish”. Say you eat plants and fish. That’s all you have to do.
> If it doesn’t make sense for people to say “vegan except for chicken”, “vegan except for beef”, then why on earth would it make sense to say “vegan except fish”?
I don't know why you take offense to someone saying "vegan except for beef" or "vegan except for fish." There is nothing inherently wrong with these statements. It just depends on whether you view veganism as a lifestyle or as a diet, which can vary depending on the context. In the context of a nutrition study, we are obviously talking about the diet, not the lifestyle.
Killing and eating animals is not a perspective vegans will be open to.
You can reduce harm, but you cannot call yourself vegan until you actually eliminate the possibility of eating animals or their products from your life. There is no reason you HAVE to eat fish.
It's not puritanism. You haven't grasped the ethical system if you don't understand that vegans view this as murder. Why should veganism have exceptions when we don't have exceptions for murder, rape, beating children? Most of us view animal exploitation at the same level.
If someone adopts a vegan diet purely for health reasons, are they not a true vegan? They haven’t accepted the moral framework that killing animals is wrong.
Should the study filter out people who eat entirely plant-based for reasons other than ethics. because according to you, that’s not a true vegan diet.
I think you are largely correct that veganism is a lifestyle, not a diet. But in the context in which my comment was made, it was perfectly reasonable for me to say “vegan except for fish,” because the study was analyzing veganism as a diet, not as an ethical lifestyle.
No, veganism is by definition an ethical framework, a term and movement created in the UK in the early 20th century, by the Vegan Society, which still exists, and has a very specific exact definition on their webpage that hasn't changed.
What you are talking about is the Plant Based Diet, which minimizes but doesn't fully exclude animal products, and is not an ethical framework.
You might as well say "I eat Kosher except for pork". It's nonsense.
I assume you mean that the study should not have said “vegan diet” and instead should have said “plant-based diet.” In that case, I agree with you. But don’t direct your anger towards me; direct it towards the authors of the study!
I'm not really angry at you, maybe slightly frustrated at the confusion everyone has about veganism. Appreciate your candor in any case. I'm definitely angry at some other people in this thread through.
People would provide significantly more global benefit for their cause, compared to their individual contribution, by not putting people off their cause wholesale.
I feel this way, so I shut my startup down. Not sure what I'm going to do next but I'm hoping it isn't so computer dependent. The reason I got into computers was unregulated opportunity and freedom and it's just the opposite today.
reply