Not OP. I think it’s funny how you’re accusing them of “bullying” when their comments aren’t aggressive at all, just pointing out a practice they disagree with. But somehow your multi-paragraph, raging, sorry, uh… “laughing” comment filled with direct insults and patronizing dismissal, should NOT be considered “bullying.”

Like, I don’t buy into the idea that anyone can bully someone else in an anonymous Internet forum, outside of doxxing or repeated harassment. But looking at this, one of you is clearly much more aggressive and bothered than the other here.

Not sure which post you’re referring to, but from Our World in Data, pig farming generates more emissions than farming chickens. They are lower than beef, but that’s not saying much, since beef is an order of magnitude worse than most other foods. Pig farming also generates four times more emissions than soy.

This new report is the same story all over again. From the linked report:

Applying this factor to the standardized production results in the emissions from the combustion of marketed products, comprising nearly 90% of total emissions tracked by the database. These are scope three category 11 emissions, corresponding to “use of sold products”

The vast majority of emissions attributed to these companies, nearly 90%, are those emitted by the consumers who buy the crude oil/natural gas/etc. But news outlets are obscuring that fact in their headlines, which makes it seem like the gas companies themselves are wholly responsible.

The idea is that generative AI will enable Samsung products to get a better understanding of how consumers use the products – for example, an oven recognizing what is being cooked in it or a fridge recognizing what ingredients are inside. This could allow appliances to understand users’ needs and respond accordingly.

“Understand users’ needs” being a euphemism for “spy on users’ habits and sell that info to advertisers.”

We’ve gone full circle: from having a manual for your new appliance, to having a LLM confidently make up some incorrect info about how to use your new appliance.

TikTok has always been on the extreme end of tracking and surveilling its users. For example, research found that the app had the ability to record all keystrokes made by users in the in-app browser (i.e. keylogging). This kind of tracking is way beyond what other social media companies do and borders on malware.That’s one reason why the US, Canada, and others banned the use of TikTok on government devices.

A former TikTok employee also alleges in a sworn statement that TikTok stores its user data in China, that the CCP has full access to this data, and that the CCP used this data to spy on protestors in Hong Kong.

So their tracking goes way beyond what other companies do, and China uses that data for expressly political goals rather than simply selling ads to users.

Maybe we can’t convince everyone to quit eating meat, but I would hope that we could appeal to self-described environmentalists, who have a stated interest in making sustainable changes.

That’s the OP’s point, after all. That the science unambiguously states that we need to stop eating meat if we care about meeting our climate goals. Any environmentalist who learns that this needs to happen and still chooses to eat meat is acting against their own ethics.

It has to be both. Our World in Data puts it one way:

We have a number of options – some fall on the shoulders of consumers; some on producers.

Or to cut through the flowery language - farms need to stop producing meat, and people need to stop eating it.

The biggest reduction would come from the adoption of plant-rich diets. Emissions would be halved compared to business-as-usual.