This was in the context of COVID:

Nanjikana said he has taken some positives away from the experience, such as a forced break from the chaos of a global pandemic.

“I had no idea what was going on while I was out there. I didn’t hear about Covid or anything else,” he said. “I look forward to going back home but I guess it was a nice break from everything.”

One thing I would’ve initially speculated but apparently had wrong was dietary acid, which is actually lower in plant-based diets. The other would be possibly volume of food (lower caloric density), but overall, I’m willing to take the authors’ speculation as-is, as I’m sure they tried to find any relevant data when speculating about causality – much more thoroughly and knowledgeably than I could hope to.

To clarify, it’s specifically squamous-cell carcinoma, not all esophaheal cancers. SCC is, however, the most common form of head/neck cancer by a mile.

As the study notes, though:

As discussed above, the higher risks we observed for squamous cell carcinoma of the oesophagus in vegetarians, and for colorectal cancer in vegans [“although the number of cases among vegans was small”], might be due to a higher prevalence of inadequate intakes of some nutrients in these groups within the populations studied.

If so, that’s a highly preventable problem. Vegan/vegetarian diets have higher risks of certain nutritional deficiencies (and lower of others), but it’s not especially hard to have a balanced diet.

That is: if you’re doing it for health, the “fix” should already be baked-in.

Edit: Forgot to mention for anyone looking for resources about vegetarian/plant-based dieting for health, “whole foods plant-based” (WFPBD) is what you’ll want to be looking into. That’s where the major health benefits are.

Edit 2: Reading the methodology more thoroughly now, it seems like a plant-based diet was underrepresented in the data and that “no difference in cancer risk in vegans except elevated colorectal cancer” is suspect (which the authors disclaim for colorectal). a) Within the study itself, you’d think the doubled SCC rate wouldn’t just stop at vegetarians somehow (a plant-based diet is less acidic than an animal-based one, but still??), and b) it directly contradicts several meta-analyses finding an overall lowered risk of cancer in vegetarians (as this study seems to) and then another marked lowering from that in vegans. Linked above, for example, from 2018:

This comprehensive meta-analysis reports a significant protective effect of a vegetarian diet versus the incidence and/or mortality from ischemic heart disease (-25%) and incidence from total cancer (-8%). Vegan diet conferred a significant reduced risk (-15%) of incidence from total cancer.

Social media users need to be plied with meaningless imagery to keep them focused for the three seconds it takes to read this. It’s absolutely fucking pathetic.

Also tells me this is 100% a barely functioning piece of trash they whipped up with an LLM like a whiny, shit-smearing toddler.

Oh, okay, so you’re not even going to acknowledge you had no idea what you were talking aboutand claimed the 3.8% didn’t include food and energy.

Cool.

Oh, okay, so you’re just talking out of your ass. You’re thinking of the Core CPI, but there are others, just as valid, that take it into account and which are used in things like legislation. It is because they’re too volatile, and you want Core CPI to give a more stable understanding of which direction the economy is generally moving. Such a crazy, whacky idea to have multiple metrics that take into account different factors; fucking bonkers, honestly. What will those filthy, mustache-twirling government economists think of next?

And by the way: 3.8% does include all items. 3.8% is not the Core CPI you have sand in your groin over; it’s the CPI-U.

Maybe you can make fun of the “respected economist” when you’re ready to present a macroecon 101-level or higher understanding of CPI and get your facts straight about the article I’m sure you actually read.

Edit: Here’s the press release, for context. Less food and energy is 2.8%.

Edit 2: Zero acknowledgement they’re objectively wrong about food and energy not being included in the 3.8%. Very cool, Lemmy.

“We should take Munich, and push it somewhere else!”

Firefox has begun the AI enshitification process

Dude, it’s like five things – one of which is just translations that can be performed locally, and another of which is an alt text accessibility option – with an obvious universal kill switch (and of course individualized ones). Calm your tits. Chill your balls. I don’t use LLMs at all except for translations, and I still think the whinging over this is completely overblown.

“Begun” implies a slippery slope of much more, and that just doesn’t seem to be the case.

The fact she was on the ship is by its self a reason to test for it

Did you even read the full quote? By the time her tests were back in 24 hours, she probably would’ve been on death’s door had she still been on the ship. They clearly got her hospital care as soon as they landed, and I seriously doubt they were sending her home.

I’m sorry, but the fact you’re calling it “Hanta Virus” tells me I should trust the doctors/epidemiologists and Spain’s health minister more than I trust some rando on the Internet spitballing “well they should’ve just done [thing]!!” Her condition began deteriorating literally on the evacuation plane, and she seemingly got care basically as soon as possible.

I’m anxious you decided to take the out-of-context headline of an article you didn’t read and run with it:

“They were not thinking that these symptoms were compatible with hantavirus. Why? Because what she was telling [them] was [that she had] an episode of coughing some days ago that had disappeared, and what she was having at that moment was kind of like stress or anxiety or nervousness. So it was not catalogued [as hantavirus],” [Spanish health minister] Padilla said.

[Padilla] said the woman, who had been travelling on the ship at the centre of a deadly hantavirus outbreak, had been suffering flu-like symptoms but they appeared to be getting better and she did not have a fever.

He said that the woman’s condition had deteriorated between the ship and the plane. “It is not that the patient was feeling bad and she was saying: ‘OK, I’m not going to say anything because I want to be on the plane.’ It was like: ‘OK, we have measured your temperature, it was not fever, afterwards you have been on the plane, it has taken off, you have started feeling bad, we have measured your temperature and it was fever.’”

Padilla said passengers could not have been tested onboard the vessel because there were no rapid PCR tests for hantavirus available. Any testing would have involved flying samples to Madrid to a specialist lab, a process that would have taken 24 hours. Those delays would have made it impossible to rescue those on board due to a forecast of extremely high winds from Monday evening, which were due to be “hell” on Tuesday, he said.

? He’s dressed as a yellow supercar. What do you mean?

How is the headline ragebait? Ragebait is the cynical production of content to increase clicks and engagement. The author clearly actually is that passionate about FOSS self-hosting over paid gatekeepers like Plex, and the tone of the article is adequately reflected in the headline.

An opinion author stating a strong opinion in the headline isn’t automatically “ragebait” just because you personally aren’t as passionate. And I say that as someone who isn’t as passionate as the author.

Here’s the study in Minerals. I’ll caution that it’s an MDPI journal, but it’s better than Earth.com’s content mill dogshit.

How the shit is this supposed to be “programmer humor”? Comms really do return to the lowest common denominator if they aren’t actively moderated for relevance; jesus christ.

We’re living in the Porky’s butthole timeline and we’re idealizing circa Gen X conservatives like this?

Okay, entirely fair. I’d believed you were, by not pushing back, not just explaining it but justifying it as a talking point, but I see I was mistaken.

https://considerveganism.com/counter/

Not even just land animals (although that’s 100% true). Life-for-life, land animals would be exceeded by wild-caught fish (conservatively) in a matter of days if literally the entire world went vegan in a microsecond and literally every farmed land animal on Earth were slaughtered at the same instant. Humans arguably couldn’t even practicably keep up the worldwide mass-slaughter pace just compared to wild-caught animals within this ridiculous anti-vegan fever dream.

Edit: Say there are 30 billion land animals as livestock. Assume on the very low end that 1 trillion wild fishes are caught every year. This would mean you’d be killing 1/33 of the annual wild fish catch in a microsecond and that it’d take you about 12 days to, life-for-life, exceed the instantly killed entire land livestock population from wild-caught fishes alone. As icing on the cake: “We estimate that 124 billion farmed fishes were killed for food in 2019.”, so contract that down to less than 10 days if you count fish overall.

a) What does that have to do with Del Monte’s closure? The fact that animals who were by definition going to be killed could be killed if the meat industry suddenly collapses?

b) Even if it were relevant: “and?” “Oh no, it suddenly matters that the animals who were going to be tortured and killed for food will be killed sooner (because it no longer selfishly serves me). Look what you made me do, you evil vegoons!”

“Why are you trying to stop the dog fighting ring? Don’t you know that most of the dogs would have to be put down because they’re too violent to be adopted? Wow, you’re a sick fuck.”

They can’t. It makes no fucking sense; anti-vegans are as braindead and obsessed as they like to project onto vegans.