I didn’t realise. Was not paywalled for me on the phone.

I think this dynamics shows up with masto as well. When the response on the other service does not tag the community, it doesn’t arrive here.

Thanks, corrected

I guess you misunderstood my providing illustrative examples in parentheses. Replace or remove the examples, the argument is still valid.

In another subthread they’ve pointed out that processing food also changes its protein density, most obviously by water transfer.

This is not a problem with the nutrition of foods, it is the metric that is poorly designed. One more argument against the chart

Your seem to insist to twist this towards vegan wars, but this is you. It’s not the graphics, it’s not me.

What’s wrong with reducing density through absorption (of water)?

To me it seems that your interpretation completely disregards the Y-axis. On the other hand, I wouldn’t think the colour coding does a good job in separating along the carnivorous-vegetarian-vegan scale.

So much wrong about this chart. It is factually correct, but it answers the wrong question.

This chart makes it way too easy to optimise for cheap protein, which is misleading. It is not this what it takes to have a healthy organism. It takes a varied diet, with balanced quantities of liquids (see milk), vitamins (see sprouts), fatty acids (see salmon), minerals (see shrimps, eggs, walnuts), actually carbs (potatoes, rice, spaghetti), and much more…

The relevance of the post to the community should be made clear by the contents of the post. As it currently stands, there are no indicators that the event would have any influence on Iran’s support for the Russian invasion.

Yup, @tearsintherain@leminal.space, what you’re engaging in here is pure whataboutism. Fox, Carlson and company would’ve happily helped here, but they didn’t. NYT did.

Researching on time and place of arrival is a nice gift for anyone who wants to intercept these and is being cut off from doing this research themselves.

Let’s say that for millions of years a healthy biosphere grew around forests and the balance worked. Now you come to tell us it doesn’t. Wouldn’t you think it’s a bit unconvincing?

Why would the logs be emitting CO2 (rotting?) if they are alive and growing?