Pretty sure everyone else understood the meaning behind the sentence ‘you can get protein from lettuce and apples’. You need a certain amount of daily protein intake for a healthy diet and the comment implied you can get those from lettuce and apples. It is technically kinda true if you take it literally, but eating 5kg of lettuce is not practical.
Free speech doesnt mean you can say whatever you want without consequences. People have the right not to be insulted, you cant violate that with your free speech. Pretty sure insulting anyone is illegal (at least here in Germany it is, I would be surprised if it isnt in the US), it usually cant be enforced immediately though.
I think you misunderstood what you are replying to. Also you misunderstood the placebo effect (or maybe you think 50/50 placebo control group studies are the only application)
I donno, maybe I misinterpreted your tone but your comments all sound really condescending to me. With the “iTs cALled macOS not MacOS” and stuff
Dont start a comment with ‘you poor innocent soul’
Maybe people would listen to you if you werent such a prick
Nah, he looked 12 om the show, now hes 16
Not bold. Not even italic or underlined…
Ah I see. The models always had legs thats why I was confused^^
I dont understand. Legs as in the character models legs?
I agree, but the question at hand was not whether one or the other was negligible, but which is more efficient: walking or biking.
You say negligible, but what you mean is negligible on a scale of the CO2 emissions we are used to. Human body CO2 emission is just as negligible on that scale.
Ill do some quick maths: According to the first source on google, an average human burns 3kcal/min walking and 5kcal/min biking at 15km/h, which is about 3x as fast as walking. Considering that, we arrive at a difference of 1.33kcal/min by walking instead of biking. Estimates suggest 1.3g CO2-equivalents per kcal for average consumption (much lower for vegans), so thats 1.73g CO2/min. 100kg CO2 for bike production would take 57,800min of walking, thats almost 963h. An average bike will probably be used more so I guess you are right and bikes are indeed more efficient than walking :D
Could you elaborate what you are analysing here? If I dont misinterpret the model, the option where you dont double the victims minimizes deaths every time.
That was the point and I think you know it.
Play this argument in your head: ‘You need calories to survive’ - ‘You can get calories from concrete and sand’
In that situation, would you seriously argue that those actually contain nutrients at 0.0001 kcal per 100g? This was not very far from that.