Not sure about the colonial mindset or the caste practices of centuries but Indian culture is extremely hierarchial in almost all facets of life. Elders, seniors, higher officials, etc all expect to be respected even if it is just one year difference, etc.

One of the ways to show respect it to not use names and call as sir,madam, teacher, officer or at best elder brothers/sisters for college seniors. All this works well in the regional languages of India but sounds weird in English.

Directly calling names of elders is still seen as bad and if needed would use their name appended with sir madam uncle aunt etc.

This is less practiced in IT field in my experience. After years of schooling and college calling my teachers sir and maam it was hard to shake off the habit. A few of my managers had to remind me a bunch of times to call them by their name and not as sir / maam in the beginning. Even then I avoidedcallintg out their names and just started speaking to get their attention. Now I almost call everyone by name by default in office setting. It is still fun when freshers join and are asked to use names of 15+ year elders and them wondering if we are joking.

No it was the communist in china

I guess killing off millions does save the planet some pollution. But thats not a very ideal way of pollution control, is it?

It came preinstalled.

Arch always can never not include violence.

Keto vegan?

Not trial. Home Single user license.

If that works for you good.

I could never work with no script. Suprised that helps with paywalls though.

Marking it as ‘question’ but then making definitive statements based on interactions with ‘others’ is asking a question now ?

To answer your unasked question, depends on how you seperate religion from culture. Its often difficult to do so in many places of the world where religion is widespread among the soceity.

The female clothing requirements are from strict interpretations in islam that is followed to varying degrees mostly based on how religious a person/family is. I’ve had teachers wear full covering on their way to and from school but remove them once inside. There were college classmates who wore head covering everywhere and others almost never in social circles. The behavior varies widely among any given culture.

Why is it not religious and only cultural? It is more commonly worn by conservative muslims who adhere to strict interpretations of the sacred texts they follow. Based on that it is infact religious. Although I doubt it is a religious symbol like the article mentions.

The wearer of it exists across the globe and not limited to any distinct culture or even region. Further prohibiting a cultural dress is even more weird than the case for religious wears.

What extension do you use ?

One is enforced countrywide under a vague law open for interpretation.

Other is for school children on school premises, clearly stating the articles of clothing not allowed.

It does in recent times. My laptop came pre installed with win 11 and office home 2021(i think).

All i had to do was click activate to link the key to my email account. It showed up as a notification on first login.

Even if not activated it still would open files with that warning.

That shouldn’t be uknown as its ubuntu based. The previous ones Ive used was debian based. It was pretty much stock with some wallpaper and basic customization. Also in most cases never updated.

While i agree to the points it still stands that the majority of CO2 and methane(a more potent greenhouse gas) are part of the carbon cycle that has been relatively stable.

It is not comparable to the dumping of carbon from fossil fuels. This is something many collate together and make disingenuous arguments. Correct me where I am wrong in understanding this.

One additional point(though i have no exact statistics) per kg isnt comparable between plants and meat. Large portions of plant are not edible and used as fertilizers or cattle feed at best. Meat is also energy dense and hence required in far less quantities than carbohydrates.

Not to mention water isnt equally distributed. Doing intensive agriculture in drought prone areas are far worse than cattle raised in water rich regions.

I would be interestsed in finding a study that takes a wide array of factors and calculates the effects.

Your comment consisted of 2 points:

1. Calling me lazy an dishonest for asking a clarification on an ambiguous term ‘sustainable’. I hadn’t made any claims to be called at.

2. You again used sustainable to which i defined and responded how animal husbandry is infact sustainable.

So how have I not responded to your comment?

Its you pulling out accusations and imagining up arguments that was never made and making personal attacks rather than stick to making valid arguments and address the actual points being made.

Your argument about energy fails to distinguish between the typical carbon cycle of moving through plants animals and decomposition incontrast with the cabon introduced through fossil fuels. This was what I pointed out previously too.

And we cant just plop down plants that are human digestable in many places where we grow the feed for cattles. Correct me on that.

1. I didn’t disagree with plants generally being less env friendly.

2. Most CO2 emmision wrt to meat is misleading because they are part of the carbon cycle. Pumping out oil is not comparable here.

3. A lot of fossil fuel is utilised in the cultivation, storage, transportation of various seasonal crops, often across the world. Same as for meat. Generalizing plant vs meat often hides those behind moral arguments.

4. What false equivalency? Polluting is not the same as sustainable? Sustainable how? Animal husbandry has been practiced for millennias and in many places is the main food source where agriculture isn’t feasible.

Making a wide general statement and nitpicking in the arument is lazy and dishonest. Atleast read what I was responding to.

Plants are part of that environment and you have to kill them to eat? *unless you are picking off fallen ripe fruits like roadkill eaters.

Also cultivation of those plants you eat are done in large cleared areas and are destructive to the environment.

By what metric? Do you mean its far more polluting than the rest because sustainable means something different.