While higher prices cab make products more appealing, that is not the primary reason why vegan products are more expensive.

Correct. That’s precisely why producers of meat patties can still be profitable at a much lower price point.

It’s social media, who’s making scientific postulates?

It’s a lemmy comment.

It’s not rudimentary, it’s a complex system reduced to a few sentences.

1. Vegan patties have been around forever.

2. There aren’t significantly more barriers to entry for food products than other industries.

3. Yes vendors want high prices, but that applies to any product, not only vegan products.

The answer is, as everyone else has pointed out, economies of scale. There’s a larger market with more participants producing more beef burgers than there are vegan patties.

This is contrary to basic economic principles.

If a beef burger and vegan burger cost the same to make, but people will pay more for the vegan, that world attract more vegan producers to the market, and more competition would reduce the price.

The Harris campaign?

Maybe “weird af” ?

I thought they more or less already did that? Although perhaps not at the UN.

They’ve already been making out that it’s an unacceptable act of aggression by Ukraine.

Next up:

• someone falls out a window
• Putin with mysterious illness, photos of him sitting many metres away across a stupidly long table.
• they will launch the nukes if other countries don’t stop supporting Ukraine.

Well, he does grant people position or status or whatever - see SCOTUS for example.

That tends to be how dictatorships work.

I think a lot of users are just very young, and the light of idealism hasn’t left their eyes.

I agree with you pretty much on all points.

I am also conflicted.

It’s up to courts and parole boards to determine what punishments are appropriate, given the context of the crimes.

I don’t like the guy, and of course his crime was repugnant, but I can still acknowledge that he’s one of the best volleyball players in the world. These two opinions are incongruous and yet, they exist at the same time.

Can someone spell it out for me?

Who did the nutty instances want to win?

Who did normal people want to win?

Trump thinks no one will respect her because she’s a woman. He thinks women are weak willed and easily manipulated. He doesn’t respect women and assumes everyone thinks that way.

Not surprisingly it’s projection. Trump is a hapless idiot. A lifetime of shady dealings, and his narcissism, make him the most easily manipulated person in history.

I agree.

In the 70s everyone thought there would be a nuclear apocalypse.

A few decades before that children were born intended to be used as free labour for subsistence agriculture.

Yes climate change is a threat unlike any we’ve ever faced, yes its getting worse quicker than we thought, and yes population reduction is one way to mitigate it… but I don’t think that makes it wrong to have a child.

It’s not even the worst part of that interview.

At one point he said she would be the play thing of global leaders. “I’m not going to say why but everyone watching knows why”

I think you missed the joke.

You’re not just “disagreeing”. You’re trotting out GOP propaganda, much like a bot programmed to do so.

I’m having a hard time believing that you actually believe what you’re saying.

It is if you control the judiciary.

Australia checking in.

Everyone can send and receive SMS. It’s always the primary /default contact method.

Close friends can be contacted via whatever third party app but there’s no single platform everyone uses other than SMS.

Everyone is talking about radiation but IMO having food and water is more important.

In a large city, things would turn to shit within hours. There would be violence.

Honestly, if you don’t have a relative on a farm within a days walk, then your best bet is a refugee camp.

If cities are being nuked it probably is the apocalypse.