You're pretty funny, before you said they only graze, then you said we simply don't grow food for cattle, now you've admitted we do based on some random dude pulling 5% out of a hat.
They cite a paper that puts the land used purely for growing feed at about 38% of our cropland. If you combine it with grazing land it goes up to about 80%. Cropland for food humans eat is just 16%.
It's not censorship. They can choose to publish or not publish anything they want. Anyone is still free to publish the image in other journals that don't ban it.
It's difficult because it's just very untrue and wrong. This is very widely documented, grains are absolutely grown just to feed animals. The majority of corn and soy in the US is grown to feed animals. I'm not sure why you're so insistent on something that can so easily be looked up, you don't even need vegan sources, the animal ag industry reports this stuff.
This has nothing to do with grazing land. This is crop suitable land being used to grow crops that is then fed to livestock. There are no assumptions being made and it is not junk science, you're just not very good at reading.
Obviously if someone needs to eat meat to live I'm not going to object. And people living sustainably and not just supporting the animal ag industry are also off the hook in my books.
But in regards to your weird vegetation stuff, I hope you're aware that the livestock are raised on vegetation and will typically consume more calories of feed than they provide with meat? This is a large part of why the Amazon is being deforested, it's to feed livestock, not vegans. The science on how to stop environmental damage is pretty clear on that one.
Even as a cheeky vegan I find it hard to disagree with you on this one. Leather will absolutely last a lifetime if taken care of. I think you can still get close, there's a lot of very durable upholstery fabrics for instance but you're likely making other trade offs.
People were surveyed about the image, there are articles about it, an entire documentary has been made about it with the support of Lenna. How you can just come along and say that's all made up is honestly beyond me. And I'm pretty sure that the collective IEEE and the ethics researchers who have written about this aren't idiots. I really think you are confused about what empathy is, but I don't see myself convincing you of that. So uh, have a nice day.
I've been registered for a while now. I really don't see a good reason not to, they only take 'em if I'm dead and what good are they to me then? Better going to someone in need.
Organic and recycled cotton is a lot better, and hemp and linen are also pretty good. And if you're worried about hazardous pesticides the majority is used while growing feed for animals.
Down the bottom there are some statistics about how many women experience sexual harassment and gender based discrimination in STEM positions. They also tend to have worse outcomes in general and fewer will go on to work in their field.
While this might seem like a small thing, ignoring these kinds of outdated and unnecessary boys club attitudes is exactly the kind of thing perpetuating these sorts of outcomes.
If you can't see how using a cropped image from a playboy for no reason in an image processing paper is different from your made up examples and could make some people feel uncomfortable then maybe you're lacking common sense and empathy.
The issue was that it did make some people uncomfortable, so it was harmful. You can't just ignore the reasons stated and then say it's pointless. The ban didn't come out of nowhere.
This is kinda interesting. I work in this field and have seen that image show up all the time in papers but never knew the origins.
I think it's the right move to ban it and I'm surprised there's so many people defending it. This isn't about censorship or being a prude or anything like that. It's just a bit weird that it's from a playboy and if you can't understand how that would make some people uncomfortable then you might be a bit lacking in empathy.
The 3d world has Utah teapots and Stanford bunnies and dragons which are all very neutral and don't hurt anyone. Perhaps we can move on and use some less alienating pictures for image processing papers, too.
Thanks for the detailed response. Everytime I learn more about this stuff it just gets more and more worrisome. I already know very little about how the climate works and now even the experts are a little unsure what's going on. It doesn't paint a great picture for the future.
You're pretty funny, before you said they only graze, then you said we simply don't grow food for cattle, now you've admitted we do based on some random dude pulling 5% out of a hat.
info you won't read
They cite a paper that puts the land used purely for growing feed at about 38% of our cropland. If you combine it with grazing land it goes up to about 80%. Cropland for food humans eat is just 16%.