Sure

if it ticks the two boxes then it’ll be useful to know :

1 : [ ] Independent

2 : [ ] Has provided long term, reproducible, studies with reasonable sample sizes and empirical data based results.

how would you measure quality of life for cats and their food?

Already answered, Here and Here

If you are asking for an example of a specific methodology, I’ve no idea, I’m neither an animal behaviour nor nutrition researcher.

In the same way i wouldn’t be able to provide a specific methodology for measuring orbital decay or the long term effects of language drift on emotional responses, because I’m not a physicist , linguist or psychologist either.

That’s one of the reasons for peer reviewed research by specialists.

I presume you would be happy if it was formulated and checked by independent animal nutritionists to meet the AAFCO(USA) and FEDIAF(Europe) guidelines for animal nutrition.

Seeing as we are going around in circles i’m going to streamline the process and make it easier for you by providing a checkpoint system.

I’ll be happy when it ticks both of these boxes.

1 : [ ] Independent

2 : [ ] Has provided long term, reproducible, studies with reasonable sample sizes and empirical data based results.

On this occasion your reference gets a 1 out of 2 :

[ X ] Independent

[ ] Has provided long term, reproducible, studies with reasonable sample sizes and empirical data based results.

they seem independent enough.

See above

Hardly tree hugging hippies.

You’re the only person using this phrasing, but you are correct in that they don’t match a phrasing nobody has claimed so far.

Hardly magical thinking.

I suspect the irony of claiming a lack of magical thinking by providing no actual evidence and just saying it a second time is lost on you.

the data so far in encouraging.

Again, the data so far is inconclusive

“We don’t know yet” vs “Sure, go ahead”

The food is engineered and independently tested.

Again, possibly true but beside the point.

it has the approval of agencies that exist to make sure animals are cared for.

So I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume you have citations for this that aren’t institutions that actively promote (or have a vested interest) in veganism.

As I’m sure you can understand that such institutions can hardly be relied upon to be neutral.

that’s hardly magical thinking.

“magical thinking, the belief that one’s ideas, thoughts, actions, words, or use of symbols can influence the course of events in the material world.”

“Magical thinking, or superstitious thinking, is the belief that unrelated events are causally connected despite the absence of any plausible causal link between them”

Belief in the absence of a plausible causal link.

In case you are unsure, a plausible causal link can be obtained through quality, reproducible, verifiable research.

Unless you have some of that (or some other proof) , you are basing your opinions on anecdotal evidence and inconclusive studies, they very definition of magical thinking.

It seems we are treading the same ground here so I’m just going to assume you have nothing to add.

sure. But the indications so far are that it is fine.

no, the indications so far are inconclusive.

like the original indications for asbestos were inconclusive or lead pipes/paint.

But it seems you are deep into your magical thinking so i doubt anything I’ve said will make a difference to you.

I hope it works out for you.

they do have world class teams preparing the food.

As i specifically said, this doesn’t address the actual issue.

In case i haven’t been clear, the current state of nutritional science on this matter has no consensus on mid to long term outcomes.

So taking the all of the experts in the world and creating the pinnacle of vegan pet nutrition will still garner a best guess, because, and i’m going to bold this part on a separate line:

THERE IS NO WAY TO TELL WITHOUT DOING THE ACTUAL WORK

It is potentially being done now, great, wishful thinking and anecdotal results are not a replacement for actual study.

Also, they have independent bodies verifying that the food is suitable.

Outstanding, and when they’ve provided repeatable results from long term studies with quality methodology and reasonable sample sizes that will make a big difference.

Until then it’s a gamble with potentially life altering consequences (for the animals i mean)

seems good enough for me.

Each to their own, your own subjective comfort doesn’t prove validity, neither does my subjective discomfort prove a lack of it.

For you the risk might be worth it, but to pretend there is no risk is delusional.

If long term , broad participation studies with rigorously reproducible methods came to the conclusion that a vegan diet is a viable option then i would be open to switching.

The issue isn’t which food is the most nutritious, it’s that the evidence available in general doesn’t yet support a conclusion on mid to long term viability.

You could have a team of world class nutritionist vets custom make you the best mixture and you would still have the same issue.

the meta analysis found no major implications to health.

What it said was the current evidence which is potentially bias and only from short term and limited quality studies indicates there are no major implications to health.

However, these beneficial findings were relatively consistent across several studies and should, therefore, not be disregarded.

Agreed, it’s a reasonably promising start and with all the caveats in place it does have some merit, but “should not be disregarded” isn’t the same as “go ahead, everything is fine”.

It’s hardly radical, and with proper care cats can be fed a nutritious and tasty diet with not animal products.

It’s not radical to think this might pan out to something beneficial, no.

But currently it’s still a gamble and to argue from a position that glosses over the many many caveats of the studies you provided is disingenuous and weakens your overall argument.

That you personally think the risk is worth the reward is your own business, presenting the situation as containing no risk is not.

Ah…i think i see the problem.

If what you’ve understood so far from my responses has been “this person thinks cat’s are being force fed cucumbers” then I’m not sure I’m best placed to help you, that’s a job for a professional.

Just for completeness sake I’ll address your response but it seems there might be bigger obstacles in play than i had first thought.

you do understand that people are not force feeding cats cucumbers.

See above

the food is indistinguishable from the meat versions.

incorrect, it might be similar but so far (again, according to your provided meta study) there has been no conclusive research to suggest an equal nutritional profile in the medium to long term.

See my previous response about gambling.

I’m not sure any further conversation on this subject is going to garner anything new if you are unable (or unwilling) to comprehend and respond to points raised.

Good luck.

so obviously provide your cat with nutritious food. if the cat is not eating the food then find something it will eat.

And that’s the issue, the short to midterm studies are relatively bias (as shown by your own provided meta-study), show you need supplements to stave off issues (taurine etc) and are somewhat inconclusive.

There are no long term studies.

It’s a “It doesn’t seem to immediately kill your pets in the limited studies that have been done, we have even seen some benefits, but we don’t have enough quality data to be that confident about anything”

Of an option between a known good and a potential good , one of those is more certain to produce a good outcome.

at the moment these are new fields of studies.

Agreed, and making potentially life altering long term decisions based on new fields of study comes with risks.

I’m not saying it won’t or can’t work, I’m saying it’s a gamble. At the moment it’s a sketchy gamble based on incomplete fields of study with limited quality results and it’s a gamble you are making on behalf of another life that can’t consent.

If you want to roll the dice on this, that’s on you.

For me, i would consider that kind of risk to be too great for the sake of my personal beliefs.

Either way, if you are going to be trying to convince people there is no risk you’re probably going to have a hard time with anyone who understands how to read the papers you provided.

there is food available that is vegan, palatable and nutritious.

• Vegan : sure + supplements
• Palatable, meh, as long as they are eating it
• Nutritious, see above (read: inconclusive)

so there is no problem.

A strong claim to be making when the meta study you provide specifically goes out of it’s way to say “we don’t really know yet”

quality of life is subjective to measure at the best of time.

Sure, no arguments here.

The findings so far so do not demonstrate a problem if the cat is cared for.

Your own citation doesn’t even show that , so unless you have another that definitely concludes this I’m not sure where you are getting this from.

As i said above, at best it’s stating:

“It doesn’t seem to immediately kill your pets in the limited studies that have been done, we have even seen some benefits, but we don’t have enough quality data to be that confident about anything”

how else will you study quality of life from a cat?

Empirically and with a structurally repeatable methodology.

Preferably with funding provided by a somewhat neutral party.

The meta-study you provided specifically calls out the problem with self reported studies.

Whilst survey studies evaluating guardian-reported outcomes generally encompassed larger numbers of animals, these are subject to inherent biases due to participant selection, as well as the reliability of lay people making judgements around somewhat subjective concepts, such as health and body condition.

The whole section : “4.1. Evidence Considerations” specifically points out the inadequacies and limitations of the studies under analysis.

As does the conclusion section : “5. Conclusions”

Which to my personal interpretation says

“We haven’t found anything overtly damaging, some benefits even, but the research is lacking in scope, sample size and length is largely from potentially biased sources”

“If you are going to feed your cat or dog a vegan diet, use the commercial ones as they are less likely to be problematic”

emphasis on the potentially there, lest you think I’m claiming absolute bias in my interpretation.

I asked you to show peer reviewed studies that prove cats will not find vegan food palatable.

You asked for nutrition and palatability, the nutrition part is covered in the inconclusive nature of the meta study conclusion section, neither strongly for nor against until higher quality research is available.

Going back to a previous comment

You asked for peer reviewed studies into the palatability and nutrition of vegan cat food.

I provided.

Your provided studies made no mention of a particular palatability metric (i could have missed it however). The fact that they eat either type of food would imply a measure of palatability both ways, but if you have something definitive I’d be interested to see it.

cheery picking laws aside

That would imply there was “cherry” picking to be set aside.

cherry picking in this case would imply picking only the law(s) that supports the bias of the poster, to the exclusion of other laws that contradict this position.

I’d be interested in seeing the contradicting laws you think would make this cherry picking, do you have any links ?

“News outlet” might be the most generous interpretation I’ve ever seen.

For me specifically, the setup and config oftentimes is what I’m doing with the computer, the learning and knowledge gained from the practice is what I’m after, which is good because it’s significantly less fun than it used to be.

Admittedly mine is probably a non-standard case and it ties in with other things in my life.

Condolences on your loss.

Depends on how you define ‘cost’ I suppose, but seems like the trade off isn’t worth it for you, which is fair.

Some might value the perceived benefits much higher than you do.

What if the life I’m imagining I’m protecting is one where I have the option of choosing a platform/application that isn’t scraping the absolute dregs of the barrel to squeeze out that last bit of profit margin.

That’s a win win right?

I mean, yes? That’s a good summation.

The part where you get to call something “open source” by OSI standards (which I’m pretty sure is the accepted standard set) but only if you adhere to those standards.

Don’t want to adhere, no problem, but nobody who does accept that standard will agree with you if you try and assign that label to something that doesn’t adhere, because that’s how commonly accepted standards work, socially.

Want to make an “open source 2 : electric boogaloo” licence , still no problem.

Want to try and get the existing open source standards changed, still good, difficult, but doable.

Relevant to this discussion, trying to convince people that someone claiming something doesn’t adhere to the current, socially accepted open source standards, when anybody can go look those standards up and check, is the longest of shots.

To address the bible example, plenty of variations exist, with smaller or larger deviations from each other, and they each have their own set of believers, some are even compatible with each other.

Much like the “true” ¹ open source licences and the other, “closely related, but not quite legit” ² variations.

¹ As defined by the existing, community accepted standards set forth by the OSI

² Any other set of standards that isn’t compatible with ¹

edit: clarified that last sentence, it was borderline unparseable

“It’s not libre / free as in freedom so it’s wrong”.

I think it’s more “It’s not libre / free as in freedom so it’s not open source, don’t pretend it is”.

The “wrong” part would be derived from claiming its something that it isn’t to gain some advantage. I’m this case community contributions.

There’s not a handwaving distinction between open source and not, there are pretty clear guidelines.

I don’t think there’s any data Microsoft can get through you using edge that they can’t also get just by controlling your OS

I’d put mid-level money on that not being true. There are a lot of things going on in a browser, a lot of which aren’t particularly easy to access from the outside.

Not to say it isn’t possible.

There are valid reasons to use windows and if you’ve gotta use it anyway they’ve already got your data from the start

To a degree yes, but assuming they aren’t pulling nefarious shit in the background, there are in theory many things you can turn off or somewhat neutralise using the options in the OS to reduce the level of data collection.

They are slowly removing those options but they still exist for now.

Again, i fully understand people not wanting to go to the trouble to achieve a goal they don’t care about, but that isn’t the same as there being nothing you can do if you wish to.

There shouldn’t be any of the Googled parts of Chrome in Edge, just as there aren’t any Googled parts of Chrome in stock Chromium.

There are at the very least googled parts of chromium in it though : https://github.com/ungoogled-software/ungoogled-chromium

Unless google have significantly changed the way they package and build chromium recently there are still google web service dependencies and i believe binary blobs (though they may have changed the closed source blob policy iirc)

Of course, you are now giving your data to Microsoft instead of Google, which isn’t really a win or a lose. If you’re not paying for the software, you’re either using FOSS, or the software is paid for by selling access to you and your computer.

Indeed