[-] umbra@slrpnk.net 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I usually make stuff from scratch and follow vegan recipes so i don't have to "veganfy" a recipe. Like my family loves Nora Cooks in general and there is a great nora cooks pancake recipe . We've made that as pancakes but usually go the waffle route. It's pretty easy to make and leftovers are great in airfryer (ok in microwave). We usually make extra and have leftovers for 2-3 days

If i need to do a conversion on the fly i usually just do a quick internet search, check 1-3 sources and go with the consensus. My search is usually "[x] to [y] substitute ratio" or similar.

For your plant milk i would generally go 1:1 but it would depend on the type of plant milk since some is thinner than others. If you can't find anything specific then do your best guess and treat it like an experiment, take notes, and adjust next time. For your specific case this post seemed fairly detailed, mentions usually 1:1 but goes more in depth. For the things i usually make though 1:1 seems to work fine for our Almond or soy milk.

[-] umbra@slrpnk.net 3 points 2 weeks ago

Sure, and many vegans do end up eating less ultra processed foods. But my point is that eating healthier isn't what being vegan is about. Vegan isn't a diet like many people think. It's a way of life to reduce and eliminate harm to animals

[-] umbra@slrpnk.net 18 points 3 weeks ago

The spirit of veganism is excluding consumption of things that result in animal cruelty, exploitation, or death. There is no requirement to avoid ultra-processed foods

https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism

[-] umbra@slrpnk.net 25 points 3 weeks ago

Two things can make Oreos not vegan:

  • some flavors just aren't (the flavors that are vegan are just accidentally vegan)
  • some factories use bone-char sugar.
[-] umbra@slrpnk.net 2 points 3 weeks ago

You can be a vegan but make very sugary and unhealthy snacks. You could then consume that and eat more calories than you burn in a day, and over time you would become overweight.

This means it is possible to be an overweight vegan, and as you mention this is also possible with the processed vegan foods that have become available that make it easier to consume more calories than you burn in a day.

[-] umbra@slrpnk.net 5 points 1 month ago

I don't buy used non-vegan clothes or items but if i already owned them then i will continue to use them. They will naturally get phased out over time

[-] umbra@slrpnk.net 28 points 1 month ago

“We need more research to find less painful ways to kill shellfish,” Dr. Sneddon urges.

It's sad that this is the takeaway and not "let's not eat these creatures that experience stress and pain"

[-] umbra@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 month ago

Yeah i only see 2 paragraphs but it is listed as an 8 minute read/listen. Archive.ph also doesn't show full article

[-] umbra@slrpnk.net 8 points 1 month ago

It wouldn't be a hard requirement for me for dating, but they'd need to have empathy and willingness to discuss veganism. Long term id expect them to become vegan, not because of me but because they came to know and believe in the vegan philosophy. I just don't think i could be with someone long term who doesn't value all life the same way as me.

[-] umbra@slrpnk.net 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I think the crux of it is making people care though. If people don't care about animal well-being enough to become vegan, what is going to make them care about the environment enough to become vegan? The environmental crisis is going to have to get a lot worse before people even consider giving up their precious meat

[-] umbra@slrpnk.net 23 points 2 months ago

This was linked in the comments and pretty good read if anyone wants to avoid linkedin

https://www.molecularist.com/2025/11/did-qualcomm-kill-arduino-for-good.html

[-] umbra@slrpnk.net 12 points 2 months ago

Neat. It'll be interesting to see the data they publish in 6 months and how much better the efficiency can be with two functional sails.

38
submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by umbra@slrpnk.net to c/vegan@slrpnk.net

Link text: A jury took just 51 minutes to unanimously declare five Animal Rising campaigners who ran onto the tracks of the 2023 Grand National not guilty of public nuisance at Liverpool Crown Court today (13/11/25). This was the third of a series of five Grand National trials; after this third consecutive failure to convict, the CPS will now review whether the remaining trials will go to court with the next one currently due to start on 1/12/25.

  • 118 people were arrested at Aintree in 2023 for attempting to access the racetrack and halt the Grand National race, opposing the frequent deaths of horses on the tracks and the use of horses as entertainment. [1]
  • The five defendants in this nine-day trial managed to occupy the track, with several affixing themselves to jumps on the course.
  • The Grand National race was delayed by 15 minutes, and horse Hill Sixteen died after falling at the first fence.
  • Subsequently, the British Horseracing Authority brought in additional safety measures for horses running the Grand National race from 2024 onwards; these changes are welcomed by Animal Rising, but the group says these changes do not go far enough. [2]
  • Two previous trials for other campaigners who attempted to access the track that day ended in a not guilty verdict (24/09/25) and a hung jury (21/10/25). [3]
  • Over 480 horses have been killed at racecourses in the UK since the 2023 Grand National protest [4].

Hundreds of campaigners joined Animal Rising’s effort to halt the 2023 Grand National, aiming to protect horses from harm and death whilst sparking a public debate about the exploitation of animals in sport. With two acquittals and a hung jury, Animal Rising contends that these trials reflect a broader shift in public opinion against horse racing. The group views them as significant victories for all activists operating within an increasingly hostile climate for peaceful protest in the UK.

A key defence of the campaigners was “reasonable excuse”, a provision of public nuisance law. Defendants argued the suffering and deaths of horses within the racing industry constituted a valid reason to attempt to stop the race and draw attention to the plight of horses in UK racing.

Michelle Farnham, 27, from London, was one of the five found not guilty today and said:

"Horses are dying on British racecourses at an average rate of one every other day. This cruelty isn’t entertainment, it’s exploitation, plain and simple.

Today’s verdict is the third time in a row that juries have refused to criminalise people for trying to stop horses dying at the Grand National. When the public hears the truth about the brutality of racing, they clearly don’t want to punish those who try to save lives.

This is why trial by jury matters: it gives ordinary people the power to say what is morally right. The writing is on the wall for the racing industry. It’s time horse racing was consigned to the past where it belongs, and this needless suffering is finally brought to an end.”

According to a University of York study, over half of those under 40 would not consider attending horse races due to welfare issues. The same study stated that attendance declined by over 500,000 from 2015 to 2019. [5] A survey released earlier this year by World Horse Welfare found that only 5% of people in the UK believe that ‘all sport horses live good lives’ and only 11% support the use of spurs. [6]


Additional reading (substack): https://animalrising.substack.com/p/historic-verdict-for-horses-acquitted

view more: next ›

umbra

0 post score
0 comment score
joined 3 months ago