Hacker News Reader

Comment by busyant | Hacker News Reader

I don't know why, but this conversation reminds me of a guy I used to work with.

The guy had studied animal husbandry and he told my co-workers and me that if you inserted a foreign object (about the size of a quarter) up into the reproductive area of a hen at _just the right time_, the hen would often lay an egg with the foreign object trapped inside.[1]

Our business plan:

* get a bunch of hens

* have guys mail $500 + engagement rings to us.

* insert engagement ring into hen

* ship back ring-encased egg to the dudes.

* dudes ask girlfriends to cook an omelette...

I still wonder how anyone figured that out.

[1] There might have been surgery involved. Can't remember.

View on HN

Eggs are formed by secretions of the oviduct as the ovum or yolk is passed through the oviduct. Hens are also known to occasionally lays eggs with two yolks or no yolk at all, with the latter often containing a blood clot or random tissue where the yolk is expected to be.

So it was clear that a foreign object planted at the right place and right time could induce the animal to form an egg around it. I'm just not sure if this is reliable enough to create a business around the idea.

Is that how they manufacture kinder eggs?

Proper kinder eggs are illegal in the USA so there's a sizable portion of this readership that won't get that joke.

But the YT videos of people opening proper kinder eggs are all the rage amongst toddlers in the US, so at least many parents will.

I like how the USA is willing to ban something so silly to protect children but gun control is offlimits. Like what.

Putting aside the bait, the whole story with a Kinder Eggs has become a tale told to illustrate a point, but the story itself is nonsense. The US didn’t specifically ban them, they simply fall under a (sensible) pre-existing law and no one gives enough of a crap to change it. Simply put it’s banned to sell candy with something inedible inside of it. This law goes back to the 1930’s and frankly, makes a lot of sense in the general case.

Besides, slightly modified kinder eggs are sold in the US.

Non-US version: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinder_Surprise

US version: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinder_Joy

"Kinder Surprise eggs are legal in Canada and Mexico, but are illegal to import into the US. In January 2011, the US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) threatened a Manitoba resident with a $300 (Canadian dollars) fine for carrying one egg across the US border into Minnesota.[43] In June 2012, CBP held two Seattle men for two and a half hours after discovering six Kinder Surprise eggs in their car upon returning to the US from a trip to Vancouver. According to one of the men detained, a border guard quoted the potential fine as US $2,500 per egg.[44]"

Like sure, ban the sale, but why the ownership or importation without intention to sell? That seems to overstep the actual usefulness of the law. Like I can put toys in candy in my home and presumably if I don’t try to sell it, it’s legal.

Holy shit. When I came back from germany 2 years ago I brought like a whole box of them for my kids. That would have been like a $75,000 box.

>Putting aside the bait

Also known as: "quite logical and sensible comparison everywhere else in the world".

>but the story itself is nonsense. The US didn’t specifically ban them, they simply fall under a (sensible) pre-existing law and no one gives enough of a crap to change it.

Which doesn't change the essence of the story, which is not that the Kinder eggs where purposefully banned themselves, but simply that Kinder eggs are banned (and in general, that they'd ban something like Kinder eggs and co).

So all you've really said is that this hypocrisy has been around since the 1930s.

Not putting inedible stuff in candy does make sense to me in the general case.

But frankly, so does basic gun control so what the fuck do I know.

I would also like to add I am of the personal view gun control is very much so unconstitutional. But I also don't think that wanting some basic gun control is a wrong thing. All that contradiction means is that we need to have a very careful discussion before drafting a very careful amendment.

It's pretty easy to permit the right to bare arms while still preventing the sale to anybody off the street. It won't fix everything, but it gets us a hell of the way there.

Being worried about a slippery slope is a concern, that is why I said careful amendment.

Many would argue the kinder egg ban is uunconstitutional. And stuff like is supposed to be left up to the states. But who's willing to fight for the kinder eggs?

Ferrero would be the candidate. I'd say there are big bucks at stake. Marketing value is enormous, the effective ban is such a known thing, it would sell better than water initially.

I like your attempt to hijack the thread. It's very amusing.

My attempt? We're like three or four levels deep already bud.

Yep. There's a few interesting stories about why it's illegal, and a couple of Canadian guys that got in trouble for passing the border with "European" Kinder eggs, a while ago.

What is the name of your service?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com