Hacker News Reader

Comment by alldayeveryday | Hacker News Reader

No, it is also absurd. To carry your example forward, it would be like someone saying "the idea of horsepower when it comes to vehicle speed is not just antiquated, it is just plain wrong!'

The shape of the car, as a variable effecting the vehicle speed, does not make horsepower plain wrong.

View on HN

I'm not saying thermodynamics is wrong, and I've never said CICO is wrong, please re-read my comment. I'm saying it oversimplifies.

An RC car with 10 bhp is faster than a truck with 20 bhp.

Putting 1000 kcal of kerosene in your engine has a completely different effect than 1000 kcal of diesel.

A 2000 kcal diet is not like another 2000 kcal diet, unless it is composed of the same foods, and the two subjects have a similar genetic makeup and gut flora.

Right, and my comments are not about your POV. They are addressing the claim of the doctor from the Harvard article who is saying that CICO is wrong, and then responding to your comments about whether or not her claim is absurd. In truth, we cannot prove or disprove whether the claim is absurd as this is a subjective claim. And so I suggest we focus instead on the validity of the claim rather than our subjective opinion of it. To that end, it seems we are in agreement that the doctor's claim is not true.

Actually that is right. Horsepower is quite meaningless, engines of today with same horsepower will out perform 40 years old engines in all metrics that are important to us.

> all metrics that are important to us.

what does this even mean?

It means that are other metrics such as torque, Fuel economy, Noise/Vibration, Power-to-weight ratio.

Here is a link to the metrics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicular_metrics

Here is video explaining why horsepower doesn't really make that much sense. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC2-JKO0c2I

Just like calories, horsepower doesn't explain much.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com