Hacker News Reader

Comment by malfist | Hacker News Reader

Honest question, why isn't the line so clear for you?

We're talking about a product built to make people's lives worse while extracting wealth from them that get them addicted as well.

View on HN

"Built to make people's lives worse" is an opinion. There are people who gamble without getting addicted and treat it as good fun. Why shouldn't I be able to bet a small amount on a team I like in Fantasy Football? I've never gambled more than I could afford to lose nor have I felt the need to do it habitually. I get that there are some people who are not like me, but you seem to think that there are only people who are not like me that use these types of services.

There's a difference between betting between your friends on FF versus creating a system of gambling that takes advantage of the least fortunate among us.

This is the same thinking that governments are justify the age verification and ID tracking: the system makes an opportunity for old people to get scammed, so everyone needs to give up their privacy.

Well… I think you’re conflating the stated reason for solving a problem versus what these “solutions” are actually trying to do.

Why do you need a commercial service to do that? Gambling isn’t bad inherently, but for-profit gambling companies have too many perverse incentives

Okay sounds like we agree that sugar and junk food should be on the wrong side of the line, but turns out those industries have very little stigma. Who is standing outside the school gates protesting against big cola? My point is it's complicated, ambiguous, sometimes hypocritical, differs by jurisdiction and so on. None of it is clear.

Ah yes, the great evil of sugar… which our bodies require for energy. Seriously, your brain needs glucose. Ask a diabetic if sugar is evil

when people talk about sugar in the unhealthy context, they are referring to things like how a single can of dr. pepper has 40-50 grams of sugar in it.

You mean, like hyperglycemia?

This is not the first time I’ve seen this, and it’s misleading. Your brain needs glucose, as does the rest of your body. You do not need to eat glucose, your body can synthesize it from non-glucose sources. You can absolutely survive on a diet with 0 glucose.

I don’t have an issue with people eating sugar, but it is not a necessary nutrient.

Are you diabetic? If you aren't diabetic, your body can manage its own sugar.

Does your brain necessarily *need* HFCS/sucrose, or will it work with wholegrain diet, fruits, vegetables, legumes?

It just seems that you're arguing that without added, pure sugar in drinks/foods your body and brain would break down, but that would be factually incorrect*

*unless you're also suffering from some exceedingly rare genetic conditions affecting certain metabolic paths but it's unlikely you'd live to tell the story.

There have been pushes to remove soda from school vending machines, limit the size / add extra taxes on bigger soda containers, etc. But it's often "crazy California" doing it, so a whole chunk of the country writes it off as political or something, or it doesn't get passed due to lobbying, etc. But it's not true that no one is trying to stop it.

As much as I like a cold Coke (Coke >>> Pepsi :-) on a hot day, I also realize it's bad for me, and I'm drinking a lot more Spindrift these days. And despite the fact that I rarely drink more than say, 2 cans a day (i.e. I can generally control it), I would still vote to limit the amount of sugar in any beverage to like 1/10 that of Coke, just for general health reasons. Of course, then stores will probably see an uptick in sugar cube sales or something.. Gotta feed the addiction.

I know plenty of folks who enjoy a little gambling without letting it get them into trouble, so the product couldn't be "built to make people's lives worse". Why should they have something taken away just because some other people can't control themselves?

The majority of food sold in the US satisfies the criteria you have laid out here.

Is the line still clear?

My neighbor got robbed the other day walking home from work. That means it's okay for me to rob them too, right?

You're trying to make ad absurdum but this been in effect decriminalised in many countries.

In the UK for example the police got so defunded, damaged and wrecked, that they will straight out do their best to refuse investigating most crimes, eg robbery, burglary, assault, theft, even if you literally hand them evidence ("I saw my neighbour Tim doing that and I have CCTV", "my stolen bike is literally in that garage, I have tracker and I made it make a sound").

Police is so defunded and demoralised that they focus on arresting disabled and pensioners for opposing genocide and throw people into the jail for having a peaceful protest planning zoom call - for longer they would serve for rape.

So you tried to joke but in fact many crimes have been decriminalised.

I think it's like this in most countries - the police will only care about protecting the elite class. Sometimes the elite class feel threatened by high crime levels so the police will crack down on petty crime, but it's always in a way that makes the numbers look good, not a way that keeps people safe. They'll investigate the crimes that are easiest to prosecute.

I would like the majority of food sold in the US to improve in quality. I would support passing legislation to force the issue.

Half of the list by GP shares these same characteristics, unfortunately. The only one that is slowly - but not even steadily - going towards the same stigma is tobacco.

> We're talking about a product built to make people's lives worse while extracting wealth from them that get them addicted as well.

That's most of the products being sold today, you think the most for-profit companies sell things and services in order to improve the world? They're selling stuff because they want to make money, if they can make someone addicted + extract wealth from them, then in their world that's a no-brainer.

> That's most of the products being sold today

That's just not true at all. The fruit I buy is designed to make my life worse? The vacuum cleaner? The lawn mower? The workout equipment? The standing desk for my office? The clothing I buy?

Yes, literally all those things are decreasing in quality because the companies producing and selling these want higher margins. Have you not noticed the sharp drop in quality and durability in made stuff compared to 20-30 years ago? Almost all those things are worse and lasts less today than they used to.

Do you feel and have the subjective experience of feeling like you're arguing in good faith right now?

There's some cases where that may be true, but they listed a few:

* fruit - I can get any fruit anytime in the year, and it seems fine

* vacuum cleaner - my Miele is still running ten years later and still available new

* The lawn mower - the M18 mower cuts great and uses no gas and just works - much better than the previous PoS

* workout equipment - I don't have much here, but my rowing machine is still going strong

* standing desk - the uplift desk seems quite good quality

* clothing - this might be the only one, but even the walmart crap I get is better than the walmart crap from a decade ago

If you claim you can get "any fruit anytime in the year and it seems fine", it's probably because you'd inky ever had supermarket fruit-like products which are about as similar to the proper ones as McDonald's Big Mac is similar to the proper burger.

Go to the actual farm in strawberries season next time, get yourself some, and you'll get that. And it's like this with almost every single fruit.

German study:

"The proportion of devices which had to be replaced within five years due to a defect rose quite sharply, from 3.5% in 2004 to 8.3% in 2012."

https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/en/press/pressinformation/obs...

Electronics are more likely to be obsolete for technical reasons, but - for example - modern dishwashers and dryers are far more likely to have cheap plastic parts that fail more quickly. Even for brands with premium price tags.

With clothes, fast fashion is designed down to a budget and up to a price. For consumer brands, the more expensive something is the more disposable it is and the shorter its working life.

https://irispublishers.com/jtsft/fulltext/analysis-of-qualit...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com