Judgmentality

My friend's dad was just diagnosed with stage 3 renal failure and his doctor is emphatic his diet is the culprit. He'd been an advocate of the keto diet for years.

Biology is complicated and different people will have different results. I'm glad it's working for you but please exercise caution before assuming it will help everyone. You also might want to get your kidneys tested.

https://www.renalandurologynews.com/home/news/nephrology/chr...

> Surely people aren't specialized in... Jira-ing or whatever.

There are people who build their careers on this. Their are consultants who do this, and only this. And the unfortunate reality is, Jira is so complicated, there actually is a reason for these people to exist.

> The comment was more related to a puzzling observation that a really serious promise of security makes people more happy than actual security. Why bother with providing safety to people if all they need is to feel safe?

It's called security theater. The TSA is my favorite example of this phenomenon.

Don't cut yourself on the edge of that butter knife.

Someone responded and deleted a comment that this isn't how it works. I guess I'll never know.

You write this comment as if you regularly liquidate people. Is this something you've done a lot?

> being bled dry by VC style profit chicanery

Don't you mean PE, not VC?

Your solution to them being too loud and annoying is to make them louder and hopefully less annoying?

I understand the point you're making but I don't think you understand the point I'm making. If it turns out vaping is a net positive for society then I will genuinely be happy that you were right and I was wrong.

Let's just agree to disagree.

You're comparing vaping to getting vaccinated. You've clearly got an axe to grind.

> There have been tons of studies done at this point with regards to vaping. Everything shows it as being safer.

I haven't seen them, but there were also lots of studies that cigarette companies touted to show how safe their product was until they could no longer deny it. And seeing as how those same companies just invested a shitload of money into Juul, it doesn't seem crazy to think they'd use the same playbook. We also have no reason to believe vaping isn't purposefully designed to get people hooked on nicotine only to later sell them another product like cigarettes or something else they later develop. In fact, there are studies suggesting exactly that (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6652100/). There are many ways vaping could prove to be more harmful than we can currently see because it's a relatively new product.

I get your point about vaping potentially being helpful by getting people off smoking if it's safer, but it's simply unproven. Like I said if people want to vape let them, but I'll wait for the data before concluding whether or not it's safer. I suspect it's more dangerous and I'm sticking to that until the data proves otherwise. Similar to how you suspect it's less dangerous and will stick to that until the data proves otherwise. The common thread is we're lacking data and neither of us can confirm our hypotheses.

In other words we disagree and it's impossible to know who's right until we have more data. From my perspective your stance is just as harmful as you perceive mine to be.

I'm confused. I understand these phones were (very likely) used by the FBI to surveil suspected criminals. What I don't understand is how the FBI got the phones to those people, and even stranger why those people would trust these phones to be safe?

> Otherwise, you are killing people in the meantime.

What? I'm arguing vaping is more dangerous than not vaping. I specifically said I believe vaping is safer than smoking.

For what it's worth, I believe all drugs should be legal. I don't care if you want to vape or not. I don't care if you want to inject fentanyl into your veins or not. It's your body.

We don't have as much data on vaping as we do for smoking, but this reminds me of what cigarette companies said for decades: "where is the data showing our products are harmful?"

We already know vaping causes popcorn lung. I suspect 1:1 between vaping and smoking that vaping is safer, but who knows? We won't know until we have decades of data about mortality related to vaping. It seems plausible that it increases lung cancer rates and we just don't have enough data to know yet.

https://www.cancertherapyadvisor.com/home/cancer-topics/lung...

> I would like someone to do a "Years of life saved" calculation that tallies the expected years save by switching smokers to vaping balanced against those who were attracted by vaping who eventually went to smoking. My guess is even with the new entrants the years of life saved would be extraordinary.

My understanding is entire high schools are getting addicted to vaping, where before smoking was a relatively minor phenomenon. I suspect vaping is causing multiple times as much harm as it is providing relief, especially since they target young people for new customers.

I know plenty of people that have never smoked in their lives that vape regularly. I actually don't know a single smoker that switched to vaping, but I think that latter part is rare and unique to me.

So, if I'm correct, I don't think it should be "years of life saved" but "years of life lost," and I'd bet it's astonishingly high since many of those high school kids will be addicted for life. Don't forget Juul got billions (not millions) in funding from the cigarette companies in exchange for 35% ownership, so it's all the same to them - addiction is money.

Not OP, but switching providers could mean one actually provides coverage and the other regularly denies it. I have upgraded health plans in the past, only to discover I spent more time fighting my insurance company because they just refused to honor the coverage. I actually had to get a lawyer involved at my own expense.

I find it bizarre how many people just trust that insurance companies will actually honor their contracts. In my experience, they likely won't. This is just my anecdote.

So not really open, and just bullshit marketing.

Well, the budget in 2009 was $6.5 billion. It seems the taxes are growing for SF at a very high rate, and it would eventually become unsustainable. The taxes are certainly going up faster than population and inflation combined, and it sure seems like we're getting less for more money.

I think the reasons are very different though. For small towns it seems to be poor planning, for larger cities it seems to be corruption.

How loud was it and how often did you experience it?

Your understanding of the situation is pretty good. I actually believe that Robinhood had to halt trading due to margin requirements, however that's leaving out a lot of context.

Immediately after halting trading, Robinhood's initial public statement was "we have full liquidity for any event and that is not the problem." This is where it starts to become fraudulent, because that contradicts what they later said. Timelines matter, details matter, and you are correct that the court of law has its place for this sort of thing. I'm convinced they were willfully lying at this point, but it would take a long time to explain why in a convincing manner (so I don't blame you for not believing me here).

Now afterwards is when shit gets weirder, but the GME rabbit hole is really deep and the signal to noise ratio is atrocious. There is some good data from Robinhood's S1 filing though. For their transaction-based business, Citadel made up 27% of their revenue - which is significantly higher than anyone else. And last quarter 81% of Robinhood's revenue was for PFOF, payment for order flow.

I agree with you this should go to court and I look forward to it. I could provide you with plenty more data and evidence, but it's lots of little pieces and admittedly a lot of it is circumstantial. In other words, I'm doing a shitty job explaining my side and you don't have much reason to believe me.

I owe you and the person I originally responded to an apology.

He didn't just say he "wasn't happy about it," he also said "I don't blame them." You're right, it's not apologizing, but it's exoneration.

I'm guessing you're aware of the trading halts in January and are arguing that's legal (or at least remain unconvinced it's illegal). Rather than have a long argument about whether or not brokers were legally entitled to restrict trading, I'll just concede as it really wasn't the point I wanted to make. I'm not a lawyer, there is nuance in the legal system, blah blah blah. I could go down the GME rabbit hole but nobody gives a shit. I think of it more like when a cop gets away with murder in our legal system. Did he commit a crime? Well, technically no, because our legal system said so - but I still feel comfortable calling him a criminal. Likewise, nobody in the US went to jail for the 2008 financial collapse, so I guess nobody committed any crimes.

But that's me moving the goalposts, making appeals to emotions, and just generally making a very weasely argument. My frustration is with people so willfully absolving others of guilt. I feel like the way to make the world a better place is by holding people accountable for their actions, instead of just chant it as some bullshit mantra at another dumb tech startup that provides no real value to anyone. Obviously other people have different perspectives and may not have seen any wrongdoing in what happened. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs. And I'm allowed to think people are ignorant and morally bankrupt for the beliefs they hold.

So you're right, but I don't care because that's not what matters.

I'm asking for them to release any video that shows what happened. If they already released one still, why not release the entire video?

I feel like you're purposefully being difficult.

Okay, I think you're missing the point. What they did was illegal. Why would you not blame corporations for financial crimes? They stole money - I have no idea why you "wouldn't blame them" for that.

Sure, if it turns out they didn't commit the crime don't blame them (but there is overwhelming evidence that I have personally witnessed so I already know for a fact that they did this). What I don't get is why this guy is apologizing for theft.

> I wasn't happy about it but I don't blame them.

What they did was illegal, so why not blame them? Robinhood is being investigated for it. Why not blame everyone that's guilty?

https://www.vice.com/en/article/wx5p8z/feds-seized-robinhood...

> But now it seems like people are very quick to shout 'climate change' for literally any kind of weather anomaly and I am trying to understand why.

I admittedly haven't done a statistical analysis, but aren't these "anomalies" happening significantly more frequently than before?

Good on the protestors for calling him out on being an asshole, filming it, and getting the publicity this deserves so we can have a public debate about the manchildren our government protects through qualified immunity.

If the officer really wanted to engage with the protestors, all he had to do was not play the song. The cops care more about protecting themselves than protecting the citizens they aren't even sworn to protect.

https://mises.org/power-market/police-have-no-duty-protect-y...

If they already released a still, they already released the location.

> I would personally not work for a company that doesn't give you the option of WFH

and then

> Millions of people would give their left toe to work at a company like Apple. Me included.

and finally

> Who cares about WFH when...

So apparently you don't care about WFH. Why did you start your comment with a lie?

Those stills have about the same quality as your typical Bigfoot photo though.

Why not just release a damn video?

Now I want to relearn all the 9/11 conspiracy theories.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories

I'm okay with YouTube allowing porn, so long as it's legal. Why not? I mean, I understand why they don't want that as a business, but I feel it would benefit most consumers. You could just choose not to use it. I think there are far worse things (from an outrage perspective, obviously subjective) than porn on YouTube already.