bronbron

> The community is typically a pretty big aspect of a business

'The community' is an extremely nebulous term, and unlikely to be influencing any business decision, largely because any individual's perception of the community is heavily subjective and influenced by the subject of the content you consume (which can vary widely on any large, similarly nebulous site).

I highly, highly doubt 'the community' came up in any acquisition discussions of reddit or tumblr, largely for that reason and because it ultimately has little effect on their user base. People aren't leaving reddit in droves because SRS exists. If people leave quora, it won't be because 'rad fems' drove them away.

> Would you have been satisfied if there was a pie chart?

You're super cool. Wicked jab there bro. Super salty about it. Remind me to high five you next time and we can pound some natty ice and talk about how cool you are.

> I noticed you get unwarrantedly defensive

Uhh I don't think he was defensive at all. I think he made a very good point.

I would bet large amounts of bitcoins that no VC wrote any of this, save MAYBE part of the opening. It's extremely verbose and the business analysis ultimately is a smaller part of what amounts to just a rant about the quora community.

And if you want to read that, that's great. I don't. I've read the exact same criticism of Wikipedia, Reddit, <insert social community here>. It doesn't really provide any insight I didn't know already: big social communities tend to get co-opted by people with agendas and too much time on their hand. Cool.

Talking about company strategy and why it is unlikely to be successful is interesting, and provides good salient points for the rest of us. Talking about 'rad fems' taking over Quora? Not so much.

Part of me wonders if security will ever be something people actually care about, and value.

Home depot had a huge, huge security breach. Their stock price? Up 12 points from last year.

I'm not sure what it would take for people to really value a major security breach. The tech guy inside me is screaming, "why wouldn't you care about this?", but the regular guy inside me thinks, "who cares? the banks will handle any stolen credit card info."

> I don't imagine you'll find that it was particularly oriented toward rehabilitation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_League_for_Penal_Reform

> There was a real effort in the 1950's and 1960's to turn the justice system into one more oriented toward rehabilitation

Err, so there was an erroneous decade where we tried to do better?

The mid 50s-60s were a discrepancy in american history in a multitude of ways, so I'm not sure that I'd consider prison reform any different in that regard.

I also wouldn't consider a decade as representative of the american justice system when we have plenty of evidence that it's not representative of either the past (where we used to just hang people after three strikes) or the present (where, as you noted, we have three strikes laws).

In fact, it seems as though once a century we'll have a decade where they half-heartedly try to implement rehabilitative reforms, keep at it for maybe the better half of a decade, and then act shocked that it hasn't decimated incarceration rates yet. Shockingly, it takes longer than a few years to reform a society.

> Our justice system has evolved in light of that.

I don't know that I'd say 'evolved'. You said it yourself: the homicide rate has been 5-7x higher than in England for more than a century.

We're not really doing anything different than what we used to do - a punitive justice system, sometimes morally dubious punishment, and total 'othering' of convicted criminals. I don't know that we can really be shocked when nothing changes.

Oh, sure, after reading your post I think I see what that post was getting it. I didn't originally.

Originally I thought the poster meant "it can't be that simple because otherwise everyone would be 500 pounds", but yes, over time it does become true.

Sure, you're right that the article isn't about weight loss, but the original comment I was responding to was:

> Because a lot of people are suffering and dying of poor nutrition

In the developed world, they're mostly suffering and dying because of overconsumption (or reasonable consumption of really high-calorie food).

I'm not trying to say that I think it's as simple as 'put down the fork fatty!' or 'put the twinkie down!'.

I'm saying that instead of focusing on 'oh don't eat too many carbs' or 'lower your salt intake' as a silver bullet to 'why is our nutrition shit?', we should maybe be asking those harder questions: why is it so hard to put down the fork? how can we make it easier to be conscious of our caloric consumption?

> Keeping weight low is the primary metric that people currently track and associate with their health, but that doesn't mean weight is the primary problem, just that people think it is.

It absolutely is the primary problem for most people concerned with nutritional issues in developed nations. Obesity (which is quickly becoming the epidemic it's made out to be) carries all sorts of nasty side-effects that are well documented.

> If you take in 500 calories per day and burn 1600, that will fit the "energy burned needs to be >= energy taken in" rule, but you'll still die.

In most developed nations (which, admittedly I assume HN is largely composed of), people have problems with overconsumption as opposed to underconsumption. You're right though, your ideal scenario is energy burned === energy taken in an appropriate weight range for your height and muscular stature.

> Even that basic question is more complicated than you're making it out to be.

It's really, really not.

> I feel like you're trying to grind some axe relating to weight loss here, but in doing so you are obviously oversimplifying the field of nutrition.

I'll repeat what I said in another comment: Maintaining a healthy weight is (or should be, at least) the primary concern of the vast majority of people concerned with their personal nutrition.

> Very long term, energy burned will be == energy taken in.

Not really, unless we're counting death. Most people gain weight as they get older.

> If that's consistently out of balance by... say 100 Kcal/day, that's 0.2 lb/week every week or 10 lb/year or 100 lb/decade. How many 50-year-olds do you know who are 300 pounds heavier (or lighter) than they were at 20?

You're phrasing that the wrong way. Your BMR changes depending on your current weight. If you weigh 180 pounds at 20 and you eat 2700 calories a day, eventually you'll reach a point where 2700 calories is what you require to maintain your body weight (probably somewhere in the 220-240 lb range).

To gain 300 pounds over 30 years would require you to constantly be consuming more and more as time goes on.

You're also completely negating the fact that most people would (and probably do) have a 'reality check' once they get into the 200+ range, and reduce their caloric intake (though unfortunately most likely only to resume their high caloric intake once they've dropped in weight a little).

> Except that energy burned is not by any means a 1:1 correlation with exercised performed. We are inefficient machines, and our efficiency characteristics vary wildly in ways we don't fully understand.

Your basal metabolic rate is not much different from the guy next to you of similar age and weight, barring some extremely rare circumstance. I don't know what to tell you, other than that.

> Two people consuming the same quantity of energy and exerting the same number of joules on exercise equipment do not see identical or even necessarily related physiological effects. There are many, many factors - other nutrients, genetics, timing, the distribution of work over time (short intense exercise vs. long less intense exercise, etc.) and they all matter.

Exercise is probably the least important part in proper weight maintenance, because of all the reasons you listed. Most people promoting the 'calories calories calories' mantra will tell you the exact same thing.

Your diet, and specifically how much you're consuming (regardless of carbs/fats/salt/etc.) is critical, the rest is secondary.

> There are skinny people who have never been inside a gym. There are fat people who work harder than you. Obviously you can still influence your outcomes, but "energy out >= energy in" is a gross oversimplification.

Not really. Those skinny people are eating less (in aggregate) than the fat people, again barring some very rare metabolic condition. Guaranteed.

> Nutrition isn't exclusively (or even primarily) about weight loss.

Maintaining a healthy weight is the primary health problem for the vast majority of people concerned about their personal nutrition.

Not to sound like a dick, but:

> Neither of which have any direct or consistent correlation to physical activity or food consumed.

is almost always bullshit. People who truthfully track their calories and err on the side of caution (did I eat 1 cup of yogurt or 1.5?) rarely end up surprised.

Sure, some people have thyroid conditions. If you do, you're the minority and you should get it treated. Otherwise, your body is pretty much the same as everyone else's with respect to metabolic rates (when age is factored in).

> we don't know basic things about what's good and bad for us.

Errr, I think we know these 'basic' things quite fine. Energy burned needs to be >= energy taken in. It's just complicated for other reasons.

There are a lot of incentives to stay unhealthy. There're the biological incentives (eating a shitload and packing on a few pounds is good if you're in the jungle and might not eat again for a few weeks), and the incredible cultural pressures that prey on those biological incentives (taco bell spends a lot of money to encourage you to make bad health decisions).

Salt, cholesterol, fat, carbs - these are distractions from being healthy. People who eat healthy amounts of reasonable food (although even then, there's that guy who ate twinkies for a year and managed to lose weight by keeping his calories in check) rarely suffer from poor nutrition.

Yeah, everyone knows that guy who was a vegan and ran every day for 40 years and keeled over at 45 from a heart problem. He's the exception.

It's worth considering that he's with ESPN, and sports is an unusual case.

Television shows and movies don't have nearly the timeliness factor sports broadcasting has. If I see guardians of the galaxy a week after it comes out it doesn't really matter, but there's very little point in watching 'the game' even a day after the fact (unless there's some exceptional reason to).

So in some regards, they do have kind of a stranglehold and are holding out hope that they can capitalize on that. It's funny talking to cable subscribers < 40, because (obviously anecdotal) the majority of the reasons given are 'how else am I going to watch sports?'

That's funny, my experience has been the complete opposite.

Totally did the same thing. Thanks for the explanation, really cleared it up.

I think they should follow through on reducing to 7 innings per game (with all the rules about extra innings still applicable).

Sure, it would more-or-less destroy relief pitching as a profession, but relief pitchers are basically the placekickers of MLB anyway (people know the really good ones, the rest no one cares unless they mess up royally).

It would shorten the game enough to be enjoyable, and people would get to watch their favorite pitchers play entire games, similar to football and basketball (with obvious exceptions for one-sided games).

Hm,

I don't think the title quite follows from the article. There might be an association, but even supposing there is causation the independent/dependent variables aren't necessarily known here: people with low social trust (for other reasons) could be more likely to engage in online social networks as opposed to meatspace social networks.

> Your hypothesis about rental markets diminishing in areas without rent control

You should re-read what he wrote. That's not his hypothesis.

> Society would be better if no one had any secrets.

Maybe, except that because information asymmetry provides an advantage, and sometimes a huge one, there will always be an incredibly strong incentive for each individual to keep secrets. An overwhelmingly strong incentive, I posit.

Enforcing total transparency would basically require us to read everyone's thoughts.

Interesting! Certainly seems to be the exception, but good to know nonetheless.

> trying to get different kinds of people to agree to the same laws at the same time.

That seems inevitable, even two people won't agree on an entire body of laws.

> What is your feeling about open carry laws? Someone comes from another state wearing their gun collection into the grocery store, and they think your state's laws against it are picky and burdensome.

The same as I feel about the individuals in the article transporting marijuana - it's, at worst, a civil matter. A small fine, possibly of increasing amounts for repeated violations, is appropriate if the individual wasn't merely passing through your state (as would've been appropriate for the individuals in the article).

Imprisonment for accidentally staying on the interstate too long is silly. It's incredibly easy to make a mistake and end up in another state - rarely as easy to enter another country by mistake.

> For those who don't know, laws are different, sometimes in major ways, when you cross a state line

That seems like a recipe for a huge disaster that we should rectify.

It's incredibly easy to cross state lines without purposely intending to, especially in the northeast (e.g. you can easily be ushered into NJ trying to get to upstate NY through NYC). It's exactly why 'safe passage' laws exist, even if it doesn't apply in these two scenarios.

It's not as though there's a customs check point at interstate boundaries where you are urged to dispose of materials that might cause you to be in violation of another state's laws.

It's interesting watching it unfold in real-time. I've expressed opinions that could be considered 'anti-gentrification' in the past, but the process itself is basically unstoppable. Attempts to stem the flow of gentrification arguably cause much more harm in the long run (e.g. as the author notes, disallowing high-rises most likely just increases the cost of existing units considerably).

The cynic in me wonders whether existing residents are just attempting to (and succeeding in) increase the value of their real-estate investments (however small) under the guise of protesting gentrification, though that might be a little far-fetched.

Ultimately it's an incredibly fascinating process to watch. I don't know that I'd exactly call it xenophobia, but it is incredibly interesting to see the gentrified residents use arguments very similar to larger anti-immigration arguments (e.g. 'they dont fit in with the local culture, they dont even try to integrate, they ruin my livelihood'), arguments that are often used to target those same resident populations on a national scale.

I see you're conveniently ignoring my other points (that you're arguing against a straw man, that implementation is a key issue) besides your incredibly dumb appropriation of the gay rights plight as an analogy for drug legalization.

I'll take that to mean you're sufficiently embarrassed about grandstanding for no reason. I hope in the future you read more carefully =).

> (which necessarily must be hyperbolic)

Why?

> to contrast the features of your argument (I think both have a couple of the same fallacies in their structure)

You were assuming I was arguing about something completely different (something about kids getting their hands on drugs or some such nonsense). It’s like you didn’t even take the time to read what I had written, and instead had some canned response ready to go.

> It's unfortunate that you decided to write a post which failed to address the point of that argument (the weakness in your own argument), and instead pretended that I had somehow meant what was clearly a rhetorical flourish.

I took what you had written and used it as a podium to argue something completely different. Sound familiar :)?

> The rest of your post misunderstood a hypothetical I raised to compare and contrast with your argument, and I won't be addressing it

No, I didn’t misunderstand it. It was dumb at best, and incredibly insensitive at worst (I’m sure the gay community appreciates you appropriating their plight).

> When we talk about making drugs legal, we mean for recreational use. It's already the case that all drugs with a "demonstrated medical use" (let's ignore for a moment how that gets decided) are legal to use for medical purposes, and additionally, most of the laws have as a affirmative defense that your actions were medically necessary in some way.

My point is that we vary greatly in our legal attitudes towards those substances, even recreationally. Tobacco at 18, Alcohol at 21. Can’t advertise tobacco much, but beer commercials are literally everywhere. What are we going to do with cocaine? Heroin? Is there any difference in our stance towards those two?

> 2. The two legalized recreational drugs that we have (alcohol and tobacco) are sold in a variety of ways by jurisdiction, and our debate about removing the "only for medicine" requirement doesn't require that we resolve the debate about how we're going to realize that change in a uniform way. It's certainly not the most important question for if we legalize wider recreational drug use or not.

Well, ignoring that there are tons of other legal recreational drugs (caffeine comes to mind), there are actually some pretty general laws regarding them (e.g. tobacco at 18, alcohol at 21) and more specifically, advertising them. Implementation details of how we’re going to transition those drugs into the general populace is actually THE most important question in my mind.

> 3. "Maximum utility for society" is a notoriously hard way to make a decision, because we don't necessarily agree on what the metric is.

Horse shit. Deaths caused by drug warfare, death rates caused by complications (e.g. liver cirrhosis). Two metrics right there that nearly everyone cares about.

> Taking my hypothetical from before again - is it of maximum utility to prohibit gay marriage because it encourages straight couples to have more kids?

Your continued gay analogies are really just exposing your ignorance of homosexuality.

> It's generally better to start from first principles of the things an individual should and shouldn't be allowed to do on a whim, by getting permission from his peers, only with permission from a specific person the action is happening to, or never.

“by getting permission from his peers” is essentially what we do with alcohol and tobacco (hence the age restrictions, if we think of minors as individuals). “should be allowed to on a whim” is what we do for caffeine. They’re treated differently. What should we do for other drugs?

No, I understood their point. It was a dumb hyperbolic analogy and it received a dumb loaded argument in retort.