chimpanzee

I printed this out just so I could cross out every line except for one. And now, with renewed mental confusion, I wrestle with my sins against humanity.

No, the article specifically mentions that some parts appeared to experience the opposite of accelerated aging. Presumably that means the “parts wore out more slowly”.

You might be interested in “hormesis”, a vital aspect of Life’s resilience, in which (some) stress improves a system.

To pay for tomorrow perhaps.

That one scurred you, huh? Ya had to toss it right back.

> yeah you're right the guy who told me which words I shouldn't say definitely isn't trying to control my speech.

>> Please don't use ridiculous and painful slurs in a serious conversation.

"Please don't" is just a polite request, particularly when used by an anonymous and presumably powerless stranger on the internet. It's not an attempt to take control or use force. It's an attempt to get you to introspect. Don't be so sensitive :p

Yes, chimps are intelligent. Thank you for noticing.

He used the word to refer to a hypothetical version of himself, one that failed to either notice or comprehend something simple. That’s the same context in which people use it as an insult against others. The only difference is that it was a self-applied insult in this case.

More importantly, the word, when used as an insult, uses real humans with real difficulties as the referent. Those people and their caregivers are the one’s that feel the insult. Whereas chimpanzee is an animal and remains unaware and unhurt when its species name is used as an insult. (My pseudonym is also not meant as a self-applied insult, most days.)

GPs usage doesn’t really matter to me though. It wasn’t an egregious thing to say. And, for me personally, the word has little value one way or another. It reminds me of grade school chatter.

I just find it comical that there’s a lack of self-awareness regarding the effect of its usage. But again, perhaps there was no lack of awareness at all and perhaps that was the real point.

Anyways, ta ta.

Please explain further.

They’re not trying to control your speech. They’re trying to improve your communication so your message gets across better. Unless of course your primary message is “I’m an ass and proudly anti-empathy.”

I have ADHD so me searching the internet is like breathing. Nothing special.

And your quote, inflammatory marketing slop that it is, is top and center in the images after searching your name once. "A bunch of searching" is not required. There's not much out there about you that requires digging into, just the usual founders' must-haves (crunchbase profile, paid write-ups, personal blog etc). Nothing special there either.

But please do enjoy the extra attention from me. Because that is special. To me.

There's no advancement of the discussion to be had.

If I may play his game:

He writes to boost his own ego. By way of making his claim, he seeks to appear wise and wizardly, for who else but he could have made such an astute observation and present it with such confidence; it must certainly be true and he must certainly be better than us.

And who would make such a claim, but the one who is pure enough to see through the muck and see the truth of the claim? He must not be one of the egoist consuming hedonists! He must be outside of them to have seen them!

Or not, perhaps he is one of these egoists and he knows it, and will happily admit it. And by doing so, he will raise himself up even further. For he knows his faults and he is not ashamed to have us know them too. We shall soon see.

In the end, he will soon have more sex. (He already got the attention.)

I won't debate the definition of survival with a "tired old" developer (oh sorry, "founder") who's idea of virtue is summed up in their own quote regarding creating yet another app for the Apple/Google chattel system:

"I rarely get to see my kids. That's a risk you have to take."

Are you serious? So when I drive Uber to pay rent and feed myself, it is actually because I want sex and attention?

Might want to remove the "Wizard" from your bio, it'd be far more accurate.

> an endless supply of people who will chattelize themselves for a moment of pleasure

Or perhaps they "chattelize" to survive?

There's not much pleasure to be had from gig work apart from the freedom to perhaps choose your own hours and perhaps be free of a human boss. Both of which are quite the opposite of chattelizing, in the short term.

> Flock is just doing what it is being asked to do!

Well then clearly they are not a problem.

Hundreds of miles is not an appropriate sample size for the technology's intended scale.

See this related article and discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47051546

> prices should determine what an effective use of resources should be

I have $1,000,000,000 and an insatiable appetite for both material and domination. My 9 neighbors, stupid naive fucks that they are, only have $100,000 in total and do not have imaginations sufficient to even begin to want all materials and power in the world.

So of course, when the sole owner of water comes along and offers to sell it, I buy it all for $100,001. I can really never have enough water, especially as I need to power wash my driveway everyday. (I absolutely cannot stand the sight of grime.)

Anyways I guess my point is, I’m glad we all understand that price determines efficiency. Once my 9 neighbors die of dehydration, I’ll be able to gather more materials and power with less obstruction and competition. Hooray!

> The poorer you are, the less your time costs

Personal time is a highly constrained resource: finite, non-renewable, non-storable and mutually exclusive. You can’t simply value someone’s personal time based upon their paid time. (Though people love to do this anyways…as if a poor person’s life time is objectively worth less than a richer person’s.)

Poor people often have less time available, less supply, than others due to longer transportation times as well as having more chores that they must complete by themselves.

For example, a person can be making $15 / hour and only have 4 hours of available waking personal time per day. If during those 4 hours they must complete all personal and household chores, as well as find some time for recuperating, then they would likely value those 4 hours as much more than $15 each.

Or considered another way: the value of the first hour in a day is not worth the same as the last hour. That last hour is valued according to the tasks that must be accomplished during that time and what is lost if the tasks are not successfully accomplished. And when under stress, the value can change drastically.

I highly recommend Ursula Le Guin's translation.

https://www.ursulakleguin.com/lao-tzu-the-tao-te-ching

> While there are some people who live in "food deserts" with very limited options, complaints by most HN users about the difficulty of finding healthy food don't align with reality.

Some… Most…

You’ve made some broad assumptions here. I’ve lived in various neighbordhoods in one of the largest cities in this country and near and far suburbs of the same. Only when I’ve lived in ritzy or trendy areas have I had no issue eating healthy (according to my definition of healthy), and always at significantly greater financial cost.

My guess is either your concerns are less restrictive than mine annd others’ on this thread. Or you’ve been privileged enough to not have a clear perspective on just how large, dispersed and discontinuous, the American “food desert” truly is.

> You can see exactly what you're getting without even squinting at the fine print on the back.

So the nutrition facts and ingredients list doesn’t convey any new information? The designers managed to cram all that info into an appealing front facing label? And the marketers refrained from soft deceptions and convenient omissions, prioritizing truth and clarity over sales numbers? Sure.

And so it begins...

And I appreciate your reply. It fixes the tone in our little thread and refocuses it on the topic. Thank you.

Also, you’re probably right, the signal will likely pass right over Burger King’s crown.

I guess I should have made it clearer by making the implicit explicit:

“The signal isn’t to pay white hats more, instead…”

And perhaps an addendum such as:

“…which will then, indirectly and in the long run, create the signal you were replying to.”

The signal is for the hats. Black hats may be more likely to attack. White hats will find better things to do. Some might even swap hats.

> He's talking about growing tomatoes all the way through the article. Nothing but talking about how tomatoes grow

This is flat-out wrong. (And the comment you replied to is also wrong.)

He mentions tomatoes only 6 times in about 1500 words. These words appear half-way into the article, in only 2 of the roughly 16 paragraphs. Three of those instances are in direct reference or comparison to the wild ancestors of tomatoes.

While not specifying, the article also mentions high-altitude, tropical plants and cacti.

The presence of the single dot determines how to read the grapheme, ie which specific letter of the alphabet it is.

A missing dot over the “i” in the Latin alphabet is unambiguously a mistake (depending on the font or script style). But if you missed the horizontal crossbar within the letter “t”, you would read it as an “l”. For example, confusing “mate” as “male”.

Your examples make me wonder if the language of marketing has changed our assumptions about implied meanings where otherwise we'd recognize ambiguity.

Or perhaps, marketing aside, it is just human nature to conjure implicit meaning rather than be confronted with ambiguity.

Recognizing a duck as a duck is using my brain. My mistake is trying to teach it to sing rather than quack.

Uneducated immigrants are a far smaller group than uneducated natives. Believing that they are nonetheless the bigger problem is a sign of a racist perspective, albeit not a guarantee of one, perhaps it’s simply anti-immigration.

Additionally most immigrants don’t vote, so it doesn’t account for the current circus. When they do vote, they’ve become citizens by passing a test that many native Americans couldn’t pass.

Uneducation is a problem in general. Doesn’t matter who it is, immigrant or native. But uneducation is fixable problem if we as a society/culture wanted to fix it. We are currently working towards the exact opposite goal and doing it faster than ever.

PISA is not the only measurement. And it is not used by many countries, particularly Asian countries. It isn’t hard to look up other stats on US reading levels.

And again, comparing education levels outside of a historical context of politics and economics is not helpful, to say the least. And it says nothing about an individual’s ability or willingness to become educated once the opportunity presents itself, especially if they’ve already self-selected by making the effort to enter an environment that offers said opportunity. That should be obvious to a person who values and desires to protect American individualism, as you claim to be.

You brought up “racism” when you cracked about gp somehow displaying anti-American racism.

Suggesting uneducated immigrants are a major problem is a common trope of racist discussion even if the word “race” is not specifically used. Especially in the context of a system that is currently trying to kick out immigrants who have voluntarily entered our educational system.

And our population is among the most educated in relation to which countries? Half the country is below a 6th grade reading level. A quarter is below a 3rd grade level. Abysmal for a developed country.

It’s inappropriate to compare the US education level to countries that have historically struggled economically and politically, especially when their struggles have been only exacerbated by self-serving US interference. And when enforced illiteracy is often used as a weapon to keep people down. Granted, GP made the first mistake there it seems, and you responded in kind. (Though I’m not sure because he is specifically comparing the lower percentiles. I haven’t seen data on that.)

But more to the point, you’ve previously claimed that your passion for these topics is due to a belief that ethnic identity and DEI is a threat to your children and to the American individualist culture. Yet, here you are bashing immigrants when neither ethnic identity, DEI, nor American individualism are being discussed.