heimatau

> Honestly, the whole thing reads like a hit piece.

To me it reads like cognitive dissonance. They write multiple damning statements (yes based in science) but conclude with 'voluntary changes' and 'more research'.

I'll mention that the piece speaks about FDA not needing baby food manufacturers to test the final product of the food, only the ingredients. Multiple independent studies confirm that the manufacturing of baby food products is outrageous, in terms of what is allowed. Compared to adult food, it's a double standard.

Instead, baby foods should be held to a higher standard. But this Democrat Committee is okay with 3 companies (of 7) not responding to their inquiry, only 'suggesting' private changes, and kicks the can down the road with a cop-out like 'more research needs to be done by the FDA'.

It's a long document but corruption and negligence is bipartisan [1].

[1] - This is b/c the report condemns Trump for hiding hazardous facts about baby food products but then with those facts they/Dem-led only commit to lip service.

We're getting closer to writing out the Akashic records. Interesting recursion of our present moments that it becomes observable.

61.7M. It's a shame that the opportunity costs aren't included, fairly unjust.

That wasn't my comment...Also, it's refreshing that you can project my emotion on me (did I say embarrassed? did I say it was unpleasant? did I say I felt it was a Voltairean epigram?). Even though I stated you were incorrect on my personal emotional reaction, you continue to not realize that you're incorrect about my perception on the matter. Let alone your question ('why...') was a hostile question instead of actually engaging someone. I offered an olive branch by trying to rephrase it. Then you take all pretenses away and judge me without merit or grounded in fact.

I asked you what your question was but instead of realizing that you asked me a judgemental question (which isn't really a fair question...you presume guilt), you continue with your judgement without the facade of asking. You told me what you thought. Now, this latest comment, you're expounding as if you're doing someone a favor but instead it's condensation and gaslighting my perspective.

As for these longer follow-up questions. Honestly, if they got downvoted, I'd just laugh because it would only confirm how immature the readers are (which does happen occasionally but is rare) but instead, I wouldn't edit them b/c objectively, I'm not in the wrong on these longer posts. And someone would be hard pressed to say anything to the contrary.

To be clear, I'm standing my ground on my right to do what I did, for my own reasons and it was pointless/meritless to throw me into the mix of someone trying to provoke a flamewar. Which is a presumption beyond any evidence (even the deleted evidence) can verify. But...maybe I'm 'guilty' because someone might have power over me and they projected their negative mental patterns onto my comments? Cool world. Seems like the irony of my original comment! But I hope that rationality comes.

Instead, it was an innocent comment and the reaction has been anything but mature or consistent. I've seen even more superficial, pointless, and antagonistic comments than mine daily on HN, yet it's rare to see them squashed. I've checked multiple times. It's hit/miss, since HN has scaled over the years.

Take a step back and chill out. /fin

> I think by this point, with your help, I've arrived at the conclusion you were simply embarrassed by what you wrote, thanks.

How so? I wasn't embarrassed. I was shocked at the immature reactions.

> That's not what I asked, but maybe I can try to rephrase it. It seems odd to be going to such verbose lengths to defend something you wrote but apparently don't want other people to see.

I appreciate the attempt at clarity but I don't see a question here.

> why did you delete it?

I'll rephrase your question. What is the reason for the deletion of your comment?

Simple. People were flaming. It was getting downvoted and flagged. If the community sends a clear statement (by acting in concert with one another), then I'd prefer not to get downvoted into oblivion. To me, it's not a hill I want to die on. And it was clear that others were misunderstanding. All I can do is communicate my perspective. If someone comes to the conversation with misguided expectations (even if it's a swarm of people), then I'll bow out. It's simple non-violent communication.

> but what you posted was unsubstantive flamebait

Pointing out that the morals of Google diverging from their founding motto is absolutely substantive.

As for flamebait, to someone whom has an axe to grind, everything is flamebait. Which is something I have zero control over.

> rather to err on the side of posting thoughtfully and substantively.

I did. As for beauty, it's in the eyes of the beholder. Which why I'm standing my ground on what I said. I didn't entice someone. I didn't get into ad hominem. I simply only responded once that I'm pointing out something that is clear to me (hypocrisy of Google's morals).

I already stated how Google diverged from it's original motto. One commenter felt it was unoriginal. Well, I don't live on this website. Also, where are these unproductive expectations coming from? Pointing out that someone is 'unoriginal' isn't engaging anyone to discuss something.

Since speaking plainly isn't getting through.

Let me reason by comparison.

If I'm a 5th grader and the commenter is a professional 12th grader. How is the 5th grader wrong for posting it's opinion? That is clearly substantive and thoughtful, I literally quoted Google's code of ethics page to make my case. The 12th grader should've known better.

If something has been said 100s of times on HN, guess what happens? Typically, it educates the new readers whom haven't seen that information before. Or it gets downvoted into oblivion. Nothing wrong with that and it's self policing.

I believe this type of response, to me, was misplaced and unnecessary.

It wasn't a predictable flamewar. Maybe for you but it wasn't for me nor could you cite any observable evidence for my contribution in this.

The other commenter was trying to flame, now that others seemingly piled on by needlessly flagging. I was generous and didn't engage in anything but a nudge to what I was implying/saying.

Google's behavior might be 'obvious' to some but it's not obvious to everyone, hence why I posted what I did in a public forum where ~2 billion people have access to this website but don't have uniform understanding of all things Google, that Google's behavior was hypocritical. The commenter expected me to say one thing or another and that's where the disconnect is. Not me. If you can cite my error, I'll happily provide 1 BTC for you clearly proving my error. But you can't. I don't come here to blame/flame. I come to contribute what I find valuable to the community. Others didn't find it valuable, that's fine but I tried.

When dealing with trolls. There is nothing wrong with giving them a gentle nudge, which is what I did. I didn't engage past my initial comment and one additional.

Finally, when dealing with people. Don't prejudge, even if you are the judge, when dealing with the community. I've done nothing wrong and the only problem is the narrative in people's head and their expectations to ~'not rehash what others have said' as @blauditore and @saagarjha were implying.

What others may have said in the past doesn't inform my experience, I wasn't there. I'm speaking for myself and there is nothing wrong with what I said. And still isn't.

For @blauditore and @saagarjha, I'd say their comments were trying to flame. Don't project their bad behavior on me.

> , and mindfulness.

Me too! I've been identifying more with my Quaker belief system and meditating more. I'm trying to be more consistent with it but man, it's opened up a whole new world.

Keep up the great work! :)

> so I think the meaning here is not as strong

Your post in interesting. I agree yet disagree. You got the context correct but he explicitly said 'it's the standard now for 32 bit general purpose instruction sets and it's got the 16 bit compressed stuff. Learning from the best still'.

Standard =/ state of the art but in this context, he's stating that learning from the best (state of the art CPU designs) is by learning RISC-V.

One doesn't say something is a standard and state of the art in one breathe, to somehow believe that they're doing something outdated or from 1991's knowledge base.

I think you're interpretation of his message would need to have further explicit statements from him to support your claim (that somehow 'state of the art' doesn't mean for CPU design, instead of just learning CPU design).

The listener would be better suited to follow @seedless-sensat's (and my) understanding because there is no evidence to the contrary of what we're stating. The speaker intended both (but if you can find evidence to support your different thesis, I look forward to investigating it further).

First, I really appreciate that you're opening up about your life. It's not easy to do, even with strangers on the web.

> It's either, take that pill and turn into a robot, or...

Might I suggest you think of it this way: Take that pill and realize my enlightened self or try to love myself in spite of my chemical imbalance in the brain.

> can't even summarize without writing a wall of text...

Although I'm not currently taking my advice here. Might I suggest that if you JOURNAL your personal thoughts, it's really helpful to realizing what you're trying to say to yourself. There is nothing wrong with a wall of text, even for summaries. I found that journaling was a great way for 'someone to listen to my random rapid thoughts'. (Note: This doesn't need to be everyday, nor some big burden. Just do it as often as you think about it and for as long as you desire in any given moment :D This will pay dividends for your awareness in just a few months of sporadic posts, even without the meds)

> But I wasn't hungry, it made me apathetic and my creativity went away.

Hmm. I'd suggest you try a different medication. There are multiple meds that help with this. (spelling probably wrong) Modfinil, Adderall, Vyvanse, Ritalin, Dexadrine, etc

I've tried them all and honestly, if I was able to, I'd want a few different meds, at different dosages because I know it would be a better combination for me than just one med. Ritalin is a non-starter for me, the side effects are too serious. Vyvanse and Modfinil were 'gentle' but not aggressive enough on my symptoms (no side effects but maxing out the dosage still felt too little of a positive effect on me). Dexadrine worked with another med I was taking (prozac) but I wouldn't 'get things' done as efficient. Then I changed my other med to Wellbutrin (a better depression med, imho, super cheap too) and Adderall worked perfectly in concert with it (this is now affordable for out of pocket care in the USA). [Note: This is my personal experience. This paragraph is over 2 years of trial and error. Some things worked for a few months but didn't actually work, after some introspection. Try things and be aware of what's happening to your body. My situation is unique to me, yours will be different but try to understand your situation better]

Finding the right meds, for your unique biochemical makeup, is a very large task. Most doctors aren't as detailed and provide a Bespoke service. Try to give yourself a Bespoke level of care. Do it with the counsel of a doctor, many doctors will be okay with this because you're under their care and they tend to only put in the level of effort that you request. So, talk with them and try to find something better for yourself. It make take years but realize, being on some meds, you're learning about yourself and you're making progress on what you want (not what capitalism demands).

It's great that you're also going to therapy. I hope the therapy is for the habits of ADD (if it's for other things, I suggest you include any ADD habit that's impeding your life).

I waited until 25 yrs old. Took a break for a bit but restarted at 33. I don't think I'll look back. The medication is such a night/day experience but it's only half the battle for me. Gotta break the bad habits (not filing away, not reviewing the day, etc).

So, here is one problem I have.

One person says, 'Look they're corrupt, they're taking money from someone they need to regulate'. Then...when someone from their identity politics does it, it's 'no big deal'. They somehow 'earned it'.

This type of tribal behavior is a poison to society.

IMHO, the truth of a 10x tradesman/tradeswoman is very real.

I point to the pareto distribution to reaffirm it. I've seen some workers that fly through tasks (construction tasks, programming, managerial, etc) and they hold the wind to the sails. But depending on a situation, 10x doesn't remain for indefinite amount of time in a majority cases (maybe pareto is a fractal of some time or it's recursive?).

If one has ever seen the 1950s video of someone putting up drywall [1], I'd put that worker in the 10x category (I worked construction for a while, few workers even today could keep up with this man from the 1950s).

[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8fZLM5S_ds

> The economy is truly crippled!

Great, I love the sarcasm! Can you please help push RH and other brokers to allow the unbridled buying of the current stocks being restricted? Then we can really put the theories to the test.

> it's crushing a few hedge funds that happened to hold short positions in a few stocks

You haven't noticed that the big three indexes are DOWN ~2% today? They were down 2% when this first took off. [If you want to split hairs...go for it but...the correlation is very strong, news cycles are soaking it up and the White House talks about monitoring the situation. This is not a light matter]

This is bigger than just a few firms. The added limitations to buying various stocks. The heavy-handed nature is making it clear, let alone the media frenzy.

WSB broke their models which in turn is crippling the 'economy'. If you don't think so, please, advocate for the free citizens to buy as much as they want because the hype isn't subsiding, it's only growing.

I find this refreshing actually.

What reason? Because it demystifies the room. It pulls the veil off and we get to see behind the curtain.

Strangely enough, I had a fleeting thought that this is why few firms went under and most got bailed out. I actually had this thought after watching the Big Short or another Wall Street movie about the 2008 crash. I thought that it was strange that Lehman was the odd one out and it struck me as a frat party. Only the cool kids survive.

@numair, you sound very candid and forthright. I appreciate it. I find it's difficult for people to mask their tone and reading this honest tone is refreshing. I wish you success in your endeavors.

It doesn't work with all videos and it's what I currently use. I might be having some conflicting plugins but I like the setup/attempt.

>> (me) I encourage you, prove your case that EU provides this human right.

> (you: prof-dr-ir) This is a basic tenet of law: it is not forbidden, hence you are free to use encryption everywhere in the EU. QED :)

Interesting. You went with proof by assumption. There is the rub. If you're going to assume cognitive bias, I can't argue with your irrational belief. Instead, I'm writing for others to realize the error in this mental structure.

> (you) You probably want to argue that in an ideal world,...

Actually, on the contrary, I think you're arguing in an ideal world that those is power don't circumvent the goodwill intents of the law due to accidental reasons, or negligent reasons or even nefarious purposes (notice these circumventions to the law happen with a positive motive or negative motive. Which is why I went away from that when you got caught up in charactizations).

Assuming you have a right because it doesn't explicitly state it, is logically equivalent to your gripe with the ban of E2E.

> (you) I have a hard time seeing it because, well, the resolution does in fact not explicitly ban (E2E) encryption.

Said in reflection to your assumption: I have a hard time seeing it because, well, the resolution [nor any other EU law/resolution/court-case] does in fact explicitly state we have a right of E2E as citizens.

A side note: Since you're using assumptions for your human right. I feel you've not learned history. Laws can and should be explicit (I don't argue against your logical battle but I argue against where your focus is). A region of the world that had Hitler doesn't recognize this assumption could cause dire consequences? It's an absolutely fair point since you're focusing on the EU. (I'd quote other local atrocious leaders if we were debating a different location)

A final point, laws should be able to hold the powerful into account. So, even if it's stated in the law explicitly and even if the court cases confirm our cultural interpretations of the law, then this is still not what is necessary. We need one more aspect included. Consequences to law breaking. So my conclusion is that prof-dr-ir you're a far cry away from having all three aspects QED. I hope others realize and not take this situation lightly. Especially if we don't want to accidentally, negligently or even maliciously fall into a dystopian society.

> Have you proved the point that I need to "assume malice"?

Catch up to the conversation. I moved on from my characterization to repeat my question without the malice. You said 'i can answer your question', yet your entire comment is devoid of such answer.

You're Sybil'ing this issue. Only obstructing the real issue at hand.

The real issue is whether the laws (via court cases ensure interpretation is correct) says it's allowed or banned. The good faith in the government or bad faith in the government is moot. The intention/malice distracts from the actual point. Which is why I moved on from it because I'm trying to engage you in the actual issue.

Nothing explicitly protects citizens right to encryption. No law. No court case. And until that's plainly laid out, we shouldn't be offering our trust to any ruler over us. Whether their intent is positive or negative, it's entirely moot.

Whether citizens have a human right. That's the issue and you've spoken to distract from the issue. I encourage you, prove your case that EU provides this human right.

I appreciate your citations.

What court cases prove your interpretation of the law? That's the rub.

> Can you provide me with examples of EU law that you consider abuses of power and that remove human rights?

Their previous attempts to making encryption illegal. I believe encryption is a fundamental human right.

You never answered my question. You seem bogged down on my characterization.

Let me ask again without the characterization.

What EU laws ensure the human right to encryption?

> No, you specifically said it's a first amendment problem and to let adults gamble. If it was a first amendment problem, gambling wouldn't be illegal in most states.

Maybe you need explicit help to understand my position. If hedge funds can short/long stocks, there should be nothing preventing a retail investor from doing the same.

As for it being speech, well, corporations are people and PAC/SuperPAC political donations (read: blackbox donations) are speech. These are current USA facts.

From there, I extrapolate that it would be unfair to regulate Main Street instead of Wall Street. This wouldn't be such a massive problem if Wall Street wasn't allowed so much leverage (and short 140% of the company shares...how is that even legal. That's literally fraud). I can't sell you 100% of my property and then sell 40% to someone else.

It's that simple, stop obstructing discourse.

> Gambling isn't even legal in most states. Good luck arguing that.

What States are you not allowed to short or long? Using your logic, this is cognitive dissonance. How free people spend their money is an act of speech, PACs and SuperPACs are emboldened by this current legal fact.

Rumor mill says that the White House and Sequoia called RH to force their hand. Honestly, I wouldn't expect anything less. I say this because 2% drawdown of the stock market didn't happen for zero reason. It happened because these fools are leveraged up to their ass (metaphor) and the bet cost them severely. And it's cheaper to take the bad PR while salvaging your fuck up. These people act in a different set of rules and that's not okay.

IMHO, I'm concerned about this because this is a 1st amendment problem. Let grown adults gamble. Let them be responsible for their dumb actions (hedge and retail alike). If someone is 'too big to fail' then they are 'too big to exist'.

>I have a hard time seeing it because, well, the resolution does in fact not explicitly ban (E2E) encryption.

If you need the actions of the government to be explicit then you'd have a difficult time to prove any case.

Let's turn this back towards you, based on the evidence of previous actions by the government of the EU (and EU), how can you claim anything prevents this malicious behavior? Nothing explicitly prevents these abuses. This is an intentional design. Does the right to E2E exist in this resolution? It doesn't, so please don't assume they won't use a roundabout way to remove this human right.

Please don't ignore abuses of governmental power, they weld their power with little recourse. Let's not be quick to encourage their poor legislation.

> I really hope that gambling on GME is not a "major part" of a significant number of people's lives.

It's a major part of the mega wealthy's lives. They've profited in this pandemic and it's not because of the fundamentals. Shorts squeeze the market too much but they ( hedge funds) should be responsible adults and take their losses. Not force Robinhood to unethically force sell it's massive user base to liquidate b/c their system bit their biggest customer.

We're about to see whether the people actually have rights or if this is actually a class warfare situation. I suspect it's the latter.

I'm no fan of Youtube but...not being able to increase the playback speed is highly sought after when I watch videos on any sites (like the OP on att.com). Here is YT's version of the same video [1].

Edit: I removed the link because the pixelation was unbearable.

[1] - removed