mothers

If a journalist dying influences someone's behavior but thousands dying in Yemen didn't do it I'd be curious to know why.

To those who have a problem with Harvard's alleged discrimination. Do you think female-only schools should exist? In addition, would you agree with an admission policy that only uses SAT and AP scores? Grades inherently are subjective and can unfairly be given on the basis of race on the K-12 level, so that's helpful.

Harvard should just model China and make the SAT the only criterion. If there are too many people with a perfect school, use randomization accordingly. Of course, the typical Harvard admit won't like this since it'll mean their private school boost won't mean anything, nor will the fact that they come from a feeder school.

Please stop. Whataboutism is not helpful.

Your premise is wrong - there's no contradiction between God and science.

Nothing will come out of this. If people think it's OK to track adults it'll be OK to track kids.

There are many other companies that offer free email without relying on a "massive" ad business. Without knowing what you mean by a lot, but Dropbox, twosigma, most "unicorns" have an order of magnitude or more less headcount and offer similar pay.

If said companies are broken up how would that change what you've stated? There are plenty of small companies that pay a lot and offer free products that are not monopolies (if you believe they are, anyway).

Oh please. It wasn't an attack. It's literally in the person's profile. For those just tuning in, I pasted a snippet of the person's public profile in my comment and said "Employees at big corps defending big corps. What a shocker.".

Is there a word for the strange behavior many have around defending large corporations? I know there's Stockholm syndrome but this appears to be more nuanced.

Yes, exactly. They already do, unless they can afford it or have purchased a home.

Sure, but people who have stake, e.g. ownership, will be more active politically and they're the majority of Californians. Renters will not win. Again, make more money, leave or endure.

> The economic and psychological impact of long commutes and high rents are serious.

Apparently not serious enough to have people suffering from said "impact" from leaving.

If people leave when they're dissatisfied the problem will resolve itself.

Some people don't want to live with more density as that's not what they encountered when they first arrived.

Anywhere they can afford to.

Yes, exactly. No one is entitled to live anywhere. Don't be ridiculous. If they were willing to move they would accordingly become scarce and therefore more valuable and an equilibrium would met. By staying they are simply harming themselves -- to what end? Plenty of people move away from the Bay Area for cost reasons.

This is the same dilemma that has inhibited them from gaining leverage politically that would resolve the zoning issues.

I disagree that there's a crisis. There are many tech workers who can afford to pay the prices. I agree that there are also many dysfunctional zoning practices as well as laws (Proposition 13).

People have 3 options in general:

1. Make more money.

2. Leave.

3. Endure.

Option 1 is what a large fraction of the Bay Area has done. Whether or not it's a bubble is another conversation. It's pretty much clear that Bay Area tech jobs pay more than anywhere else on the planet. Even when taking into account the cost of living, you will save more money in absolute terms living in the Bay Area than anywhere else.

Option 2 is already happening [1].

Option 3 is the strange thing. If people hate the prices and general cost of living that much, why won't they leave? Temperate weather, job opportunities and family are many reasons among the many. Regardless, these factors are already factored into the price. By staying one simply reinforces the positive qualities while having no stake (home ownership).

The conclusion is there is no crisis. As far as the backward laws and zoning policies. Don't hold your breath -- for Prop 13 in particular that's state wide and the majority of Californians own [2]. As for zoning -- let's just say there's zero incentive for it to be relaxed.

Summary: make more money or leave. Sorry. The irony is that the logic of the people who insist people should be able to live in their own community for reasons is the same that resulted in Prop 13 and in making zoning laws strict to prevent newcomers -- who would change the community from what the original migrants had when they arrived. The preservationist entitled attitude is the problem. If people just left the problem would resolve itself. Teachers would be paid more to prevent mass leaving, etc. etc.

[1] https://lao.ca.gov/LAOEconTax/Article/Detail/265?platform=ho...

[2] https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/ca/PST045217

from a given level of hydration you can choose to drink more water or drink alcohol. i've covered one of the scenarios. at best both alcohol and water change your mood. of course as we all know what has a desirable mood change and the other doesn't at high consumption levels.

if blue apron IPOs it'll be sunk within 5 years. their product is useless[]. people who want to pay a premium on food and still cook it? sounds like the downsides of a restaurant, food delivery and grocery, all in one.

a really good food delivery service with options to click a receipe and all have the quantity(ies) of all of the necessary foods added into your cart will kill this whole microshopping silliness.

most who seriously want to cook probably want to choose their own ingredients.

[] actually, people who want ridiculously complex meals, but for some strange reason want to cook it instead of buying it already made might like this.

do you not have a fridge with a freezer?

wrong.

https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/155/9/827/58224/Water-O...

nope. water also reduces the risk of heart disease [1]

https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/155/9/827/58224/Water-O...

not to mention alcohol has many negative side effects you're not mentioning. it's a home run in favor of water. again, if it's so good for you, would you give it to a child? no, no you wouldn't. why? because overall you know intuitively it's not good for a child.

how about you show me all of the studies of all of the bad things alcohol does for you. water has no negative side effects, by the way. even if you're right (you're not), a small benefit is irrelevant. heroin also has benefits.

Yeah, let's do it. I assert water will improve your mood with no downsides when dehydrated.

http://www.menshealth.com/health/fastest-way-improve-mood

There's no point in considering criteria that cannot be quantified.

The point is that alcohol is unhealthy. Unhealthiness is a relative term. Relative to the default, that is, water.

Anyway, you don't seem to have any evidence that alcohol is healthy compared to its downsides other than a silly notion of fun, something that's not exclusive to alcohol.

What does alcohol give you that water cannot? Nothing.

Social activities? Doesn't require alcohol.

A buzz? Doesn't require alcohol.

Going to a bar? Doesn't require alcohol.

Etc.

You're missing the point by bringing up irrelevant things like "fun." The legality is also irrelevant as that is a government thing that's outside the scope of the conversation.

The point is, water is healthier than alcohol. This is just common sense. The silly fun argument you're making has nothing to do with alcohol unless you're making the stupid assumption that you can't have fun and drink water.

The reality is this: alcohol is worse than water and alcohol is bad for you. That being said, it's not necessary to do only things that are good for you, but let's just rationalize things.

Juice is also worse than water, by the way. You can absolutely live a little, but don't try to overrationalize bad behavior. I eat candy, which is bad, and I won't argue candy is healthier than say, fruit, but it is what it is. people need facts and the fact is: candy is bad, and alcohol is bad in terms of your health. if it makes you happy, go for it, but it's not inherent in the substance.

yeesh. the fact that you're posting silly poems instead of constructing a solid argument is proof enough.

p.s. the fact that alcohol has water in it is irrelevant. if that is your argument, then i counter: why not just drink the water alone.

Diclaimer: I drink alcohol and drink various fruit juices and eat meat. Most of the evidence shows these have healthier alternatives, but I like variety for irrational reasons.

There is no cost to avoiding casual drinking. You can still attend events, you can still hang with friends and you can still go to a bar (shocking).

Notice how you have no argument that can't be applied to say, heroin.

You can't seriously think that alcohol is healthier than water. And yes the comparison is valid for a drink of alcohol is a potential drink of water.

hard to give you one source, but /r/cooking, /r/mealprep led to some interesting discoveries.

> I bet you're a load of fun. Yes, we know that alcohol is generally not great, but that doesn't mean there's no value in quantifying what "not great means". What was the point of your comment exactly? You sound like a bitter old man who never got invited to parties.

so you attack the person when you have nothing to say, eh? and no, we don't know, hence the discussion. contribute or move along.

ok, and will you now cite the studies showing the harm that alcohol does. I shall wait. water has none except in extreme amounts (i'm talking gallons)

by the way, anyone can play this game:

the benefits of water are virtually limitless:

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11978586

[2] aids in weight loss and metabolic control (alcohol makes you fatter)

press.endocrine.org/doi/full/10.1210/jc.2003-030780

[3] keeps you hydrated

[4] improves digestion

[5] improves mood

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3984246/

[6] improves digestion

http://www.webmd.com/diet/features/6-reasons-to-drink-water#...

the fact is, every time you drink something that's not water, you have the opportunity cost. most of the studies would rank beverages in the following order:

1. water

2. tea

3. coffee

. . . 4. red wine

5. white wine

6. misc alcohol/mixed drinks

7. soda

meat is pretty bad for you.

sure. however meal kits are inferior to just going to the grocery store in most ways.