> it doesn't hold for a definition of 'satisfied' that aligns with 'I consider it done/enough'.
Which is literally what satisfied means (Latin satis "enough")
417 karma · joined June 27, 2016
Which is literally what satisfied means (Latin satis "enough")
Wrong. I did not assert this. I asserted that resources should be focused on improving the abilities of the group most likely to be in key positions in the future.
To be honest, that's not what you said. You clearly stated that the most nutrient rich foods are plants, which is false.
> "Plants" covers a diverse group of foods, some of which are the most nutrient rich available to us.
Yet the ones he recommends for us to eat -- grains -- are toxic and not suitable for human digestion.
He's perhaps the patron saint of plant-eating, slightly ascetic or vegan foodies.
Vegans are precisely the people who ascribe a lofty moral status to their dietary choices, in my observation.
He's certainly not the patron saint of the paleo or keto crowd, both of which are very vocal and often produce very obnoxious members of the "food as status symbol" group.
I don't share that experience; the discourse of paleo and keto, in my perception, is people seeking personal results in their health. Keto people may "brag" about the results they've gotten, but not their high moral status, like vegans, or how people who disagree with them are to blame for all the world's problems, like vegans.
I'm not. His argument is very simply that we should eat less meat and more grains. From TFA:
it might be wise to eat more plants and less meat.
most of the plants we have come to rely on are grains
Vegetarians are healthier than carnivores
All of this is garbage. Grains (eaten to the scale we do in the industrialized world, which is as the bulk of our calories) are poison. Yes, he does say a few things that are not false, such as "eating leaves is good". However I think you'd get better dietary advice by saying "eat things that begin with letter S".
Eat food: duh
Not too much: again, thanks?
Mostly plants: Oh you mean like, sugars and starches - the most toxic constituents of the modern diet.
Pollan is the prototypical Bay-Area insufferable foodie. His documentary was a cringe-fest of pseudo-spiritual fawning.
Rene Girard talks about how food has become a new status symbol as people compete for bragging rights about how good they eat; Pollan is their patron saint.
It's hard for me to take what you're saying seriously. You are disagreeing with the idea that leaders should be well-prepared to do their jobs, because you think they mainly are going to harm people. Therefore, you reason, we should not attempt to improve their education, because (by your argument) we want them as incompetent as possible, to minimize the damage they can do.
For me, if even one kid has a strong desire to learn and is hampered by a bad school, I think that's worthy of attention.
You seem to miss the point that everything is relative. Badness of schools is relative; there is always a "worst" school out there hampering someone. Attention is also relative; giving attention one place means taking it away from somewhere else.
If anything, hard power tends to corrupt teenagers.
Who is suggesting giving power to teenagers?
You're already lost if you're relying on the worst schools to get better. We only need a tiny fraction of the population (1% or less) to be the leaders of the next generation. Focusing on improvements within that group is likely to have far greater impact on society than trying to move the "bottom" group to the "next group up from the bottom".
You are using the term proprietary incorrectly, probably out of simple ignorance. The software does not have an "owner" who has power of the users; the LGPL means all users have complete control over the software.
Please read this carefully before spreading more misinformation:
The other points can be debated, but please don't call it proprietary. It is free software as in "freedom" (LGPL).
Conversely, just because they're out to get you doesn't mean you're not paranoid.
Ironically, that's only true when marijuana is illegal, hence a poor argument for legalization.
Legal substances may be easily purchased with minimal social interaction.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.en.html#Creato...
Wow, and to think some fools think the most inappropriate tool should be used.
+1 - also an HN discussion auto-up/down-voter.
What's useful about that?
Personally, I've been struggling with the question of, are mega-services like Google and Facebook compatible with an open Internet? This helps to clarify my thinking.
Up to now I've been thinking about what evil they might do individually. Now I see the obvious: just like in any other industry, the objective is to reduce the market to a few major players (3-7). Then these become the only companies who can get "copyright clearances" or "non-fake news certification" in exchange for supporting their patrons' programs.
To support your point, there's a press release circulating from Google and Facebook right now. They've launched a program to share hashes (fingerprints) through a database identifying offending ("extremist") content so it can be more efficiently removed from the web. Yet, we aren't allowed to comment on this - I just posted it and the story was flagged.
There's a huge difference between saying "No more gratuitous flamebait about the US Election", and "no technical discussion permitted about any topic that could possibly be controversial."
Yep. I feel like my first mistake on this site was to argue with every comment I disagreed with. Unless the comment leads to an instructive discussion, it's OK to just downvote it.
You should learn to take feedback less personally.
It doesn't feel good and I don't come here to feel like crap.
If someone uses emotionally charged language to denigrate you, then I think you have a valid complaint. But the interpretation you assign to a downvote is just that - your interpretation.
A critique of the status quo that doesn't generate controversy is probably irrelevant.
Hmm...
Let me try to understand your reasoning. If everyone agreed with your critique of the "status quo", why would it be the status quo to begin with?
This may be partly because so many thoughtless people feel qualified to enter a political discussion (e.g., about basic income, or immigration), whereas they couldn't even pretend to understand real-time operating systems or functional programming enough to have an opinion.
Part of the beauty of HN is getting opinions about things that matter in the real world, from people who really think about things.
I'd like to point out that this site is called "Hacker News", not "Technical and Business News". While there is no single "hacker political stance", there are ethical principles embraced by the community that can be applied usefully to policy questions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_ethic#The_hacker_ethics
As many have pointed out, it's really the subjective content of this site (here in the comments) that has the most value.
In fact, what is antithetical to rational, intelligent discussion is: emotionally charged, poorly-considered, and dishonest discussion. The topic doesn't matter: health fads, operating systems, or taxes. I agree, many people have terrible style in their approach to political discussion - but see also, e.g. Hobbes and Rousseau for more thoughtful representatives.
#17 Tell HN: Political Detox Week – No politics on HN for a week https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13108404
#23 Canadian journalist's detention at US border raises press freedom alarms https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13092330
#29 Help Us Keep the Archive Free, Accessible, and Private https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13065599
#37 Facebook’s Walled Wonderland Is Inherently Incompatible with News https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13103611
#49 War Is a Racket by General Smedley D. Butler (1933) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13068641
#59 FBI to gain expanded hacking powers as Senate effort to block fails https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13074285
I think humane is the key word here. We are human, after all. It's human that you would take someone in to your home and feed and care for them, though they might never repay you.
It's not human that you would take 10 people into your home and support them indefinitely while they contribute nothing, and then support their children, their children's children, etc forever.