tchaffee

What was the cause in previous eras?

South America. Lots gets blocked here. Even Home Depot for example. Security I guess. If you don't have customers in the region, why expose yourself?

Says I'm blocked. Thanks for trying though.

What's the carbon footprint of the manufacturing? Meat is also distributed.

What's your source for this claim about ethanol fuels? You can get pure ethanol at any pump in Brazil, it's widely used, and it's even 10% in gasoline. You sure they are losing money on that?

How so? Meat already has a much higher carbon footprint so what part of the plant based product would make it so much higher?

Link says not avaliable in my region. Any chance you could post the recipe here?

Can you give a link to your version that doesn't use React so we can see the difference?

You missed the more general point that if folks do have a way of making revenue from their content then stealing their content would have a negative impact. Maybe someone has amazing content and offers classes. You might be able to think of other possibilities.

What about lost ad revenue?

Are you considering ad revenue?

You might not pay, but ad revenue might.

This study seems to be saying that the risk of heart infection is what's limiting success in human trials. That seems a much more reasonable explanation.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8095695/

To be pedantic I think you meant "To be pedantic...".

That's good to hear you have all the resources you need.

I would support you in administrative changes if I were in your area. The area I'm in at the moment barely invests in a sub-standard education because anyone with even a little money uses private schooling.

If you follow the thread back you can see exactly what I was initially responding to and you were indeed arguing that gifted people are more important to society than nurses. My claim directly disputed that by pointing out just how dependent that gifted person is on everyone else.

Yes you did say that I don't have sources or metrics. However unlike you I didn't call your question unfair or hypocritical. It's always a fair question and one that anyone can ask out of curiosity so they can learn more if there are indeed sources that the commenter previously learned from and can easily share. In fact I demonstrated how one can respond to such a question with honesty and without getting defensive and making accusations of arguing in bad faith, like you did.

You should review HN guidelines. Twice now you've responded in a way that is not welcome here.

In particular: Be kind.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Based on the kind words of another commenter I can now better see how gifted children could be better served within current budgets. I don't think gifted children are being left behind but they possibly could learn more in an improved system. However that shouldn't be done with the false motivation that was initially claimed: that they are more important to society.

Equally important is more accurate and enough.

However the ideal that I already mentioned - and that you seemingly missed in your enthusiasm for attacking me and my motivations - is that we should simply invest far more in education so everyone gets the best possible education catered to their needs. Do you disagree with that suggestion I made very early on? Would it solve the problem you are complaining about?

That's a fair point and I agree that should be the ideal. I even mentioned it myself twice.

Looking back on the thread the more important point I wanted to make was in reaction to the claim that gifted children are far more valuable to society than let's say a nurse. Since my claim is that we all play an important role then I do agree now that resources should be spent in a way that allows each student to learn the most.

I don't think I made that claim? But feel free to quote me if you think I did.

My claim is that we all depend on each other and that if you dropped a gifted person in the woods and isolated them they wouldn't achieve much useful. They might not even survive. It's this interdependencey that gets ignored when we idolize one of the societal roles too much. People smart at math are important. But so are the people who give them the free time to do that by building highways, serving them food, or making the computer they use. In a market economy those folks are valued less and I'm not here to debate economic systems and the morality of that. Just that if we do not make an initial investment in those folks, the gifted folks won't have as much time to make their contributions to society. So there is actually an important balance to seek when trying to optimize for the greatest benefit to society. Also keep in mind that societies have executed the elite when things get too unbalanced.

I already mentioned in another comment that the ideal would be that everyone gets the education investment that challenges them to learn as much as they can. Since we aren't there yet I don't think it's unfair to give an average and basic education and to let parents of gifted children take on some of the educational responsibilities. The state can only do so much.

As far as your question about the single dollar spent on the non-gifted kid but not spent on the gifted kid, I'm not aware of that happening. Don't all children in the same area have access to the same public education?

As far as metrics or sources, no I don't have any. My argument is mostly persuasive, but I hope based on basic things we can all observe or repeated chapters from human history. However that doesn't exclude me from curiously asking for sources for claims from others. Sources are an opportunity for me to learn more than fits in an HN comment.

I didn't know those metrics don't exist. There are seemingly endless studies out there. You are of course free to ask me for supporting sources for any of my claims and I have no problem saying when I do and do not have sources and metrics.

You might be right about that being the argument.

I disagree. I highly value a society of people with basic education. I think a lot of people do. It's one of the things most people are happy to pay taxes for.

Automation is great. And unemployment in the US is at its lowest in 50 years. People are just doing higher value work.

Humans have never run out of work. By your reasoning trains themselves should have caused mass unemployment. With better tools we just do bigger stuff. This has been true for all of human history.

How are you measuring the proportions and then outcomes for society? I'm also not convinced the gifted children are left behind. Many brilliant contributors to society had a less than ideal education.

I agree that publicly funded schools should cater to as wide a range of needs as possible. And at a certain point it becomes the parents' responsibility. If your child is highly gifted you may need to invest your own time and money beyond the basic education provided by the state. Another preferable option is to invest far more money in public education. That is difficult to get widespread support for.

I looked in the mirror and stepped on the scale. I'm at a very healthy weight. You sound angry.

Why does a new and possibly healthier ingredient need to imply overconsumption?

And what exactly is overconsumption? Isn't it eating more than our body needs? If I eat more of an ingredient that provides fewer nutrients then there is no overconsumption, correct? Or are you looking for a world where we should only eat the most nutrient dense food because of ?

Your observation that they contribute more visibly is maybe the most important part.

If you include all the infrastructure and not just the cook then it becomes much more obvious that we are working much like an ant colony and we succeed and progress only as a unit and die as individuals. Humans are social animals. We need to ensure the success of every individual if we want to optimize the rate of progress of the entire group.

Train drivers will then move on to do more important work. You're always going to need other people if you want to progress at the fastest rate possible. Humans are social animals and all the great things we achieve are as a unit. An independent ant will never be able to compete with a colony.

Sounds like we really need the train drivers if we want gifted mathematicians to be able to focus on that.

Now take away all the nurses and every "non-gifted" contributer to society and see how much the gifted achieve. When you're spending half your time building and maintaining shelter, growing food, cooking, defending yourself from enemies, etc, how much time will you have left to innovate? We are social animals and it takes all of us to be as successful as we are.