tnmrnis

I'm 26 and feel the same sometimes. Then I look around me and realize that I know just one person that managed to build a successfull company before 30. All other successful founders I know started their company in there mid to late 30s.

My father started a successfull company when he was almost 60.

You need to realize that the young founders seem to be quite successfull for high risk ventures but the big mass of successfull startups is built in the not so visible B2B market, where your value significantly increases with work and industry experience. The B2B market is also much easier to bootstrap since you're much more likely to know your potential customers before you built a product.

> Do we have any real evidence of this? The ACLU is a very effective organization with a long history of legal challenges across the political spectrum.

No, that's why I chose a different example.

I would define virtue-signalling rather by the intention of what they do. They don't support those organizations out of an intrinsic motivation but to sell stuff to their followers. The intention is not to do good but to appear as an organization that does good. While I don't have any proof for this being their motivation, choosing the most visible instead of more effective organizations implies that they don't actually care about the effect or their support.

All they do is virtue signalling.

And my guess is that this won't last very long. Politics are volatile and companies don't advertise to have a positive impact but to sell stuff. Besides that, there is also a big chance of actually swaying people away from buying the advertized product after it became politized.

Ben and Jerry's is a prime example of this. They support Black Lives Matter in the US and the Amadeu Antonio Foundation in Germany. About the first I don't care that much but the latter makes me really angry. The Amadeu Antonio Foundation has a clear political agenda, is lead by a former StaSi-Member and was chosen to create the anti-hatespeech guidelines for Facebook in Germany (done by a member of the party Die Linke, the "feminist-socialist" party).

As long as they support such organizations I will not buy any B&J Icecream.

AFAIK is red meat not causing cancer per se. While there has been a correlation between red meat intake and colon cancer shown, the studies that have shown this didn't differentiate between highly processed products made out of red meat (think of sausage) and rather natural meat (think of steak) itself. The processed stuff is packed with all kinds of sugar, preservatives, flavor enhancer and colouration which might be the cause for the higher rates of colon cancer. To my knowledge these highly processed meat products are not common in Japan.

"Calories in vs calories out" is not wrong. It's just a small part of a much bigger picture.

If you go into a caloric deficit your body will give a hormonal response. This response determines if your body will start using your fat reserves, your muscles or will just shut down. This hormonal response is dependent not only on how much you eat, but also on what you eat.

Eating a diet low in carbs enables your body to use up stored fat more easily and will leave you less hungry then a low fat diet. This makes it MUCH easier to stick to your diet.

The paleo label might be a fad but I'd argue the diet itself isn't. Avoiding highly processed foods and limitng grain intake simply forces you to eat higher quality/healthier food and is a great way to clean up your diet to lose weight and improve general health.

It might be easier and faster but they will lose a lot of flavour during the freezing. There's a reason you don't refridgerate tomatoes.

Did calling Obama "Hussein" have a positive result on their popularity? I don't think so. Maybe there's a pattern.

From the examples that mashable shows, it seems more like a measure against clickbait than against fakenews (which ofc uses clickbait)

I only can tell about german media. Their reporting was just as partisan (all for Hillary) as the "mainstream" U.S. media. It was less about giving the facts then about creating a sentiment.

R is what companies that are leaving SPSS and SAS are switching to. While I also like Python for Data Science, R seens to be more popular in the industry.

Her sex wasn't the reason he attacked her, therefor it wasn't sexist.

I also followed the elections very closely and I don't buy the "racism", "sexism" and "xenophobia". I looked up a lot of scandals and looked at the speeches, videos and leaks itself. Often times I didn't consider the outrage as justified.

Example 1: Trump never called all mexicans racist, what he said was that a lot of the people crossing the border are criminals while other s are decent. Some of the criminals are racist.

Example 2: His "approval" of sexual assault, was nothing but locker room talk. Two guys "out alphaing" each other in a not so nice way.

As a conservative from Germany that has been accused of racism for showing support for the shut down of the balcan route I find it much easier to sympathize with the falsely accused then with the accuser.

That doesn't mean that I agree with Trump, but I would have voted for Trump over Clinton.

The similar thing is happening all over europe right know. Right-leaning voters don't want to identify themselves because the negative social implications can be quite significant.

Also the west seem to have lost its debate culture. These days most debates of conservatives and progressives in shouting 'commie' and 'racist' at each other. In a good debate you wanna help your opponent to give the best possible argument for his position and then try to disprove it. Everything else is lazy and not beneficial for anyone.

He was suggesting that Megyn Kelly was asking him though questions and that the reason for this was that she is on her period. There is a very subtle but important difference.

He attacked her for asking supposedly though questions, not for being on her period. First was the reason of his attack. Latter was the means of his attack.

We don't really know yet. There are two (quite likely) possible options. A shift in the voter demographics and/or the "shy tory" (people not admitting to vote conservative because a negative social consequences).

Polls are never truely objective even if they try to be. You always have underlying assumptions about how to get a representative sample.

The third option would be that the polls were rigged. After reading the leaked Podesta mails this doesn't seem too unlikely but still less likely then other possible reasons.

There is a difference between attacking people because of their sex or by insulting them based on their sex. First is definitively sexist, the latter is arguable.

Before Capitalism, Medieval Peasants starved to death