vilmosi

I found real wasabi to have the opposite effect. Strong initial kick, then more of a nutty taste to it.

> The secret to having more money is not to earn more, it's to spend less.

I honestly thought it was the complete opposite? The whole "being poor is expensive" thing? That buying expensive shoes is economically better longer term vs buying cheap shoes?

I don't know, they used to say the same thing about writting.

Sorry, I should have mentioned I'm not OP you replied to.

I moved to London in early 2013, and it definitely wasn't that popular. I had my own group of coffee buddies but I was the only one drinking it. Even today only 1 in 10 coffee drinkers have it [0].

Note that I did drink flat white all the time back then, it just didn't always appear on the menu. You just had to ask nicely and most people would make you one (or try anyway).

Note that Starbucks and Costa do not make flat white IMO, even if they sell a drink called that.

That said, today is way different and flat whites are everywhere.

[0] https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/flat-white-coffee-c...

That's a bit harsh. I moved to London in 2013 and I remember I had to order flat white off-menu most of the time back then. Most places knew how to make it but just charged capuchino on the bill. Today it's everywhere.

I was not a Starbucks customer though.

The climate also calls for AC for 3 months of the year if not more. And, compared to Europe, they actually have ACs.

> 200 years later, with a population that's multiplied several magnitudes over - would you expect to still see a completely equal people? I wouldn't

I would. South Koreans are 2-3 inches taller than North Koreans, plus a miriad of other biological differences, in a relatively short span of time. This is for the same ethnicity, yet alone race.

For me, that alone is proof we are much more similar than we think, and environmental factors, which your hypothetical scenario accounts for perfectly, has a much greater impact on us compared to genetics.

Which is why, for perfectly randomly selected humans raised identically for 200 years, I would not expect significant differences.

Haha, honestly, this is so common that when someone at work wants to talk about a product and starts with a compliment, my mind immediately tries to figure out what could be wrong with it.

It's not bad. But it doesn't matter how much tuition costs or what degrees offer pay or not. Everyone will study whatever they want, borrow at 1000% interest if necessary or 1% interest for "profitable" degrees, and then dump the dept as soon as they graduate.

Or am I missing something? Original question, what's stopping everyone from defaulting right after graduation?

I think you're slightly missing the point.

If student loans can be defaulted, it doesn't matter what the investor thinks or what interest you get or if you're backed up by the government or not.

Even if you study [insert profitable degree], the rational action to do after graduating is to default, since students typically don't have much to lose.

> Just let students default.

It's not that easy. What's to stop everyone from defaulting?

Oh, get off your high horse.

I'm not sure you read the article. The whole point of a "reasonable person" is that it represents an "average person".

> this person is seen to represent a composite of a relevant community's judgement as to how a typical member of said community should behave in situations that might pose a threat of harm (through action or inaction) to the public

This is why we have a jury of our peers picked at random. The randomness is not random.

> They could have just chosen not to compete in a market with unregulated definitions.

I don't think it's about regulating words. If you promise to sell a blue dog but sell a green dog, I don't expect a regulation saying blue has to be blue.

It's just false advertisement.

It's called the "reasonable person". It's a test used for cases that are not covered by an existing law.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person?wprov=sfla...

This reminds me of a HN comment (sorry, can't remember which) where it explained that one of the major differences between US and European law is technicality vs the spirit of the law. Where in the US you can get away with a lot because it's "technically" legal, it wouldn't fly in Europe just because the fine print says so. It's plain old false advertisement.

No, it's not clear, because you're talking about refugees in particular vs immigration in general. Two groups subject to very different laws and circumstances.

> For instance in Germany the numbers vary from 75%-90% of immigrants expected to be unable to find a job within 5 years

Given 12% of Germany is foreign born and the country has 3.5% unemployment, something feels off about these numbers and conclusions.

To be fair, so is a Green Card.

> Why should we pay (with our taxes) for poor kiwis who can't afford a house?

Why pay taxes at all for a country you're not citizen of? /s

Seriously now, it's because you live there. Their government makes the rules, you decided to live there and, by extension, decided to follow their rules.

> I mean, yeah, Labour party is in power in NZ at the moment, hence such policies like 'Let's increase salaries to poor workers, let's give them houses, let's increase maternity leave etc.'. The problem is that somebody has to pay for that

And, given which democratically elected government is in power, it's their right to choose how to spend their money.

It wouldn't surprise me if, on average, one household had two income earners, so it seems in line with the parent's point.

> All pharmaceutical companies - including those based in Europe - derive the lion's share of their revenue from the US market, despite the US having half the population.

Again, not true. And easily verifiable. Take Norvatis for example, one of the biggest pharmaceutical companies in the world. Europe 36%, America 34%. [0]

> That's pretty obvious from the relative prices of drugs in the US versus Europe and the quantities sold, but take a look yourself if you want.

It's not obvious at all. Drug spending is a fraction of health expenditure in the US. Just because a drug is expensive it doesn't mean that money goes to the manufacturer. There's a lot of factors involved that increase the price (for profit insurance companies taking a cut as an example) and it's true in all industries.

[0] https://www.novartis.com/investors/novartis-annual-report/no...

> Please no, I don't trust the government at all to handle healthcare efficiently.

Universal healthcare doesn't mean the government handles healthcare.

> And I enjoy my insurance company through work, its the equivalent to a significant raise each year

You can still get your healthcare from your employer with universal healthcare. You'll just be covered in the event of losing your job. Probably paying less for it too.

> You can't compare the US to Europe without also factoring the massive benefits European patients get from the high costs in the US

Luckily for us all the major pharmaceutical companies are public and we can can see exactly where they generate their revenue. Maybe you can show us exactly by how much the US subsidises Europe then. I suspect not by much.

> Sure there are cases where JS is incredibly useful and beneficial, but your website should be able to display the majority of content with JS disabled.

That's an entirely different discussion than what the parent was discussing though. This is about those cases where you're not building a static website.

"HTML was not enoug for writing applications"

Not prescription drugs.

> Telling me we had tools 320k years ago but we didn't figure out agriculture until 12-14k years ago? Heh. Ssssssure

I think you misunderstood the problem. It's not about "figuring out" agriculture, it's about finding a reason to do it. There's nothing obviously benefitial in staying in one place and working just as hard if not harder.

As they say, everything is obvious in hindsight.

> I don't think that's accurate. Europe is almost entirely European, Asia is almost entirely Asian, Africa is almost entirely African

This has to be sarcasm, right?

If not, this view is very wrong because it views diversity in a manner that's purely and literally skin deep.

That's still one in three humans.

> So for that definition of “meant”, how can one say that milk formulated for bovine offspring is meant for human consumption as is?

Because we literally mutated ourselves to drink the stuff? I get that a lot of people don't have the gene to process milk... But a non-insignificant amount of people do.

So, if your not lactose intolarent, we are "meant" to drink milk into adulthood.

>>> The problem with free education is that as more people become educated, the signaling effect of education becomes diluted.

That's only true if money is the only criteria for going to college. Just because it's free, it doesn't mean it's open for everyone.