vjvj

Thanks for the tips Vlod. I do actually eat veggie quite a lot and enjoy actively trying out the vegetarian stuff that I wouldn't without the mindset that I have now.

My issue is that when you're traveling or you just come across a really tasty meat dish, that's when I lack the willpower to be 100% vegetarian.

So all in all, I eat far less meat than the average person and I have cut down intentionally but I am not vegetarian all of the time.

Agree with the gist of the article but ultimately if I were to see a co-worker leaving at 5.30 prompt each day as well as spending time doing unrelated things on the internet, I would be of the impression that he/she wasn't working hard.

I tried to eat only expensive meat to reduce the chances that the animals it comes from are bred in conditions such as those described in the article. The idea was that naturally this would reduce the amount of meat I ate as the cost of the meal went up.

Found it wasn't possible.

- There were no expensive ready meal options at my local supermarket - Labeling contains no information about what kind of environment animals are brought up in

Solution: - Enforce labeling about environment animals are kept in - More NGOs need to take initiative to make it easier to access information - e.g. packaging should tell me name of factory meat was made in. I should be able to go online and view (ideally) live webcams for welfare and if not at least periodic photos of all areas where animals are 'processed'

Ultimately I wish I had the will power to turn fully vegetarian but my issue isn't with eating meat as such - more that I don't want to be a part of any operation that kills animals en masse and I hate words like 'processed' being associated with my food and live animals.

Working post, feel free to build on it.

What a feeble attempt at reform.

In particular, the sentence copied below makes it sound like just another summer new story that will soon fade into insignificance:

"But this summer’s revelations highlighted the urgent need to reform government surveillance practices worldwide"

Logically, either they are: 1) Being killed off by agents representing the interests of other countries - likely aided by Indian politicians.

or

2) Being killed by India's own agents because they are suspected of leaking sensitive data and information.

That would be the opposite of progress.

I was hoping for a how-to

You're not an economist are you... graphs could be better but the way it's done takes an extra 20 secs to interpret.

Yes it does. One would hope that in a properly governed country, information would be presented in a way such that the person making a decision understands that the costs and benefits are not guaranteed and that there is a risk associated - in the same way that companies have strict guidelines on how they report and investors are warned of the risks.

Yes of course humans can be forced just as animals are. However, under a functioning legal system, they can be experimented on if and only if they approve having viewed and understood the potential benefits and costs and the risks associated.

Thanks for posting this - this is genuinely one of the most interesting links I've discovered through HN.

I look forward to reading more comments and hypotheses. Currently the biggest questions is that raised by ankitoberoi - what other means could be used to manipulate the currency to such a large extent?

Sure RBI may be selling $ primarily. But what are foreign governments and private organisations doing? It is likely that they are also playing a role in currency manipulation.

You can compensate humans for what you do to them. We invented money for that. Furthermore, humans can make decisions to weigh up the costs, benefits and risks associated with any such offer.

Animals can neither be compensated nor communicate their preferences for such decisions.

My sentiments exactly. I don't want to have my full name displayed on a social network. But once I change it on G+ it also changes on the emails I send.

Bye Google.

Now picked up by the FT too: http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/d709c2bc-0a8d-11e3-9cec-00144...

Now on the Daily Mail - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2397527/Bank-America...

Not the most reputable source but it will soon be picked up by other news outlets.

Trying to garner popularity because: a) This is something most people hate, and he is taking a stance they will sympathize with

b) He singles out Google as needing to do more. Google has received a lot of bad press recently due to tax avoidance. Therefore, criticizing Google will go down well with a lot of people.