zdean

If we've moved from opt-in to opt-out, what do you think is the next logical step in that path if not mandatory donation? And if the argument is that we should move to opt-out because "greater good", then what's the argument against mandatory donations?

I may be nit-picking here but I said that the impact of the 2 sources is different...because of fiber, etc. I didn't mean to imply that the sugars themselves were different.

Naturally occurring sugars in fruits and vegetables have a completely different impact on your body than the processed sugars found in packaged foods (and directly through sugar, of course):

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/06/08/is-sugar-really-bad...

The dose makes the poison with sugar as with anything else. That being said, I think most people encounter sugar at doses that are clearly poisonous to their bodies:

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/06/08/is-sugar-really-bad... (see the section: Why is it a problem to have too much sugar?)

However, I get your point. I think the conflicting (and often industry driven) public health messages we've gotten at least over my lifetime and probably for decades before have made people dubious of new health/health harm claims around whole classes of foods. For me, I like to follow Michael Pollans advice of "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants."

http://michaelpollan.com/reviews/how-to-eat/

"They represent a testament to hard work, even in later life, that few cultures manage to exemplify quite like the Chinese seem to do."

Really? I can't think of a culture/society where people that need to work hard don't do so...even into old age. Even as migrants to America, the first and sometimes second generation bring a strong work ethic with them. I'm sure the Chinese are very hard working...but they're hardly an exception if you look around the world.

The issue with non-regulated dietary supplements may well be caused by the current state of regulation (this is strictly my own opinion/observation).

In the current state of things, we've grown accustomed to seeing warnings when the government thinks there is a potential danger with a particular FDA regulated drug. So perhaps the lack of warnings with supplements is giving people a false sense of security about the dietary supplements...ie, "if they were dangerous, surely there'd be a warning". If, as the parent comment suggests, the paradigm shifts so that the government's position is one of several factors to consider, perhaps then people would look at supplements with a greater degree of caution and suspicion. In other words, changing the paradigm may change people's behavior in terms of how they approach both drugs and supplements.

Defining "mind" or "consciousness" seems like a backwards effort. I would think that the natural progression would be that there is an observed concept which then needs a label (ie, I observe a bunch of tallish greenish things that share a large number of similarities and I label them "tree"). In this case, I would think that there was some observed phenomenon with observable/definable traits that we would then label as "mind" or "consciousness". However, in these cases, it feels as though we came up with the label and are now in search of a concept to fit them.

If the SECOND SENTENCE of a comment is a factually false statement, I'll still honor the effort and respond with more accurate (even if imperfect) information ;)

In regards to paying taxes and social welfare resources, they actually contribute quite a bit:

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/oct/02/...

And in a perverse turn of events, they probably help some social welfare programs (ie Social Security) because they can never receive those benefits.

I think they're largely limited by the greater public's threshold for acceptable casualties of their own soldiers during war. What the AI'ing of war does is to remove that natural limit and raise the amount of death and destruction a military can inflict without pushback from the general population.

Steve Jobs had a very different idea of what changing the world meant and who was doing it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GMQhOm-Dqo

Copyright law was originally created as a mechanism of censoring speech and (later) for the benefit of guilds...and eventually became a tool of corporations (see Mickey Mouse). It has never really been a matter of benefiting/compensating original artists or authors...that's just been the justification.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright_law

I'm sure they still get a cut of the price from the restaurant. No delivery and no markup just means the restaurant keeps less of the revenue to themselves.

Do we not have enough databases built already with enough data points to effect this?

It probably requires a shift in what we think of as assessment. Montessori has some ideas:

http://montessoriguide.org/assessment/

Seems to produce good results:

http://blogs.wsj.com/ideas-market/2011/04/05/the-montessori-...

Ken Robinson on collaboration in education:

"In the work world, collaboration and team work are essential to success; in school, it's called cheating."

More here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U

I'm very sorry about your father's diagnosis. A few years ago I came across this spoon invention which seemed to be very helpful to those that are dealing with the shaking symptoms:

http://www.gyenno.com/spoon-en

I'm not sure if it has differentiation, but lifestyle factors could have an impact. If, for example, in more developed countries there's a great emphasis on (especially) childhood cleanliness, it may be affecting the development of "good" bacteria:

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20151118-can-you-be-too-clea...

Another lifestyle example could be the prevalence of C-section births in more developed countries:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3110651/

I don't think this is happening to journalism as much as journalism as an industry is doing it to themselves. I say this with the perspective of starting a local magazine in the early 2000s and running it for 10 years (and it's still going relatively strong after I moved on).

Over the past couple of decades, I've watched as media companies with legacy business and editorial structures are (largely) unwilling or unable to adapt to new channels of disseminating important information or driving revenue. At the same time they've eroded trust with their audiences through efforts like advertorials in magazines and over-reliance on syndicated national/regional content in newspapers...and pandering in both. The ones that haven't are doing well.

I remember a few years back reading a great piece by the great late writer David Carr who talked about SXSW and the local paper in Austin that spawned it as a great counter-example for how modern journalism as a business can be done well and successfully:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/23/business/media/23carr.html

Those running the big media properties are either going to finally wake up and adapt or die off...meanwhile, there are lots of niche publishers (and I use that term very broadly in terms of channels) will step up and successfully fill the voids they're leaving behind.

"The dose makes the poison."

I think at relatively low concentrations, you could set up a similar test.

Even if the mutation was part of the original soup of bacteria, the process in the video still shows evolution. Either at time=0 or some point in the future, a strain of bacteria was more fit to survive and produce viable offspring than the others that died off in the presence of the antibiotic doses.

It's a nod to the Material design framework that was used for the project.

I'm not sure if that's a benefit to "mainstream users" as the original commentator specifies. I think most people that use the proprietary platforms never give much thought to who owns their data or even that there is an issue of ownership regarding their data that would affect/impact them.

I used to buy large quantities of olive oil from an importer a few years back. He worked directly with the producers in Europe and N. Africa and told me about the fraud that happens in the industry. One interesting thing he told me was that the domestics simply don't have enough supply to meet year round demand. So one of the things they would do is buy his imported oil and mix it with theirs to make it last through the year and bottle it as domestic. The lesson for me was that domestic/local doesn't mean more honest...you still have to ask lots of questions to verify.

From 2 years ago...

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8852772

I personally really dislike when online stories lack a date of publishing.

"My husband is a software engineer, so he makes six figures, too"

I think it's great that she paid it down, but on 225+k/year, it seems like the interesting story would be if she didn't pay it down.

"She welcomes people to live there in a very healthy and free lifestyle as long as you dont step out of your bounds."

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic with that statement...

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/series/modern...

"Why shells evolved in turtles"

"You've pretty much rejected the possibility of true objective meaning..."

This depends on what you're trying to give meaning to. The 'god' perspective gives meaning to life (i.e., why are we here??). But why is it necessary to ask that question in the first place? Asking it implies that there is a meaning to life and you're trying to figure out what it is. It's not inconsistent to say that "life" doesn't have meaning (nor does it need to) but that "our individual" lives do have meaning. That meaning is defined for us by our genetic blueprint...it gives us the motive force individually to seek out the things that fulfill our individual lives. Once we die, the show simply ends.

I've used this for years...no equipment required, the easiest way to fold t-shirts and polos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhbopCuN6TA