zug_zug

No, I’m a nimby.

Basically the law should be the newly added properties be more valuable than the existing ones.

I think you're missing the point -- the point is that gasoline companies KNEW ABOUT alternative lead-free substitutes for anti-knock (such as ethanol) and chose lead because they perceived it was less profitable. [1] Specifically because ethanol wasn't patentable and TEL was, and ultimately it WAS patented.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/leaded-gas-poison-...

Yeah, if you're going to spend 100 million building a datacenter you should be required to add equivalent grid production in the area. It has drastically increased our electricity prices where I live.

I don't think that's true. I think that just shows how disconnected we are.

We tell ourselves that we must have "better lives" than say a native american in the year 1000AD, but there's no reason to think that.

I think odds are that maybe the native american was happier -- having a small group that you spend time with outdoors every day, getting extensive exercise, having a clear sense of purpose, eating healthy fresh food every day, never once thinking about politics or bills or global warming. I bet they liked their life more than a depressed divorced accountant in our modern society, even if we have more material wealth or health access.

I think the talk was significant inflation, because everything will cost more. And it does.

Wow, this is crazy. How is this not frontpage? Must have been flagged by some embarrassed individuals.

I don't think I agree with this article. I thought "drive the car" was a metaphor for writing software, but no it's not. It's a metaphor for politics/visibility stuff.

And truth be told, you don't have to do politics/visibility stuff. It's true that thinking about that all the time probably increases your odds of getting promoted. But also, what if you obsess about optics/your boss's boss's opinions/crunching/visibility etc etc for 3 years and you end up not getting promoted anyways?

I feel like a certain type of content tries to invoke fomo in you in order to get you hooked on their promise of their content. Fundamentally I believe that you'll be happiest in your life if you work at a company that is small, has a good gender balance, has a good balance of personalities (i.e. not all competitive high-functioning spectrumy nerds), and doesn't obsess over hype-cycles.

I spent many years trying to get promoted and if I could do it over I wouldn't have, I'd just let it inevitably happen with years in the industry.

Honestly this actually seems like a pretty smart hedge

Such a weird argument. I've never met anybody with a sledgehammer threatening votes. Feels like a willfully absurd excuse to avoid having an audit trail in elections.

On the one hand he does some things that seem very smart, on the other he does many that are very stupid (cave divers ordeal). So it’s a bit more nuanced than that.

Absolutely, when I worked at (semi-well-known unicorn) a half-dozen years ago on the data-engineering team the manager told me "Hey we want to use spark next quarter, that's a huge initiative."

And I immediately asked, "in what capacity?" And the answer was don't-know/doesn't-matter, it's just important that we can say we're using it. I really wish I understood where that was coming from (his manager resume-building? somebody getting a kickback?)

"I think the entire DevOps movement was a mighty, ... it failed."

I'm so sick of this nonsense. "Devops" isn't failing, isn't an issue, you can rename it whatever you want, but throughout my career the devops engineers (the ones you don't skimp on) are the best, highest paid professionals at the company.

I don't know why I keep reading these completely crazy think-pieces hemming and hawing about a system (having a few engineers who master performance/backups/deployments/oncall/retros) that seems to be wildly successful. It would be nice if more engineers understood under-the-hood, but most companies choose not to exclusively hire at that caliber.

I've spent 20+ years in the industry seeking to understand first, and my conclusions have pretty consistently been that the systems are broken and inefficient as people already talk about. The caveat I'd add is that the critics themselves would also be just as much as a crapshoot.

Honestly it sounds to me like the author doesn't truly understand the inherent conflicts of interest at a large company. For example a really common anti-pattern is "Nobody knows X thing is a problem my team manages in a problem (e.g. our app eats battery usage), but if I draw attention to it they'll want to measure it forever. So do not make it a focus."

In short pretty much never does any employees/manager's/executives interest align with the company.

Just having visited Japan, another thing that's immediately apparent though is that there are other well-intentioned laws that prevent this from happening. My favorite breakfast was like $8 (which was better than American breakfast by an order-of-magnitude) was in a tiny shop that had a tiny curved staircase that could scarcely fit tall people, definitely not obese people, and don't even pretend handicap people.

Frankly I think alternative laws should be applicable (you don't need to be able seat wheelchair people if you're willing to bring the food to them to-go) since I just think it's not worth losing that efficient density and cost-effectiveness for a tiny tiny fraction of the population.

In my opinion, it's entirely possible to build a social network or social media that doesn't incentivize rage but one that leads to actual friendships. I don't think internet itself is the issue, I think that the existing options just maximize outrage/drama and other negative addictive qualities rather than the slow-burn good things.

Sure, but the fact that he's willing to do create false/inappropriate charges against the FED chairman is itself a signal to foreign investors how far the US is willing to go to increase the money supply (whereby decreasing the worth of any debts/holdings in USD). It signals an asset previously viewed as safe is now less safe.

> Altshuler’s complaint said that he was concerned the chemicals caused two women in the customer support office to have miscarriages and another man to have a liver transplant.

It seems multiple generations have really downplaying the risk of some of these chemicals. The whole "man up" "osha is a joke" attitude really seems painfully helpless when there small amounts of chemicals that are undetectable by the senses that can kill you, damage your mind irreparably, damage your ability to have healthy children. Heck even our gender expression is controlled by a small amount of chemicals called hormones. I think some fragile egos hate to admit it, but we're entirely powerless to these chemicals unless we can detect and avoid them.

However when they are invisible and often odorless in dangerous doses, number in the 10s of thousands, and are very slow/expensive to detect (i.e. requiring $10k+ mass spectrometers), the only feasible answer I can think of is collective action (i.e. stronger laws, or perhaps unions if those fail). I think such events of pollution need to be investigated as criminal when they have credibly ended lives.

(P.S. I wonder if any women didn't have fullblown miscarriages, but had a baby with other issues that can't necessarily by tied to this exposure. This is something you see in other exposure cases)

A bit of a messy situation, since there is both documented precedent for undisclosed chemical use to cause severe population illness (e.g. numerous times in "cancer alley"), however there is also precedent for charismatic doctors to create a cult of personality that might create noise.

I don't think this article provides any evidence of anything to be scared of.

That said, based on what we know already, there is no reason to take everything is this article at face value necessarily.

Firstly, if anybody isn't aware of the history of Stuxnet, it's worth reading, because otherwise you'd underestimate the government's ability to use 0-days by an order of magnitude (we're talking full custom-written multi-month hacking projects with root-kits and custom fake drivers delivered successfully to an airgapped system, source wikipedia). Also worth learning about Dual EC DRBG debacle.

Secondly am immediate friend of mine worked at a FANG company that routinely sent a firehose of all sorts of things matching all sorts of filters directly to governments. In fact many ISPS have back-doors built in and that's not really disputed (wikipedia: room641A).

So the question to ask yourself is -- if this was a deliberate interaction that cloudfare was required to participate in via a warrant, would they legally even be allowed to publish a blog post that contradicted this?

So I think that is probably the default attitude of skepticism you are seeing, which in my opinion is a good default. Plus the primary claim of this article "Look it wasn't 1 routing issue, it's been happening for even longer! Therefore nothing to look at here!" seems really weak.

@dang I don’t know if this is a bug… but how is this not on the front pages? (I checked 2. 74 upvotes / 34 comments 2h old)

This is the type of thing that I sort of rely on HN to inform me about. Then other articles are seemingly killed as dupe which I guess would make sense if the original was visible.

This is just the time that we caught. Who knows how many more times it happened and wasn't caught?

> I guess the thing that I most don't get is it's now been 10 years since then, and I haven't seen any news about the link between sugar and CVD.

Perhaps this is more evidence that not everybody has been caught?

It's not like this is some isolated thing, like it's a documented fact that the food pyramid was shaped the way it was due to industry pressure.[1]

1 - Marion Nestle, Food Politics

Trump comes up over 1,500 times in the Epstein files in what's currently unredacted. [1]

Given that birthday note I'm sure there are more records somewhere.

1 - https://www.google.com/search?q=how+many+times+does+trump+co...

Crazy how far down I had to scroll to see this. Yeah, the timing of it is an Epstein thing. He knows he's gonna get impeached again and files will be released in 2026 when he loses midterms, and needs to concoct an emergency.

Here's how to know if I'm right -- since this isn't high enough drama, he'll make it amp up by a factor of 1-5 with false-flag attacks on America or something else to try to create a real sense of emergency in the next year.

If it wasn't a man suspected of being impeached over a looming child-sex trafficking scheme so deep that it makes watergate look like a game then maybe we'd pretend drugs has anything to do with it.

I hate to attack HN and especially any particular moderator. But I agree in the abstract that this is an unacceptable performance. When you have Larry Ellison's son appoint a political figure over a news organization and start axing things, that's Tech news-worthy.

And once any degree of censorship is involved by mainstream media the burden of open-ness goes up 10x in my opinion. At least I personally hadn't seen this article until today, and then the one I saw disappeared from the front page. I'm sorry but this story is more important than source code for photoshop 1.0 or whatever currently has the top slot.

I say this not because I think "Oh other people need to know this" I say this because I think "I need to know this" stuff and I almost didn't. I'm sure there are many well-read people on here, but for me this site is my main/only(?) news source.

Personally I'd recommend a post-mortem into this (exactly how many flags, by who?, is political news susceptible to getting falsely flagged and if so is there a way to rework that system? Perhaps let individual users disable "political news" on their own accounts? Can people "kill" a story by baiting a bunch of stupid comments on it to get its discussion number too high?)

I understand HN wasn't started as an attempt to make some free press democratized web 2.0 news. But in the current news climate where there president is personally doing shit like getting Jimmy Kimmel axed I think HN has had a greater role thrust upon it than mere startup news.

[I can't imagine it would be considered, but implicit in this frustration is a willingness to volunteer my own time to contribute toward fixing this issue as an engineer - be it gathering/analyzing the data or whatever form]

Seems shocking and appalling to me. In sure an AI could explain how corrupt this is to you if you feed it the article.

So if you have a billion in the bank, you can collect 5% return and never touch the money. So you get $50m a year to pay enough engineers to make a browser.

That's plenty of money if they recognize they need a super lean company with 0 bloat and a few highly paid experts who focus on correctness and not bullshit features.

Because of its high toxicity, the European Union withdrew paraquat from its market in July 2007 [1]

So it's clearly poisonous to humans in high doses, I guess the argument is that perhaps the smaller doses exposed to farmers may not lead to sufficient ingestion to cause harm. The parkinsons seems like pretty clear evidence against that.

> If it simply hasn't been approved in other countries, one can't use that information to infer about its safety.

I don't know why you're trying to defend this with counterfactuals/hypotheticals instead of just googling. Feels like you're bending over backward here.

[1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3657034/

Maybe there's a 3rd option... like encrypt the footage in a way that it can't be accessed en-masse without passwords?

Like imagine if the US government gave a warrant to apple and said "Give us all iphone pictures from this area on this date"... they'd presumably say "We won't because we designed it so that we can't."