Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | jmye's commentslogin

What a weird comment about a computer that seems to be targeted at students.

Exactly!

> Prediction markets should just be globally illegal.

100%. But you’ll get yelled at by the “freedom to do literally anything I want, no matter how detrimental to everyone else it is” crowd.


> Knowing that high-level DOD official were betting on us invading Iran does us no good if the only reason we invaded Iran was so they could win their long-odds bet.

Of course it does, if we’re willing to do ever-so-slightly more than jerk off on TikTok about it.


Yeah, my first thought was, "Isn't this what recruiters are supposed to be providing?"

And like, sure, there are some terrible ones. But I've worked some incredible groups, too.


What an odd question. Is this just the "and yet you participate in society" meme trying to act as insightful conversation, or did you have something to actually say?

The majority of people sacrifice nothing. They won't move to a 1000sq or less apartment but instead want their 2200sqft suburban house. They won't move the place where they can use public transportation, they just keep driving their car everywhere. They won't stop flying around the world on vacation. They won't give up upgrading their phone every year or stop owning tons of clothing. They won't change their diet to eat whatever is most environmentally friendly.

Instead, they just blame the electorate. The electorate just responds to demand. Same as industry. Stop buying beef there will be no beef industry. Stop buying cars there will be no car industry. Stop buying things from the other side of the world there will be no shipping industry.

People keep expecting politicians to somehow magically do something but are usually unwilling to do anything more than separate their trash or once in a while, bring a bag to the grocery store they just drove too.

Yea, all of that is hard. But if you're not willing to do it, what makes you think the electorate could possibly pass anything no of their constituents is willing to do?


This is incredibly outdated mate. Literally everyone I know does all the things you talk about. I don’t even really know where to start in response. You’re also conflating climate change action with environmentalism.

so literally everyone you know will not fly on vacation, only uses mass transportation systems, lives in the most dense of housing, eats only the bugs, upgrades their gear only when it absolutely needs to, and then buys used to recycle. Get all their clothes from thrift stores, and all huddle under the communal blanket for heat?

I somehow very much doubt that


"Many people" "a lot of long-standing problems getting solved"

Weasel words. How many? Who, specifically? Which problems have actually been solved and aren't just "solved" via people metaphorically standing on an aircraft carrier with a "Mission Accomplished" sign pretending they've been solved?


People are largely unaware of the sources of those price increases, at least in the US, which is why they were such a successful bludgeon in recent elections.

My country mines rare earth metals. Your country processes them into computer chips. Joe and Jane's country want those computer chips to fuel their economy.

Who's getting fined, here? Me, because mining the stuff is inherently dirty (without, probably, significant research and capital investment)? You, because you need the stuff to build other stuff? Joe and Jane because they're the ones ultimately driving the production of the stuff? If you fine me into not producing the raw materials, what, ultimately happens to your economy and Joe and Jane's? If I don't sign up, where are you going to get the raw materials, if I'm tariffed into oblivion?

Sorry, I'm not trying to like, doom this away - but there are so many interconnected pieces, that I don't think it's a problem that can even start to be solved from an internet comment. At some point, voters in democratic societies need to decide that they care as much about the world their children will inherit as they do a ten cent difference in gas prices ten minutes from now. It's unclear that they ever will on a long term, consistent basis.



Rationally, you apply fines as close to the source as possible. Because they will pass those costs up the stack.

But the source could be the most likely place for corrupt reporting. Or: Maybe the source element is not dangerous but downstream by-products are.

Like you’ve said: It’s a problem.


Given the long-term, widespread usage of coffee, is there something specific they're waiting on? Or is that an "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" thing?

Your final statement doesn't really add value without knowing that, unless you agree that we shouldn't assume other people are actually people, and not lizards in people suits until they prove, definitively, otherwise.


My mistake. I interpreted their comment to be implying that nicotine pouches do. I'm not referring to evidence for the safety of coffee, but of nicotine pouches.

> mode of administration and how quickly it peaks in your bloodstream cannot be hand-waved away like that.

Then surely you have some evidence, especially that caffeine is more addictive, rather than "hand-waving it away" via personal anecdote?


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: