I understand that this place is 99% liberal and that you went as far as to petition to kick Peter Thiel out because of his trump support, but please realize most Americans agree with trump. That's how you lose to him. Make jokes all you want, we won.
This is the problem, though - there's no data that agrees with you. Nor is there any that disagrees with you. Because we've seen today that all the polling data was a load of complete nonsense.
It could be that Trump won because most Americans agree with him. The popular vote totals would suggest this is not the case. Rather, a majority of Americans in swing states either agree with Trump enough, or disagree with Clinton enough, to vote they way they did. It's going to take a long time to get to the bottom of which combination of those factors is what.
"You" won four years of someone completely inexperienced in politics and foreign affairs to represent your country on the world stage. The rest of the world is cringing.
I would love to know what you actually agree with Trump on, as it's been shown again and again Trump doesn't really say anything of substance. Exhibit A: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aFo_BV-UzI
So many comments in this thread regurgitating the same drivel, which by the way adds no value to the discussion. A man spends decades of his life working on something, and now you're telling me, after he achieves his goal, that he's having an epiphany and no longer believes in it?
There's a political bubble here on HN (a lot of hate for Brexit/UKIP), but that's not a reason to be able to make silly comments like this.
I do agree that mine was a quick, to of my mind comment . But it looks suspicious at first glance. He is not all that high and mighty as he's sounding.
Then why drop jQuery? "It needn't be part of the default stack any more" doesn't hold up as a reason any more because it's not about whether something's needed or not but whether it's useful.
Most sites require jQuery, most developers are happy using it, why put the effort into getting rid of it?
Same logic is used in free market arguments: Workers leaving jobs to go to other companies creates an incentive for employers to improve work environments.
In both scenarios the workplaces become better off, but what really happens in practice is less than ideal.
Yes but what happens if you are poor and living paycheck to paycheck? And what if there are not enough jobs? You have no choice but to stay in a job no matter how bad it is.
BI supposedly will give you a choice. You won't starve to death if you leave your job.
UBI is not an alternative or opposite to free labor markets. It simply provides a baseline level of income so that at the bottom end, the driving force behind an employee's decision to take a job or not is not driven by things like starvation.
But otherwise, Reason looks very cool. A nice mashup of technologies to create something that certainly looks more useful than the status quo. I hope this takes off, but I think the biggest challenge nowadays, even for good technology, is finding an audience amidst a plethora of choices. Technology, as always, is a popularity contest.
This community often seems to think that something is dead just because people don't use it in SCs or in startups, completely forgetting the average person. By their logic Windows is dead, Oracle is dying etc. the only successful companies are Google and Apple.
>I love this statement, but the need to eat has been driving human beings for a very long time. It would be a truly profound statement if we could prove this.
You could look to many European countries for an answer. The unemployed receive welfare, now tell me how many of those are still motivated enough to do anything when there's no fear of hunger. Are these people happy receiving enough welfare to live a modest life, or do they strive to do more?
I have no idea. That is exactly why someone needs to research it. Fortunately for all of us, YC has stepped in to provide some funding for the research.
My gut tells me that if societies could work with basic income, someone would have figured it out a long time ago. There have been a lot of societies after all and people have tried a lot of different things. On the other hand, my gut is wrong sometimes. I think it is super interesting that we may get some well thought out research about this that we can hopefully use to do more research and maybe someday come up with a better system.
>No matter their importance to their community, they can’t stay if they can’t pay
>Investors make money, franchises notch a new location, and the neighborhood suffers a significant death.
What are these businesses that are so great to the community yet don't make any money? If everyone's taking their business to franchises it's because they (the customers) prefer them and franchises provider a better service.
Seems like the author just longs for independent stores and the like simply because he dislikes corporate culture, and would rather pay more to avoid it.
One of the reasons people regain is that they've gone on diets with a calorie intake that is too low (or lacking in protein) and experienced muscle atrophy rather than fat loss. A decrease in muscle mass also decreases their metabolism, which means their BMR is now lower, but because they don't know, when they return to their seemingly normal calorie intake, they'll quickly put the weight they lost back on.
Muscle loss from calorie restriction is much less than most believe (marginal until you get around sub 10% bodyfat). Same goes for metabolism slowdown. You will lose strength on a calorie deficit, but the muscle tissue remains.
Google "starvation mode myth"
See also this military study where men on extreme calorie deficits and high activity levels did not lose lean muscle tissue until hitting extremely low (sub 5%) bodyfat levels.
That's a factor, but even if you just lose fat, you calorie expenditure from the same activity pattern, ceteris paribus, will be reduced (because you are carrying less weight), so if you return to the eating pattern which at which you were stable at the higher weight (assuming no other systemic/metabolic changes, just the fat loss) you will gain weight asymptotically approaching the the weight at which that "normal" calorie intake had you stable before.
One of the most insightful studies I've read on dieting is that people trying to lose weight underestimate how many calories are in the food they're eating. It's not surprising once you start logging everything you eat -- you'll see that a lot of common foods are extremely calorific.
I can't find the exact study but here are two on the matter
