HN user

etrabroline

336 karma
Posts0
Comments237
View on HN
No posts found.

Coming up with a poll question where any answer you give will be interpreted as support for the pollster's politics is an art. I totally believe that poll. A lot of those people probably wish they could express an ANTI-work opinion at work, but we'll never know how many because the poll was designed to not reveal exactly how popular or unpopular woke politics are.

Any report that cites the navy videos from last year is not going to be very interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWWGmiZs4JA

Videos of blurry splotches and eye witness testimony that repeats the word "technology" over and over to imply that unlike the last 6, _this_ blurry splotch is an alien spacecraft is really just annoying at this point.

EDIT: Hey judge2020 did you watch Dr Mason's analysis I linked above? It's very informative and pretty entertaining too. I'll take your downvote as a no.

Removing grazing animals from the land can allow for reforestation and increase biodiversity and carbon sequestration

Ok. How much land could be reforested that way? Most grazing happens in places that are naturally pasture and were never forest like Texas and Argentina. Northern cali isn't exactly known for beef.

2/3rds of land used for grazing being unsuitable for farming sounds like a lot to me.

EDIT: drooly, HOW MUCH land would become forested if cattle were removed? Because if it's like 1 acre then its not really a good argument for banning all meat. Also I explicitly said I DO think we could survive on an all vegetarian diet I just don't see any reason to do it.

I can respect that. Slaughterhouses are not pretty places. The weirdness is when you consider that the animals only exist because people raised them for their meat, is it really less cruel for these animals to never exist at all? I think we have to accept that both man and nature can and must be cruel at times.

That land is called marginal land, or pasture. You can't grow crops there economically r do anything else really. Removing the grazing animals from the land changes nothing and does not improve the environment at all. That land would be worthless if not for grazing animals.

I'm not sure there is enough arible land to support the human population without grazing animals. I suspect anything is possible with enough technology and money, but matthewmorgan is correct in being concerned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_High-Speed_Rail#Con...

In March 2018, the Authority revised its estimate to $77.3 billion and up to $98.1 billion, pushing initial service to 2029 and services from Los Angeles to San Francisco to 2033

The cost of Ca HSR has gone up to $98 billion. There is no way building even 6 airports could possibly cost that much, and you can build the airports when you need the capacity one at a time and airports support travel to anywhere in the world, not just the handful of other cities in California the rails connect to.

https://www.therichest.com/luxury-architecture/10-most-expen...

#1: Kansai International Airport - $20 billion

So California could build 5 huge earthquake proof airports in the middle of the ocean including sea wall and bridge for the cost of HSR. It just makes no sense. I'm not opposed to rail or high-speed rail. But the places where better public transportation are needed are mostly in the US North East where density is much higher. Existing rail infrastructure is crumbling in the North East while California asks for Federal money for white elephant boondoggles like Ca HRS. It's infuriating.

There were opportunists on both sides but the blockstream people argued that purely observational non-mining nodes somehow 'secure' the network despite having no effect and need to be possible to run with a non-broadband connection and less than 100GB of free disk space. Satoshi himself in the Bitcoin whitepaper estimated higher bandwidth and storage requirements for nodes than what the blockstream employed devs said were too high. The point of Wall Street getting involved was to kill Bitcoin as a currency and turn it into a pure speculator's playground. (aka bitcoin as gold)

they only lose flexibility when compared with cars

Planes fly in more or less straight lines from source to destination, and adding a new route is just some paperwork and renting the terminal space. No multi-billion dollar investment to connect a new nearby or distant city.

flexibility of busses is not the same as the flexibility of a bus

Again, he means the flexibility of adding new routes, not having the bus pick you up at your hotel.

Shir Ekerling who's from Tel Aviv in Israel. Now Shir is a very interesting self-taught software developer whose passion has become business. Now isn't that the most awesome place to play, where passion and business and your life intersect and play out to be the place where you create and share with the world.

Jeff Bullas: Now Shir started a range of companies but the recent one he's just launched which has raised over 12 million from one of the top capital firms in the world is with a company called accessiBe

https://www.jeffbullas.com/podcasts/33-making-the-web-access...

Here is an interview with the founder.

in the army when I was thinking about the next thing that I've got to build when I'm released

I'm not really comfortable with Israeli companies run by former IDF soldiers injecting code into thousands of websites.

https://archive.org/details/CensoredIsraeliSoftwareSpyingOnU...

adding a single line of code to the backends of websites. AccessiBe also offers support for websites that are sued and claims to bring them into compliance. The company boasts that over 132,000 websites use its product

[dead] 5 years ago

I would contend the opposite has happened. eg: Regan and Trump.

Whatever course the de Blasio administration decides to pursue, it cannot afford to do nothing.

This is a misdirection. de Blasio can no more screw over the real estate interests that control NYC politics than anyone else. He's an unpopular ineffective weak leader propped up by their system. His job is to take up space and be a punching bag, and he's doing a great job.

https://noqreport.com/2017/11/01/surprising-support-restrict...

One in four think hate speech is currently illegal

strong majorities of both African-Americans and Latinos, believe that supporting someone’s legal right to say something racist is as bad as saying it yourself.

two-thirds of white respondents oppose government bans on “public hate speech,” nearly three in five African-Americans (56%) and Latinos (58%) support such bans

five in nine (55%) white Democrats oppose the bans

EDIT: I would like to apologize to effingwewt for not linking the original study and simply posting numbers taken directly from the study.