nosse

Reddit is broken.

You have places that are kinda nice. They are few and far between and short lived.

Either you have less than 500 subscribers and nothing happens ever. Or you have 20000+ subscribers and the herd mentality takes over. I think there is a cut somewhere between 10 000 - 20 000. It seems that the thoughtful flee after that, and only the loud and narrow minded are left behind.

Part of the problem is that if there is a subreddit that you find interesting and someone posts something about once a week it's probably buried by the bigger subs in your feed. Subs that are mediocre at best. You can unsubscribe from bigger ones, but you cannot make all of the subs you follow to have just single post on your front page every day. I admit the "res" functionality solves this to some degree.

There used to be periodic complaints how reddit is going worse. That died of as anyone who cared deleted their accounts and headed somewhere else.

Reddit does one thing very good and that is the red letter.

If you could do this to pdf, I might be willing to pay little for it.

It's not a bug, its a feature.

"I know what your thinking: a motorcycle that can't be tipped? How is that..." fun? Motorcycles are fun, is this?

"many countries have joined a treaty banning landmines"

The ones that should join that treaty have not.

My country should not have joined. I'm from Finland. All that treaty ever did was to get rid of foot mines that we're designed to be planted around a heavy tank mine to make the whole deal difficult to disassemble. Now as our mines are easily disassembled, it just kind makes attacking here easier. So completely opposite outcome is very probable than what was intended.

How do you track where it has been?

Does it matter if you blow some mines, if you don't make a single square feet of guarantee mine-free soil?

In Helsinki they have human accessible tunnels because the whole city is on bedrock and there is not much soil above it. It's just way too hard to make tunnels to rock so small that people can't go there, so they're forced to be more accessible.

Tv, gas and power can be digged relatively shallow and I have not hear of maintenance tunnels for them when there is no solid rock to deal with.

With sewers they usually put vertical wells to it in every corner. That makes the whole system more accessible.

Often they put empty plastic tubes to new buildings just in case. It's not very hard to get something crawling there when new Internet comes to house.

It doesn't matter much. Clean water tunnels have high pressure and good walls to keep anything out. Just plain soil getting into clean water tunnel can make loads of people really sick. If there is a clean water leak, they know it from pressure drop.

If there would be a leak in sewage, the biggest problem would be ground water getting into the sewage tunnel, and flooding the water treatment plant. There is probably larger pressure in ground water than in the sewage. Ground water pressure drop can also make foundations of buildings to get looser, so they try to monitor leaks to the sewage (little leaking is btw quite common in older ceramic/concrete pipes).

Sewage system works by gravity. That makes it sometimes really difficult for positioning the pipes. They must have either 2 - 7 % slope or they must be vertical. Uphill inside a sewage tube will gather all the shit and get stuck. With more than 7% slope the water runs too fast away from the pipe and leaves the shit behind, so again it will get stuck eventually.

PS. I used to study civil.

Pines too often have a big and strong main root. It's for collecting water from deep layers. It can be all-most as thick as the tree itself.

And you would get..? Nothing? So instead of forest and some energy you get just nothing.

Norwegian hydroelectric plants usually don't destroy a ecosystem, just some nice looking waterfall. They have so long and steep falls that ecosystem would be naturally separated by it anyway.

"Drawing conclusions about manufacturers based on pricing is dangerous." I completely agree. But in my opinion, drawing conclusions about manufacturers based on reputation is as dangerous. And it takes time to get that reputation info. Time I don't have many times.

Only reliable way to have good conclusions about manufacturers is to examine their business throughly. That's obviously just impossible in most cases.

PS. Chicken breast is expensive here too. I buy whole legs.

It's only for Drosophilia embryo. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drosophilia

Owned by U.S. Navy, issued 1987 so it's free now.

That should not be patentable. Now it's patent infringement to make a battery of that shape.

EDIT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventive_step_and_non-obviousn...

I don't get this. I'm not here for launch stories.

Showing launch stories down to HNers throats is not the purpose of HN. Startup scene is so hot now that we could do nothing but read those "yay, I'm a CEO!".

I'm here if you do something interesting, like a product.

I liked that point. Didn't really think about how much the article handled stuff as "girls things" and "boys things" until this comment.

I thought this too. Motorcycles are probably the most cost effective way to go from 0 - 100km/h below three seconds.

If I don't have the time to really look into things, I go with the cheapest too.

- You usually have exactly the quality you paid for, so no surprises here.

- It's often more ecological. If factory A can produce more stuff with same money than factory B, they must be doing something right. Another way to look at this would be: if you have to make shovels dirt cheap, you can't use barrels of oil/shovel, because you would have to pay for that oil.

I really cannot prove this cheap is ecological, but I've noticed that this holds true in plastic Christmas-trees, cucumbers and majority of unprocessed meat products. Chicken production should cause only 1/5 of the problems that beef production. Surprise, surprise chicken also cost's 1/5.

If you just need to move from place to place Peugeot 308 will do as good as any of above.

You can get four of them with the price of GTR R35, so if one 308 doesn't last as long, you can get three more with the same price and every time with updated tech. And maintenance is probably cheaper too.

I'd say growing is ramming.

If you can make a good pharmacy that is 10x better than any other in town, you probably can grow to other towns. But what makes you 10x better? Some good procedure that is copyable, or your personal management skills? It it's procedure, the competitors can copy it also, so this growing point is kind of invalid. If it's your personal management skills, this growing point is again invalid.

In good competition there should be a threat of someone growing big because they make things better. So pharmacies would copy all good procedures from each other. But that growth should never actually happen.

I didn't really pick up the causation behind this. The article fails to explain any function of small companies to the economy at large.

I'd guess it goes other way round. If economy is unstable/unfair, only the small survive. Big companies have to spend so much to HR that they are in considerable disadvantage.

"Incest 'relationships' in the real world are mostly coercive, abusive relationships."

How do you know? Headlines tell this?

If most incest is abusive, then why we ban that non abusive incest? With the same logic you should ban all narcotics because most of them are evil (still you can buy alcohol legally).

If LGBT and straight is ok but nothing else is not, you should be able give some waterproof arguments.

"Finally, by linking homosexuality and incest, the poster tries to create a link between homosexuality which is now acceptable by most people to incest which is universally unaccepted and immoral. In western countries one is also legal and the other isn't."

I agree with you, but this argumentation is quite terrible.

If your main argument is "homosexuality is now universally accepted and normal". Then punishments to gays before being gay was accepted and normal are completely justifiable. Like Alan Turing's hormone treatment was ok?

Legality is just a approximation of this "is now universally accepted and normal". So it's weaker argument than the previous.

If you accept homosexuality because "no harm done to anyone". Then you should logically accept all other sexual stances as long as no harm is done to anyone. Right?

I'd like to see an airline company where greed and incompetence of the operators are actually considered failure modes and designed for.

I've been repairing bridges. And I've studied them to some extent.

The magical tendency of nature such that nothing man built will lats forever. Every bridge will collapse, every dam will fall, every house, windmill and electric line. Heck we can't even slope ground so that it would not fall down someday (it just might take few million years).

Men make errors all the time. Sometimes dudes don't care about rusty bearings under a bridge, the some truckers don't care about maximum weight limitations. The bridge designer was in hurry and they had to cut some steel from the bridge to fit the concrete sprouting nozzle in between. And Voila.

If you treat all risks equal, you avoid driving and favor nuclear energy.

PS. Safe driving to your all.

"10 000 years in the future" is propaganda to some extent.

There are two types of radioactive material: A, stuff that radiates very little but lasts very long. And B, stuff that radiates very much, but lasts only some months.

If you are concerned about stuff A, like uranium. There's plenty in nature. It is dangerous already because it emits Radon gas. People still live with that. But you really need large quantities for it to be dangerous.

Nuclear power plants need surprisingly small quantities of fuel. And that doesn't turn into large quantities of waste.

"In contrast, the amount of natural uranium required to provide the same amount of energy as 16 kg of fossil fuels, in a standard fission reactor, is 2 grams; and the resulting waste weighs one quarter of a gram."

http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c24/page_16...

Pride is not the opposite of humility, arrogance is. Otherwise they would not be calling it "gay pride".

Pride is actually a good thing in many situations. It's good when father is proud of his children and almost always when someone has pride of someone else. It's good when employee takes pride in his/her work, as it's kind of proof of motivation. Could Olympic athlete enjoy victory fully without feeling little proud? I bet it's then mostly "I did it!" not "others suck!".

I think there is a basic feeling that can surface as pride or arrogance. Pride is the positive side of this. Usually no feeling is bad, it's what you make of it that can be bad.

Some companies offer an ice cream gift card along the rejection letter. That's kind of nice too.

Just checked the same stuff.

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