HN user

qaruxj

36 karma
Posts0
Comments6
View on HN
No posts found.

He's not allowed to say "Big", but you can say "mass produced"? Those are pretty close.

"Big Food" is a meaningless scare phrase. It literally means nothing in the context of the comment I was replying to. On the other hand, "mass produced" has a very clear and well-established general meaning that I'm pretty sure most HN readers understand (and one that can easily be found online or in a dictionary; when I try Googling "Big Food", I just get a lot of random sites that use it as a buzzword without ever bothering to define clearly what they're fighting against).

Take out that hedgey "necessarily" and you've answered your own question.

The question was rhetorical, and the point was to illustrate how absurd the phrase "Big Food" is. My statement about mass produced food was intended to show that I'm not defending major corporations that produce unhealthy food, but pointing out a rhetorical and logical flaw in tlb's post.

To say that Ensure is excessively sweetened to make people buy more, while Soylent isn't, sounds like an argument to me.

tlb didn't include any sourced information about Soylent (other than "it's not sweet", which means nothing about its sugar content), so that's irrelevant. My point, again, was that calling anything "Big Food" is a meaningless, bullshit scare tactic and I was calling it as a saw it.

Sorry, but I don't trust anyone who uses the phrase "Big ______". Your argument isn't even coherent. You're just making a fallacious appeal by putting the scary capital-B "Big" in front of a random noun and acting like that's supposed to mean something. Who makes up "Big Food"? Who controls "Big Food"? Why does "Big Food" necessarily make less healthy products than "independents"? I agree that a lot of mass produced food is unhealthy and probably excessively seasoned and sweetened to improve market appeal, but that isn't really an argument for why Soylent is better or worse than Ensure.

Did nobody look at the PowerPoint itself? From page 17 (http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/jul/31/nsa...):

* Show me all the VPN startups in country X, and give me the data so I can decrypt and discover the users.

* These events are easily browsable in XKEYSCORE

As I understand it (and I may be wrong), most encrypted VPN traffic uses SSL. Given that XKeyscore data is only held for a few days (due to the immense volume) and given how nonchalantly they just throw out that they can decrypt VPN traffic, it sounds to me like they've either got the root SSL certs and are MITM'ing every connection they can or they've somehow broken SSL, either by breaking the actual encryption used or by exploiting vulnerabilities in how browsers handle it. If that's the case, then they don't need to ask Google or anyone else for your data, they can just read anything they want.