HN user

sibane

31 karma
Posts0
Comments20
View on HN
No posts found.

Well, we can only speculate. But I would suggest that since the writer themselves is choosing to write an op-ed on the subject, perhaps they themselves have ample motivation to come up with a persuasive word to argue their case? Their goal is to educate normal people on these chemicals and in the piece they explain that the terminology commonly used is so scientific as to be meaningless to the general public. Hence the need for a more direct "forever chemicals" instead of PFAS/per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances, PFOA/Perfluorooctanoic acid or C8/8 carbon chain structure.

What do you mean by spore costs? Wouldn't most large scale farming operations work with liquid cultures based on live mycelium? Liquid cultures are easy to multiply and inject into pasteurized substrate with needles. Once the mycelium has taken over the growing medium, it also no longer needs to be kept in a fully sterile environment.

I'm not at all convinced a pound of mushrooms is worth that much more than pork. Are you sure it's not the meat industry subsidies that are keeping the price down?

I personally think the structure of the book is it's biggest weakness. No matter how poetic, it really doesn't support communicating it's material very well. At least not to normal people.

That said, I actually did a redesign of the book (https://i.imgur.com/QFyuIsd.jpg) years ago using indentation and lines as guides. I reckon that's the best way to improve the experience in book form without fundamentally altering the text itself.

If I were to do the same for web, I'd also make sure the reader always sees the statements from upper layers to get the full picture of the context in which the current statement is said.

This is also clearly what happened with psychedelics. When they found out LSD wasn't the truth serum or mind control tool they had hoped it would be, and instead tended to just make people think more like hippies, they put the leg down hard.

Do you have anything to back up your claims or is it just that you'd prefer China not to be involved? Because I've found multiple sources backing up the claim that China was in fact involved.

This book (https://books.google.com/books?id=iyQps4i41JoC&pg=PA344&redi...) mentions Southern China as one of the origins of narezushi.

This one (https://www.businessinsider.com/the-complete-history-of-sush...) goes even further by specifically talking of Southern China as the origin and suggests that the influence of northern invaders explains why you won't find much signs of it in modern China.

This documentary (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31jXkTLbYFE&feature=youtu.be...) links sushi to the introduction of rice cultivation to Japan. Through China.

And apparently (https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/10125/17154/...) when it comes to the arrival of rice to Japan, it's not a question of whether or not it came through China, but which of the three possible routes it took.

You're trying way too hard to spin this fairly typical food article with a mildly provocative title into a propaganda piece. The text literally calls sushi Japanese multiple times, including in the first sentence of the main text. But I guess that doesn't count if we assume no one reads that far and if they do, they probably won't understand it?

If they were serious about speed, they'd have something to show regarding how well they can manage core temperatures.

i3 4.18 6 years ago

There are some vague efforts to bring gaps into i3. However, while it seems like the maintainers aren't opposed to having the functionality in base i3, they are choosing not to simply merge it in because of quality concerns. At the moment, gaps is a somewhat hacky patch on top of i3 with a few drawbacks. They probably won't add gaps until they find an elegant way of implementing them as a core feature.

https://github.com/i3/i3/issues/3724

I'm going to be honest, one thing I wish we could leave behind as we enter the 2020s is this obsession with flat/material and minimalist design as some kind of profound one size fits all design ethos that you can build your entire professional self around.

Don't get me wrong. There are plenty of occasions where so-called minimalist layouts are perfectly appropriate. Most of the lessons at the core of it are absolutely fundamental to design. And what it replaced, the very brief period of corporate skeuomorphic design was never that great and in my opinion had much more to do with companies wanting to showoff their fancy new technology than designing anything great in its own right.

However, I despair when I think of the amount of young designers who know nothing else and can barely imagine a life without the strict framework of minimalism and its accepted practices. They will never know the feeling of going off the beaten path and discovering something cool and valuable, because your inner minimalist has long since shot down that line of thought as frivolous self-indulgence. Only minimalist self-indulgence is accepted.

I'm sure most people here can agree that the web is kind of in a sad state right now. We're using staggering amounts of man-hours to run this thing. An enormous bloated stack of technologies maintained by a horde of programmers just so that designers can spend their days meticulously handcrafting minimalist websites that pretty much look the same and do the same thing, while being far heavier than they have any reason to be.

I can appreciate the programmers who build perfectly optimized "programmer minimalist" personal websites, but at the end of the day, I think that just amounts to a lot of really nice sandcastles. How do we translate that to the real world?

I'm hoping 2020s could be a decade when people get real about moving forward. Less aping of aesthetics and technologies from the 60s and 70s. More of productive experimentation, like in the 60s and 70s.