> Honestly, the whole thing reads like a hit piece.
To me it reads like cognitive dissonance. They write multiple damning statements (yes based in science) but conclude with 'voluntary changes' and 'more research'.
I'll mention that the piece speaks about FDA not needing baby food manufacturers to test the final product of the food, only the ingredients. Multiple independent studies confirm that the manufacturing of baby food products is outrageous, in terms of what is allowed. Compared to adult food, it's a double standard.
Instead, baby foods should be held to a higher standard. But this Democrat Committee is okay with 3 companies (of 7) not responding to their inquiry, only 'suggesting' private changes, and kicks the can down the road with a cop-out like 'more research needs to be done by the FDA'.
It's a long document but corruption and negligence is bipartisan [1].
[1] - This is b/c the report condemns Trump for hiding hazardous facts about baby food products but then with those facts they/Dem-led only commit to lip service.
That wasn't my comment...Also, it's refreshing that you can project my emotion on me (did I say embarrassed? did I say it was unpleasant? did I say I felt it was a Voltairean epigram?). Even though I stated you were incorrect on my personal emotional reaction, you continue to not realize that you're incorrect about my perception on the matter. Let alone your question ('why...') was a hostile question instead of actually engaging someone. I offered an olive branch by trying to rephrase it. Then you take all pretenses away and judge me without merit or grounded in fact.
I asked you what your question was but instead of realizing that you asked me a judgemental question (which isn't really a fair question...you presume guilt), you continue with your judgement without the facade of asking. You told me what you thought. Now, this latest comment, you're expounding as if you're doing someone a favor but instead it's condensation and gaslighting my perspective.
As for these longer follow-up questions. Honestly, if they got downvoted, I'd just laugh because it would only confirm how immature the readers are (which does happen occasionally but is rare) but instead, I wouldn't edit them b/c objectively, I'm not in the wrong on these longer posts. And someone would be hard pressed to say anything to the contrary.
To be clear, I'm standing my ground on my right to do what I did, for my own reasons and it was pointless/meritless to throw me into the mix of someone trying to provoke a flamewar. Which is a presumption beyond any evidence (even the deleted evidence) can verify. But...maybe I'm 'guilty' because someone might have power over me and they projected their negative mental patterns onto my comments? Cool world. Seems like the irony of my original comment! But I hope that rationality comes.
Instead, it was an innocent comment and the reaction has been anything but mature or consistent. I've seen even more superficial, pointless, and antagonistic comments than mine daily on HN, yet it's rare to see them squashed. I've checked multiple times. It's hit/miss, since HN has scaled over the years.
> That's not what I asked, but maybe I can try to rephrase it. It seems odd to be going to such verbose lengths to defend something you wrote but apparently don't want other people to see.
I appreciate the attempt at clarity but I don't see a question here.
I'll rephrase your question. What is the reason for the deletion of your comment?
Simple. People were flaming. It was getting downvoted and flagged. If the community sends a clear statement (by acting in concert with one another), then I'd prefer not to get downvoted into oblivion. To me, it's not a hill I want to die on. And it was clear that others were misunderstanding. All I can do is communicate my perspective. If someone comes to the conversation with misguided expectations (even if it's a swarm of people), then I'll bow out. It's simple non-violent communication.
Pointing out that the morals of Google diverging from their founding motto is absolutely substantive.
As for flamebait, to someone whom has an axe to grind, everything is flamebait. Which is something I have zero control over.
> rather to err on the side of posting thoughtfully and substantively.
I did. As for beauty, it's in the eyes of the beholder. Which why I'm standing my ground on what I said. I didn't entice someone. I didn't get into ad hominem. I simply only responded once that I'm pointing out something that is clear to me (hypocrisy of Google's morals).
I already stated how Google diverged from it's original motto. One commenter felt it was unoriginal. Well, I don't live on this website. Also, where are these unproductive expectations coming from? Pointing out that someone is 'unoriginal' isn't engaging anyone to discuss something.
Since speaking plainly isn't getting through.
Let me reason by comparison.
If I'm a 5th grader and the commenter is a professional 12th grader. How is the 5th grader wrong for posting it's opinion? That is clearly substantive and thoughtful, I literally quoted Google's code of ethics page to make my case. The 12th grader should've known better.
If something has been said 100s of times on HN, guess what happens? Typically, it educates the new readers whom haven't seen that information before. Or it gets downvoted into oblivion. Nothing wrong with that and it's self policing.
I believe this type of response, to me, was misplaced and unnecessary.
It wasn't a predictable flamewar. Maybe for you but it wasn't for me nor could you cite any observable evidence for my contribution in this.
The other commenter was trying to flame, now that others seemingly piled on by needlessly flagging. I was generous and didn't engage in anything but a nudge to what I was implying/saying.
Google's behavior might be 'obvious' to some but it's not obvious to everyone, hence why I posted what I did in a public forum where ~2 billion people have access to this website but don't have uniform understanding of all things Google, that Google's behavior was hypocritical. The commenter expected me to say one thing or another and that's where the disconnect is. Not me. If you can cite my error, I'll happily provide 1 BTC for you clearly proving my error. But you can't. I don't come here to blame/flame. I come to contribute what I find valuable to the community. Others didn't find it valuable, that's fine but I tried.
When dealing with trolls. There is nothing wrong with giving them a gentle nudge, which is what I did. I didn't engage past my initial comment and one additional.
Finally, when dealing with people. Don't prejudge, even if you are the judge, when dealing with the community. I've done nothing wrong and the only problem is the narrative in people's head and their expectations to ~'not rehash what others have said' as @blauditore and @saagarjha were implying.
What others may have said in the past doesn't inform my experience, I wasn't there. I'm speaking for myself and there is nothing wrong with what I said. And still isn't.
For @blauditore and @saagarjha, I'd say their comments were trying to flame. Don't project their bad behavior on me.
Me too! I've been identifying more with my Quaker belief system and meditating more. I'm trying to be more consistent with it but man, it's opened up a whole new world.
Your post in interesting. I agree yet disagree. You got the context correct but he explicitly said 'it's the standard now for 32 bit general purpose instruction sets and it's got the 16 bit compressed stuff. Learning from the best still'.
Standard =/ state of the art but in this context, he's stating that learning from the best (state of the art CPU designs) is by learning RISC-V.
One doesn't say something is a standard and state of the art in one breathe, to somehow believe that they're doing something outdated or from 1991's knowledge base.
I think you're interpretation of his message would need to have further explicit statements from him to support your claim (that somehow 'state of the art' doesn't mean for CPU design, instead of just learning CPU design).
The listener would be better suited to follow @seedless-sensat's (and my) understanding because there is no evidence to the contrary of what we're stating. The speaker intended both (but if you can find evidence to support your different thesis, I look forward to investigating it further).
First, I really appreciate that you're opening up about your life. It's not easy to do, even with strangers on the web.
> It's either, take that pill and turn into a robot, or...
Might I suggest you think of it this way: Take that pill and realize my enlightened self or try to love myself in spite of my chemical imbalance in the brain.
> can't even summarize without writing a wall of text...
Although I'm not currently taking my advice here. Might I suggest that if you JOURNAL your personal thoughts, it's really helpful to realizing what you're trying to say to yourself. There is nothing wrong with a wall of text, even for summaries. I found that journaling was a great way for 'someone to listen to my random rapid thoughts'. (Note: This doesn't need to be everyday, nor some big burden. Just do it as often as you think about it and for as long as you desire in any given moment :D This will pay dividends for your awareness in just a few months of sporadic posts, even without the meds)
> But I wasn't hungry, it made me apathetic and my creativity went away.
Hmm. I'd suggest you try a different medication. There are multiple meds that help with this. (spelling probably wrong) Modfinil, Adderall, Vyvanse, Ritalin, Dexadrine, etc
I've tried them all and honestly, if I was able to, I'd want a few different meds, at different dosages because I know it would be a better combination for me than just one med. Ritalin is a non-starter for me, the side effects are too serious. Vyvanse and Modfinil were 'gentle' but not aggressive enough on my symptoms (no side effects but maxing out the dosage still felt too little of a positive effect on me). Dexadrine worked with another med I was taking (prozac) but I wouldn't 'get things' done as efficient. Then I changed my other med to Wellbutrin (a better depression med, imho, super cheap too) and Adderall worked perfectly in concert with it (this is now affordable for out of pocket care in the USA). [Note: This is my personal experience. This paragraph is over 2 years of trial and error. Some things worked for a few months but didn't actually work, after some introspection. Try things and be aware of what's happening to your body. My situation is unique to me, yours will be different but try to understand your situation better]
Finding the right meds, for your unique biochemical makeup, is a very large task. Most doctors aren't as detailed and provide a Bespoke service. Try to give yourself a Bespoke level of care. Do it with the counsel of a doctor, many doctors will be okay with this because you're under their care and they tend to only put in the level of effort that you request. So, talk with them and try to find something better for yourself. It make take years but realize, being on some meds, you're learning about yourself and you're making progress on what you want (not what capitalism demands).
It's great that you're also going to therapy. I hope the therapy is for the habits of ADD (if it's for other things, I suggest you include any ADD habit that's impeding your life).
I waited until 25 yrs old. Took a break for a bit but restarted at 33. I don't think I'll look back. The medication is such a night/day experience but it's only half the battle for me. Gotta break the bad habits (not filing away, not reviewing the day, etc).
One person says, 'Look they're corrupt, they're taking money from someone they need to regulate'. Then...when someone from their identity politics does it, it's 'no big deal'. They somehow 'earned it'.
This type of tribal behavior is a poison to society.
IMHO, the truth of a 10x tradesman/tradeswoman is very real.
I point to the pareto distribution to reaffirm it. I've seen some workers that fly through tasks (construction tasks, programming, managerial, etc) and they hold the wind to the sails. But depending on a situation, 10x doesn't remain for indefinite amount of time in a majority cases (maybe pareto is a fractal of some time or it's recursive?).
If one has ever seen the 1950s video of someone putting up drywall [1], I'd put that worker in the 10x category (I worked construction for a while, few workers even today could keep up with this man from the 1950s).
Great, I love the sarcasm! Can you please help push RH and other brokers to allow the unbridled buying of the current stocks being restricted? Then we can really put the theories to the test.
> it's crushing a few hedge funds that happened to hold short positions in a few stocks
You haven't noticed that the big three indexes are DOWN ~2% today? They were down 2% when this first took off. [If you want to split hairs...go for it but...the correlation is very strong, news cycles are soaking it up and the White House talks about monitoring the situation. This is not a light matter]
This is bigger than just a few firms. The added limitations to buying various stocks. The heavy-handed nature is making it clear, let alone the media frenzy.
WSB broke their models which in turn is crippling the 'economy'. If you don't think so, please, advocate for the free citizens to buy as much as they want because the hype isn't subsiding, it's only growing.
What reason? Because it demystifies the room. It pulls the veil off and we get to see behind the curtain.
Strangely enough, I had a fleeting thought that this is why few firms went under and most got bailed out. I actually had this thought after watching the Big Short or another Wall Street movie about the 2008 crash. I thought that it was strange that Lehman was the odd one out and it struck me as a frat party. Only the cool kids survive.
@numair, you sound very candid and forthright. I appreciate it. I find it's difficult for people to mask their tone and reading this honest tone is refreshing. I wish you success in your endeavors.
To me it reads like cognitive dissonance. They write multiple damning statements (yes based in science) but conclude with 'voluntary changes' and 'more research'.
I'll mention that the piece speaks about FDA not needing baby food manufacturers to test the final product of the food, only the ingredients. Multiple independent studies confirm that the manufacturing of baby food products is outrageous, in terms of what is allowed. Compared to adult food, it's a double standard.
Instead, baby foods should be held to a higher standard. But this Democrat Committee is okay with 3 companies (of 7) not responding to their inquiry, only 'suggesting' private changes, and kicks the can down the road with a cop-out like 'more research needs to be done by the FDA'.
It's a long document but corruption and negligence is bipartisan [1].
[1] - This is b/c the report condemns Trump for hiding hazardous facts about baby food products but then with those facts they/Dem-led only commit to lip service.