Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | cvsh's comments login

>has retweeted someone's description of his article as "The Talented Mr Ripley, but with digital nomads"

Everyone who watched that movie felt a pang of longing to live that way; it's still selling the experience to the reader


Using Sam Harris as an example is way too charitable to the average person.

Most people are not first-principles thinkers about politics. They are self-interested. Where that motivation is considered unsavory, they will deny it, even to the point of deluding themselves. Race is a prime example, because, like all forms of identity, everyone is biased in favor of their own ingroup, but admitting this bias is far more stigmatized than admitting other forms of ingroup bias.

If you take nearly everyone in the United States at their word, then racism has been effectively wiped out. And yet the indirect evidence of it is everywhere. Which means people aren't being honest with others--and possibly even not with themselves--about being biased in favor of people who look, speak, and act like they do.

This gets even worse when we start talking about politicians, who are trained to routinely lie, to the point where the media starts to safely, and correctly, assume that what they say is motivated entirely by self-interest and completely detached from the truth if it deviates in any way from what would advance their self-interest.

Notably, politicians who buck this trend--Justin Amash, Bernie Sanders, Thomas Massie--aren't generally stigmatized by the mainstream media as self-interested troglodytes. Their views are criticized, surely, but few question that they genuinely hold those views from first-principles reasoning, because they've demonstrated that they're principled people.

This suggests that the media is actually pretty good at distinguishing troglodytes from the truly principled, and while that may rub off on people like Ben Affleck the wrong way, directing your hatred at "the media" is misplacing it.

Also, the guy who wrote this article wrote a conspiracy screen about Obama's "plot to overturn the 2016 election" literally two days before. So him calling out others for impugning their political enemies' motives as coming from bad faith is pretty rich.


Its backstory is famously that it was developed by some guy as a side project, and that guy's tacky username is in the title.

I mean, what did you expect?


Sort of. BattleRoyale was initially developed as a mod for ARMA 2 by Brendan Greene (PlayerUnknown). He then went on to make a mod for ARMA 3, then later worked with the H1Z1 devs for the H1Z1 battle royale mode named King of the Kill.

After that, he moved on to making his own game with a supporting development company fully centered around his ideas at his direction with creative freedom that was not limited with being a mod (ARMA 2/3) or under the restraints of a larger company (SOE/Daybreak with H1Z1).

Brendan is largely the progenitor of the video game battle royale mode, and his name carries a lot of weight in the genre itself.


The first 3 versions were. PUBG as we know it was developed by an professional studio.


Please.

Don't.

Scrolljack.


Sorry. Sometimes. No. Good Options. We'll try harder.


>I fully expect the short-length, autodidact or mediocre students to be entering a saturated market within the next five years.

That cuts against every labor demand projection.

Frankly, even mediocre programming jobs are a great option for most people. The lower mode is still much more than most entry-level jobs pay.


As we have seen in recent elections, replacing politicians with non-politicians has been a disaster for the country. Why is a scientist running better than a science-aware politician running?


I think I'd be fine with a politician with a non science background if they had excelled in Math/Science based courses in highschool and were generally curious as to how our world works. The problem is that most politicians I've met have a strong legal background (good), but a non existent technical background. How can you make key decisions if you don't understand these topics? You just take the word of advisors? If two advisors tell you two different things, how do you know which to trust?


It doesn't with IE10 though. And there's no way to fall back to flex or another column system.

Which means, if you need to support IE10, you need a whole parallel set of styles. There's no graceful degradation when it comes to overall site layout, unless you're willing to serve the single-column mobile version to older browsers.


The only two Windows version you can run into Microsoft supported versions of IE 10 any more are on Windows Server 2012 and Windows Embedded 8: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/gp/microsoft-internet-ex...

Who in the world has that as a significant user base?


what's wrong with giving older browsers a different experience?


One scenario I can think of is a non-IE user telling an IE user to go to a particular website and click the button that's at the top of the right sidebar. For the IE user, it might be a stacked layout where the sidebar actually appears under the main content. I would call this a nuisance more so than a major issue, but nevertheless it is something to consider.


you'd have the same issue between a desktop and mobile user. i don't see it as an issue at all.


I think the average computer user knows that websites often look different on computers vs. phones, so they might be confused when a website looks different than normal on a computer. Like I said, I would only call this a nuisance. Certainly not a big deal.


I think it depends of if you need trafic from those browser or not. Because if you do, you'll have to maintain several version, or increase your time on working on it to do gracefull degradation (which is of course a good way to do, but more expensive)


but that's kind of the beauty of css grid, the gracefull fallback is basically mobile view which you already put effort into.


It's a real thing but it can't physically reach some of the places the victims were said to be affected and it's not known to cause many of the specific symptoms suffered by the victims.


It'd be one thing if the use of torture was increasing over time across our society, or all societies.

But using "torture was recently brought back" as a data point to rebut an overall statistical decline makes no sense. It's like saying "Apple's stock price fell today, therefore people are wrong to say the economy is improving".


Based on casual observation of what other customers are ordering from my frequent visits to Chipotle, it seems like queso has been a complete failure. I don't understand why they thought cheese would be something people would pay extra for.

A) Cheese is not usually expensive, like avocado, and so not usually considered worth paying extra for

2) Cheese is known not to be healthy, and part of the appeal of Chipotle is the illusion that you're eating healthy food

3) A different kind of cheese is already available for free, so that substitute good is bound to drive down demand for queso

I did notice that they recently cut corn tortillas and one (or two?) of the meat options, so they at least seem to be cognizant of the benefits of reducing decision fatigue by concentrating on their best-selling options


Or

4) Their queso is not very good.

I use to get queso on my burritos at Qdoba every single time, when that was still around. But their queso was actually good. Chipotle's is not.

I'm not the only person that thinks that. There's articles and memes and all sorts of things about it: https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/09/18/everybody-hates-ch...


Which cheese are you referring to and why do you think it's not healthy? Genuine q


Cheese, generally, contains a lot of fat and salt (as in natrium, I think in the USA it is called sodium). We're consuming too much natrium as it is.

There are other, cheaper methods of obtaining protein. Some of which are locally available. In Africa, for example, insects are used as local source of protein. They have a low Co2 footprint for a variety of reasons:

* Because a lack of transportation (locally available). Especially when compared to trademark protected cheeses such as Gorgonzola.

* Barely any land is used and it can be stacked, allowing more space for other land usage (generally that could be forests, or at least not adding to deforestation).

* No methane enters the air which directly affects Co2 emissions (which cows, generally the main animal used for cheese, do produce a lot).

Compare insects and cheese to avocados: for Europeans avocados are not locally grown, and the deforestation is a "far from my bed" show.


Yeah, but "mac 'n' insects" doesn't quite have the same appeal!


Mac'n Beez

It's all about branding.


> Cheese is known not to be healthy, and part of the appeal of Chipotle is the illusion that you're eating healthy food

What do you mean by illusion? "Healthy" vs "unhealthy" for starters isn't some sort of easy to define line, but curious why you'd make that comment.


The gp might be talking about 'cheese', not cheese, since they also say it is cheaper than avocado.


Queso is a staple of texmex. I have friends from the Midwest lament the lack of queso at local Mexican restaurants in Los Angeles. That said, queso is probably having regional success outside of CA.


Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: