I always have to recommend Mother Earth, Mother Board by Neal Stephenson[1] if the thought of undersea cables sounds at all interesting. I'll also second andyjohnson0's recommendation of The Victorian Internet[2] - it blew my mind how much of modern digital culture existed on telegraphs prior to voice.
Gamification helps with growth and engagement but not necessarily learning. I have a feeling that a "calm" app would grow more slowly but if the experience and results are good, you could have more durable and satisfied customers, less churn, etc.
I just watched this. While I completely disliked the heavy emotional focus and bias of the presenter (for example: no interviews with people who don't want children were held, particularly not men), the data seemed solid. There's a peer review pending - I'd like to look at that when it comes out. If the conclusions are solid, we would have to change our societies and economies in such a fundamental way - I don't see that happening in the next 50 years, if at all.
Canned and frozen vegetables are also non-perishable. While some extremely poor people lack a working freezer or storage space, most consumers can easily use these options.
Canned food such as canned tomatoes or canned pickles (if pickled with vinegar/salt/spices) is not considered ultra-processed food. It's considered processed food and can be considered as part of a healthy diet. Well, same could be said about UPF -- your health is unlikely to detoriate long term if you have 1 frozen meal per week. It's just quantity that matters and lack of moderation.
Absolutely nothing I've seen anywhere justifies the idea that access to food is the problem. In most cultures, you don't need cooking classes because the food is ingrained into their culture, and recipes are passed down. Americans have a much weaker link to their heritage. You might know a few dishes, but in my experience, absolutely nobody knows how to cook.
By cook, I don't mean "can add one box of prepared goods to another box of prepared goods with a can of prepared goods on the side", I mean buying meat, veggies, fruit, and grains and cooking a dish from home, mostly from scratch.
edit: 13 million Americans are in food deserts. If the problem were that small, it'd be similar in size to people who are addicted to substances other than alcohol. This is affecting almost everyone. There MUST be another, bigger solution.
It's an observation, not a suggestion. That's literally how many low-income (not impoverished) people live in rural areas. They grow (and hunt) some food at home but not enough to be self-sufficient, and also have a regular job. Sometimes those jobs involve working long hours at peak times. This is a pretty normal lifestyle.
If you're having a hard time affording groceries, failing to plan ahead and instead throwing away food is a luxury you can't afford. (A blender and an affection for green smoothies is a good solution.) But that's still cheaper than paying for the health problems downstream of ultraprocessed food. Unfortunately my source for both claims is personal experience.
I'd like to have an app that estimates the cost of groceries, including the long term health effects of regular consumption, and interpreting early death as a cost rather than savings. For me I think ribeye would end up being cheaper than Doritos.
>I'd like to have an app that estimates the cost of groceries, including the long term health effects of regular consumption, and interpreting early death as a cost rather than savings. For me I think ribeye would end up being cheaper than Doritos.
Someone who bothers to input everything they eat into an app (basically calorie counting) probably already has enough intuitive sense of what's "healthy" that they don't need an app that they should eat beef rather than doritos.
Just like $50 shoes that last 6 months and $200 shoes that last 10 years, when you’re poor, you often have to chose the less expensive, short-term option because the more expensive, far far better option is literally out of reach.
I'm always skeptical when someone posts that little nugget about shoes. Maybe it used to be true but I don't think it still applies in the era of high-quality mass manufacturing. I have worn shoes that cost $50 to well over $200 and if anything the more expensive shoes tend to fall apart faster.
Walmart has plenty of shoes and work boots for about $50 that will last more than 6 months unless you really abuse them. They don't look great but they're functional and reasonably durable.
For anyone who doesn't know, the literal words are from a book, but its meaning is metaphorical and isn't limited to boots. The point is still that it's expensive to be poor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boots_theory
Just taking a second to think about this, since we're in the context of groceries, here's another example: the bigger box of cereal will be cheaper per pound and last longer, but you have to pay more up front for it. Another example closer to the boots metaphor is comparing the longevity of cheap, used cars vs new cars.
Even outside of consumer goods, poor people are not able to hire accounts to find, um, ways to minimize your tax bill, or have the money for investments or even savings etc. Even middle class people who may be able to afford a mortgage that is less than their rent might take a while to save up for a down payment (and hopefully the housing market hasn't gotten too much worse in the mean time).
>But that's still cheaper than paying for the health problems downstream of ultraprocessed food.
It is unrealistic to expect the vast majority of humans to prioritize the long term in every single decision they make, especially if they have a dim view of the long term.
It is logical to want to enjoy life in the present, even if it will hurt in the long term, if you are being brought down by other aspects, such as stress about income volatility and belief in low probabilities of upward movement, etc.
Perhaps this is a function of "easy to find". Food deserts are a problem with regards to a lot of families only having little access to fresh foods. When you have to drive 30 min to the IGA, maybe you overbuy compared driving the 5 min to shop at the dollar general. The consolidation of big supermarket chains contributes to the creation of food deserts.
Off the top of my head, Kilmar Abrego Garcia had a judicial stay against exportation and the administration said his deportation was an error, but he spent weeks in an El Salvadoran prison. And there was the Korean battery factory workers in Georgia.
It is not semantics. They are not doing any such "targeting"; they are using this information among other factors, in a context where it objectively is rational to use that information, and it has already been found in court (hence "Kavanaugh Stops decision") that this is lawful. (Granted, this is only a stay against an injunction.) I gave details at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45581400 .
The primary WBEZ source editorialized, and Slate's analysis took it further, such that your one-sentence summary ends up factually incorrect. The direct quote offered by WBEZ:
> “You know, there’s many different factors that go into something like that,” Bovino said. “It would be agent experience, intelligence that indicates there’s illegal aliens in a particular place or location.
> “Then, obviously, the particular characteristics of an individual, how they look. How do they look compared to, say, you?” he said to the reporter, a tall, middle-aged man of Anglo descent.
I disagree with such profiling, generally speaking, but as an objective matter of fact it is not being done "only on race/language". Also, it appears that these "Kavanaugh stops" involve possibly being taken in for questioning, but not any extended detainment.
Further, they did get a 6-3 SCOTUS decision permitting it — a decision that underscores that other factors are being used, not just "race/language". Specifically: "presence at particular locations such as bus stops, car washes, day laborer pickup sites, agricultural sites, and the like" and "the type of work one does". This is affirmed later: "Plaintiffs’ standing theory is especially deficient in this case because immigration officers also use their experience to stop suspected illegal immigrants based on a variety of factors. So even if the Government had a policy of making stops based on the factors prohibited by the District Court, immigration officers might not rely only on those factors if and when they stop plaintiffs in the future."
If there is a serious problem, it will end in widespread lawsuits from legal immigrants unjustly detained, or on their behalf. If Fourth Amendment rights are being violated, the system allows for justice to be done. I am not denying this possibility. But as the concurrence notes (omitting references to precedent):
> To stop an individual for brief questioning about immigration status, the Government must have reasonable suspicion that the individual is illegally present in the
United States... a lesser requirement than probable cause and “considerably short” of the preponderance of the evidence standard... [that] depends on the totality of the circumstances. Here, those circumstances include: that there is an extremely high number and percentage of illegal immigrants in the Los Angeles area; that those individuals tend to gather in certain locations to seek daily work; that those individuals often work in certain kinds of jobs... that do not require paperwork and are therefore especially attractive to illegal immigrants; and that many of [them]... come from Mexico or Central America and do not speak much English. To be clear, apparent ethnicity alone
cannot furnish reasonable suspicion; under this Court’s case law regarding immigration stops, however, it can be a “relevant factor” when considered along with other salient
factors.
Someone else ITT proposed to me that ICE can't be held to account because the people in question "don't get court cases". Thanks for highlighting that they do, in fact.
Slate claims that Kavanaugh's "reasoning crumbled upon scrutiny", but there is nothing official about this — they're just linking some law professor's opinion on Substack. Slate doesn't do a great job of objective journalism in my experience; they routinely present opinion as fact like this.
The "Rhetoric from Trump" names two specific individuals as potentially funding terror groups, who are also known to fund the Democratic party. This is not the same as calling Democrats terrorists. Miller's rhetoric is precisely an example in 'the sense that there equally is rhetoric about "how republicans are fascists"' that I mentioned. It's him mouthing off on Hannity, not in an official government capacity. And the article doesn't even concretely show what it claims to be showing. It merely alludes to Hannity and Miller "... trying to paint the picture that all political violence occurring in the United States is the result of radical left-wingers incited by Democrats." Which again is not applying the label to Democrats broadly. The only hard evidence provided is linking to a tweet that has screencaps of other tweets from Miller — which are from during Biden's administration.
That's because it's so much more populous. That link shows that CA is 34th in % of workers employed in manufacturing (similar to TX and MA). CA is tops in many, many absolute measures because it has almost 10M more people than the next state, TX.
Just that "largest manufacturing state in the USA" isn't a very helpful measure, since the largest state in basically every measure of development. This tweet shows the same problem with absolute numbers giving misleading appearances: https://x.com/xkcd/status/1339348000750104576:
There are more Trump voters in California than Texas, more Biden voters in Texas than NY, more Trump voters in NY than Ohio, more Biden voters in Ohio than Massachusetts, more Trump voters in Massachusetts than Mississippi, and more Biden voters in Mississippi than Vermont.
There's network effects in manufacturing and not so much in presidential voting, size actually does matter. It's one of the things people always rave about with China.
I'm somewhat surprised that the other response to me thinks the market that is ~1/10 the size of the other is obviously a better place to work. I guess cost of living can have a big impact.
[1] https://www.wired.com/1996/12/ffglass/
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46433901
reply