The comment isn't saying that excess carb consumption is causal but that it is a link in the chain of causality. We don't know what causes the increase in feeding behavior and choice of food.
Free will is an illusion, the faster we admit this the faster we can examine this sort of chain of causality critically
1. Delaying real solutions to a huge international health crisis
2. Mentally harming people who are in that situation and self-hate for having binge eating disorders, or other various conditions causing weight gain and excessive carb consumption.
3. Giving a pass to insurance companies to under cover, or not cover, diabetes 2 patients.
So, yeah, that sentiment is at least harming people, and at most killing people. I don't consider that over the top of a response and it's something an individual can think critically about and change their opinion on.
Did I say anything that was in contradiction to this? Actual solutions isn't exclusive to medical remedies.
> This type of thinking fares much better on Twitter. Good luck.
Maybe you should care more about the mental wellbeing of people.
> Sure let’s continue to further subsidize the ill-effects of processed food. Save money on cheap food today, spend it on healthcare later. Makes sense.
Again. You're assuming that I said we shouldn't do full solutions to this problem. However, there are also people who are sick and need help right now.
This is cool and nerdy and all, but how this can possibly appeal broadly enough to hit HN front page is beyond my understanding - as is 99% of the article. Sorry, had to say it, feel free to downvote.
I'd rather have an in depth article about SPIR-V on the front page even if I'm not a gfx engineer than another generic, mainstream article that's unrelated to computer stuff. We have already too many of those and we're slowly turning into Ars Technica.
Around age 7 my daughter showed ocd like behavior (incessant scratching her arms) when she realized loosing connection during chrome casting meant the device kept playing. We had to unplug the chromecast device and inspect it, lying there dead and silent on the table, to settle her down. Same thing when our pc was updating, saying “please do turn off computer” and then _proceeding to reboot on its own_ at end of update. She wouldn’t enter the living room if google home was plugged in, and we would have to convince her it was OK google was listening (!…). as a toddler she would shake from fear if curtains were gently blowing - we figured she thought someone was standing there and tried to inspect it together to no avail. only recently we understood she in fact feared the house would blow away.
Equal parts worried and proud of my little tin foil hat in the making :-).
Sure, but if she has generalized anxiety, adding more to the plate in the form of “oh, also Google wants to throw you in prison eventually” is just not worth it right now :)
Especially because it is documented that at least animals can "feel" (for lack of a better word) electromagnetic waves, including those created accidentally by cheap wifi/bluetooth devices.
I consider these highly desirable behaviors in the unique future event of dystopia.
In general, paranoia is a highly effective deterrent to doing an undesirable behavior, because the paranoid really don't cheat. Whereas if you have to do it because it's your job, or the law? Eh.
Three advantages:
First, studies show people like to say no more than yes. This fits a no, perfect for the knee-jerk denial, but most would follow up with a reason. As the reason is formulated, one may realise the initial assumption is wrong. However, at this point the person is discussing with himself. This is exactly what you want: The asker is out of the picture; the parades are down.
Second, an answer in the negative does not reflect poorly on the asker, as the question does not speak to preference. He may already be inclined towards a no, but just want the reason for X not being the better choice. Hence, less chance for a follow-up justification leading to a discussion.
Third, it merely establishes if X is feasible. Higher chance of finding common ground when discussing feasibility without preference.
Lastly, it doesn't get much shorter than this. Less words is less skin in the game.
Did you consider the point about code being defined only at build-time, not being available for inspection by the developer? That sets it apart from most auto-generating code scenarios I've seen.
- you're likely better at KISS than most.
- 90% of web development is repetitious. if you weren't stressed you can do it.
- cut down work hours
- stay happy. you're not sick. your family is not sick.
- learn to play an instrument. seriously, this is a great way to enhance mental performance.
- everyone feels the same to a degree.
TL;DR: "react native sucks because javascript". So much else I wanted to know from an experienced iOS dev, like:
- How is perf in a large app with lots of network IO?
- How does animation/ transition fit with reacts render loop and how does it perform, especially during network IO?
- How much is lost from not being able to do multithreading?
- How hard is it to achieve the last 20% fine tuning of feel and perf?
- How much flux is the community driven deps typically causing?
- Is memory management an issue? GC stutters, leaks?
- Do some UI parts simply not scale well enough, requiring native code instead? e.g. infinite scrolling, charts, complex transitions?
- How mature is the tool chain? Build time?
- Frequency of breaking changes from core? from common deps? Cost of staying up to date?
Developing in JS, with all the pros/cons of the JS language, is the very premise of the react native deal. Most issues raised would apply just as well to any web app.
