You're trying to answer the wrong questions instead of asking the right ones. The absence of answers to good questions says a lot more than half-assed answers to the wrong questions.
I don't profess to know what happened on 9/11. But if you ask the right questions, what we've been fed as the official theory comes out as an almost laughable story.
You might ask yourself why we as a society started a witch-hunt for those that try to find the truth behind it all. We blindly "supported" two or three wars and all the measures that were taken under the guise of security.
We were OK with people being kidnapped, tortured, and held prisoner for a decade without any evidence. And nobody even knows why.
If you really put your teeth in these so called conspiracy theories, then one day you'll realize that the term becomes null and void, because it assumes that someone, or a group of people, actually knows what is up.
Nobody does, we're just conditioned into taking anything our TV says at face value, so we assume "they" know. And why? For exactly the same reason you've mentioned, because we cannot accept that fact that something bad can go unnoticed and grow to something that big. So we get 2 nuanced stories from 4 TV-channels. Just enough to create the illusion that they're covering all the bases, while at the same time making us believe that we're forming our own and informed opinion by analysing all versions of the story.
But at this stage it is no longer a matter of people conspiring. The system has reached a state where it is normalcy. So, in places where it matters, only people that are already in the same mindset bubble up. Not because they are malicious or because someone has talked them into it, but because they're just a prime specimen of the environment they grew up in. It's a side-effect of a society that holds power and profit as its most important goal.
The reason a lot of people can not understand this is because they did not grow up in that same environment. So there is a disconnect between what we as a person believe we are capable of and what we're actually doing.
I wonder why someone as Chomsky doesn't question the whole Bin Laden story a bit more thorough. What evidence exists that he was alive after 2001 anyway?
If the video's that turned up after didn't come with a narrative, no one would draw the conclusion that Bin Laden was its lead actor.
It's peculiar that, the only video's which _clearly_ show Bin Laden since 9/11 are two video's where he denies his responsibility for the attacks. Everything that follows is a murky mess of multiple imposters with a story that is all of a sudden the opposite of what we've first heard.
Mind you, I'm not trying to incriminate anyone or point the finger to the US government about anything other than covering up the truth. And whether he died in 2001 or shortly thereafter is anyone's guess, but I for one have not seen any evidence of him being alive since and I'm very much inclined to believe the reports of his funeral in 2001.
Although it is anecdotal as well, it is at least supported by the lack of evidence of him being alive. And it would also make more sense than that the most hunted man (supposedly), able to hide in the mountains while needing dialysis, would survive for a decade.
Yeah! Those idiots trying to get food on their plate that is healthy and without side-effects. What on earth are they thinking?
Do you really find it odd? Nowadays, if you're not a chemist, you have no idea what you're eating. So it is only natural that people react by avoiding everything that is unknown, unfamiliar, or even seems unnatural.
That's perfectly normal behaviour. What IS NOT normal behaviour is sticking your head in the sand when 1 in 2 get cancer.
Who do you think is looking out for your well being? The companies selling you these things?
Here's a hint for you. Natural does not mean healthy and without side effects. When you are eating a lifeform that contains myriads of chemicals in its purely natural makeup, you have no idea what you are eating. (Often, with herbal medicines, this proves to be an issue, and they get yanked off sale for side effects.) Ironically, it is precisely the synthetic chemicals that you can look up on wikipedia. And if you live long enough, immersed in this flow of entirely natural chemicals and radiation, yourself made of complicated and imperfect chemical reactions, you too will get cancer. (Actually, your body is cancering (deliberate verb coinage) all the time, and nearly always its repair mechanisms catch it early and stop it. It's that "nearly" that's the trouble.)
But hey, facts, harder to process than irrational fear of the new, and a crude prescientific search for "purity".
Natural doesn't even mean natural, especially in the US. Europe has a middle ground between natural and artificial flavorings called "nature identical", but in the US these can just be called natural.
Personally, I don't have a problem with this, but most people don't realize it or other things like how that 100% natural, not from concentrate orange juice is really made.
Also, for "organic" fruit and other foods, maybe that matters, but flavorings and other ingredients only have a requirement to be 95%+ organic content. One company I know of sells flavorings that are mostly organic water/alcohol/other diluents, but then the other 5% can be anything and you only need very small amounts of concentrated flavorings which can be anything "nature identical".
That is not a very convincing argument. We have evolved eating other lifeforms. That makes it much more likely that our bodies know how to handle the chemicals in plants and animals than the fancy colourings, preservatives and flavours in processed food.
Would you be confident foraging for food in our "natural" environment?
A great deal of plants, fungi, nuts, and fruits are highly toxic. Even staples like rice and fish have high levels of naturally occurring arsenic and lead; and most table spices are lethal in high quantities.
On top of that, there are countless carcinogens, allergens, pathogenic bacteria and parasites in the food chain.
No, that's true - natural doesn't mean healthy and without side effects. But it's at least relatively well understood. Perhaps not in exact chemical makeup but we've co-existed with most of what's in a supermarket long enough to know it's probably not going to cut our lifespans in half or anything.
Suddenly people are making extremely rapid changes to food and it's not unreasonable for people to be cautious about it.
Being anti-"GMO" is as ludicrously anti-scientific as saying that evolution is a lie, except that not believing in evolution doesn't affect anyone else, whereas opposing "GMO" food leads to starving children.
No thanks, I have done my homework. And I, unlike you it seems, know that it is not black and white. It's not all good or all bad and only a fool would try to write it off as such.
I know there are side effects when it comes to GMO, I don't need to be a chemist for that. What I also realise is that there really is no shortage of food on this planet, evidenced by the tons and tons that are discarded daily.
There is however a logistics problem, but it will not be solved by GMO. Even IF such a thing was possible by creating crops that fare better in extreme climates, these companies who are behind GMO products have absolutely no interest in helping out poor African kids who are unable to pay for what Monsanto & Co have to offer.
I'd never heard of Lynas before. He strikes me as Bjørn Lomborg character.
I think all criticism should be seriously (honestly) addressed. No worldview is above reproach. I'd eagerly watch/read a debate between Lynas and the people he criticizes. In answering his criticisms, it'd help them to refine their arguments.
But before any of that happens, I'd want Lynas to address his apparent conflict of interest.
And what do you call someone who ignores all negative evidence?
I'd be okay with GMO apologists making an intellectually honest argument, listing the pros and cons, arguing that on the balance such and such makes sense.
Basically, the greatest good for the most people.
Alas, that takes some effort. It's easier to mock critics.
GMO have a bad reputation because the most popular strains, Monsanto's glyphosate resistant strains are indeed concerning from a toxicity, ecologic and economic standpoint.
GM is a wonderful technology, with applications not only in agriculture, but also health. Insulin is produced by genetically modified bacterias, and modified white blood cells are now experimentally used to treat cancer.
There are probably other uses, but I'm not aware of them.
Any food, be it natural or manmade, is made up of chemicals. You will need to avoid foods which contain water if you don't want chemicals in your food.
Sorry, but here on HN, you can't defend irrationality or people simply being undereducated here. There's simply too large a crowd of people who think that anyone who makes any gut decision is a moron, and they're particularly active on threads like these, and will downvote you into oblivion.
Never mind that you were explicitly talking about the people who simply cannot know better yet try the best they can. They should know better, and if they don't they're morons.
It's not that overflow: hidden in itself is a hack, but it's application to counter collapsing due to floats. Already in the first paragraph, your link states that float containment is a side-effect.
While I do use it for this exact reason, it leaves a bit of an aftertaste. And when it comes to css, isn't that the definition of a hack?
While this might look nicer, it's solving one problem by creating another, and in my opinion larger, problem.
The problem when it comes to listings is that information needs to be easily scannable. The information to be scanned usually has a certain hierarchy, so there has to be a separation that reflects this hierarchy.
If you use your solution, you favour optimal separation while sacrificing scanability.
This is not exactly a straight-forward problem to solve because the hierarchy is different for everyone. But one thing we can all agree on is that the title is at the very top of it. So, having the title in a bigger font-size, maybe bold, but definitely more contrasted as the stuff around it goes without saying. So the current HN style is not that far off the mark, though I think it could do with less data and/or more whitespace, to counter the "gray haze syndrome".
A straightforward fix for this meta-data clutter would be to make it collapsable, you could then show it in a tooltip on hover for example. Or make it collapsable on a per story basis to cater for tablet/phone users.
I don't profess to know what happened on 9/11. But if you ask the right questions, what we've been fed as the official theory comes out as an almost laughable story.
You might ask yourself why we as a society started a witch-hunt for those that try to find the truth behind it all. We blindly "supported" two or three wars and all the measures that were taken under the guise of security. We were OK with people being kidnapped, tortured, and held prisoner for a decade without any evidence. And nobody even knows why.
If you really put your teeth in these so called conspiracy theories, then one day you'll realize that the term becomes null and void, because it assumes that someone, or a group of people, actually knows what is up. Nobody does, we're just conditioned into taking anything our TV says at face value, so we assume "they" know. And why? For exactly the same reason you've mentioned, because we cannot accept that fact that something bad can go unnoticed and grow to something that big. So we get 2 nuanced stories from 4 TV-channels. Just enough to create the illusion that they're covering all the bases, while at the same time making us believe that we're forming our own and informed opinion by analysing all versions of the story.
But at this stage it is no longer a matter of people conspiring. The system has reached a state where it is normalcy. So, in places where it matters, only people that are already in the same mindset bubble up. Not because they are malicious or because someone has talked them into it, but because they're just a prime specimen of the environment they grew up in. It's a side-effect of a society that holds power and profit as its most important goal.
The reason a lot of people can not understand this is because they did not grow up in that same environment. So there is a disconnect between what we as a person believe we are capable of and what we're actually doing.