If we're assessing the assholeyness of comments, yours aren't coming across all that favorably IMO, but perhaps this conversation is victim to the loss of context and inflection that other commenters have lamented.
I'm not sure how responding sarcastically is "fine." I've found that in real life, people don't respond well to sarcastic responses to ordinary conversation.
> If I'm writing a document for human consumption then why would I expect the dates to be sortable by a naive string sorting algorithm?
If you're naming a document for human consumption, having the files sorted by date easily without relying on modification date (which is changed by fixing a typo/etc...) is pretty neat
COVID happened though, and shortages of commodities were extremely temporary, with no dire consequences overall.
What was actually unavailable with dire consequences, like masks/etc... was not unavailable due to lean manufacturing, but simply because it was a new demand that did not exist at this scale before.
covid was nothing. Try a few bombs on the major highways and airport runways, now you have to deal with a war AND your entire capital starving. Millions of people will go from somewhat civilised to starvation mode real quick. All in all covid was a blip on the radar. There is a huge different between just in time and even a month of stock
> What was actually unavailable with dire consequences, like masks/etc... was not unavailable due to lean manufacturing, but simply because it was a new demand that did not exist at this scale before.
Well yeah that's what stocks are for. France had hundred millions of masks in stock in the early 2009 because they were expecting H1N1, we scraped the project because the pandemic didn't hit as bad as we thought, fast forward 10 years later and we spent twice as much to get half as many masks
Wait until ww3, Europe will discover that having one week of ammunition stock is not enough... all of that is expensive so let's not plan anything and pray for the best case scenario
But in practice don't most people mean tofu when talking about soy beans for protein? That tends to come out at 10-13g per 100g. Same for cooked cans of soy/edamme beans and most other canned lentils/pulses? I've never seens 30g per 100g for cooked canned beans in reality.
I eat a high protein, vegetarian diet optimised for lifting weights, and "Approximately no additional grams, if you pick the right legumes." doesn't really add up for me. For the main sources of protein I usually try to eat daily:
and then also supplement with whey protein powder to get to my daily protein target (~150g). To get there with just legumes I'd need to consume 15 cans of cooked lentils (i.e. not achieveable in reality).
I also eat those yes. Something I don't see mentioned for a high protein diet often is gram flour. 22g protein per 100g and can be made into socca very quickly and easily with just water and small amount of oil.
Beef is dense in some nutrients but it certainly is not more nutrient dense in general. Plugging food into cronometer.com should be mandatory in HN nutrition discussions.
You're probably right. (Though fwiw when I left the comment I was the only response and it was not downvoted)
But it just makes me so sad. I think I ought to delete my account. Every time anything US politics-y comes up, especially the supreme court, the comments are filled with such horrible takes. It makes me feel like, if this is the sort of world the people here want and its so different from what I hope for, what common ground do we have.
Why should I care about, idk retrocomputers or WASM OSes etc. if its just to be part of a group that's like this.
Idk, same sort of angst about doing anything on a computer these days. I get embarrassed telling people what I do. People in general seem to hate programmers and the more I go on the more I think they're right.
Idk blehjj, just in a bad mood sorry for ranting. Thanks for the comment, honestly
Take it as an opportunity to engage in calm debate. I've learned a lot from reading the comments around these stories.
If it starts incensing you, hide the story. (They tend to get flagged off the front page fairly regularly. Something I used to condone until Silicon Valley started showing its authoritarian tendencies.)
> Take it as an opportunity to engage in calm debate
At some point people need to understand that this is just completely ahistorical and incredibly naive. It feels more like a cop-out to never take a stand for anything. I respect the exasperated outburst of the GP, at least it shows that there is some kind of backbone that will hurt when reading all this bullshit gaslighting.
There's not even a hint in the last 20 years - on both this site and the internet in general - that "calm debate" has done anything to stop fascists from gaslighting every step of the way. Despite their claims to the contrary, they aren't even looking for a debate.
Instead they just get the platform they so actively always wanted and are defended by the tone police to spread their bs, and the more influence they get the looser some people's already frail backbone get. They won't stop. Don't expect it. Don't wait for it.
> people need to understand that this is just completely ahistorical and incredibly naive
We may be talking past each other. I'm not arguing for a general vibe. Just a productive approach to online discussion about politics. It's very unlikely you're going to change someone's mind about partisan politics on this forum. What's more likely is you're going to get some combination of enraged and developed in your thinking about what's going on. So I'm saying to focus, online, on that latter part. Learning. Discussing. All of it calmly, so you can strategise.
That way, when you manifest that anger in the real world, you can do so strategically. Effectively.
I've been online for 20 years. I've learned enough to know what going on now.
10 years ago I'd be laughed out of the room suggesting what reactionary bullshit is going on today, turn back to today, tech at large has just enthusiastically adjusted to the reactionary shift, so it was predictably just hot air all along. Basically, unless your particular wallet has a boot-mark on it, or a suggestion of an upcoming one, people just don't care enough at this place.
`polonez` is a deformation from the actual name `polonaise` (cf https://www.reddit.com/r/BoneAppleTea/), it makes sense that they don't mention it since it's obviously not Polish of origin (why would Polish people call it Polish dance ?)
They do mention the original Polish dance chodzony, extensively
And yet, this is exactly how it's been called in Poland for years. [1] Unsurprisingly, you can find "polonez" on gov.pl too. [2]
"a deformation from the actual name" in this context is called a loanword.
Regardless of etymology, an article talking about a national treasure being put on UNESCO list absolutely should mention that, IMO. Can be next to "chodzony". No problem with that. Even better, TBH.
AP didn't write even "chodzony", btw. Only "the «walking dance»".
> Most of the modest peasants, men or women, very often still small artisans, small weavers or textile workers, peddlers, boatmen or carriers in bad seasons, could become day laborers on nearby farms and estates, if they had the build and stamina, once their own work was done. Some were even regular day laborers, familiar to a domain steward or a village ploughman, present all year round or usually required for a certain number of tasks. Certain harvest tasks were sometimes carried out if possible part of the night, or continuously by successive teams[5].
> Day laborers, brewers or laborers, represented a significant part of the population and sometimes lived, in the absence of family support or a solidarity house, on the edge of begging[8]. In rural areas, they subsisted thanks to additional agricultural work with ploughmen or farm merchants but also thanks to wool spinning, crafts or transport. They also served as additional labor in construction, helped the lumberjacks, made bundles, etc. Women did laundry or took children in as wet nurses[9].
I don't even disagree with you, but your way of argumenting is terrible and actively deterring people from your point that union are a core component of a healthy free market.
If your point is to score virtue point, keep at it, but if you actually want to change anyone mind, avoid terms like "is hard to start educating you", it just makes you sound like a douche
I was being very honest, it is hard to start educating someone coming from that position since there is so much bullshit wrapped around a statement like "unions are just corporate blackmailing" which is hard to pull apart without knowing how the person came to that conclusion.
I don't even think it's possible to change someone's mind who already think that way, since it's purely from a point of absolute ignorance and I'm not willing to put enough effort to cite literature that could give them good starting points to understand something they are very likely not even willing to start understanding. They have a lazy position, I reply lazily.
They have an ideological position, based on ignorance, and from a single statement it's pretty clear they aren't curious and willing to change their mind.
Hence why I cite to look into how unions work in the Nordics, at least that is a starting point if they want to learn more about labour movements. It takes someone being curious though.
In the end, it was absolutely honest: it is hard to start educating someone who holds that position a priori and based on pure ignorance, and if not ignorance it's maliciousness, there's not much of a spectrum in this case.
It's literally a lesson from the Bible: "Let him who is without sin among you, cast the first stone at her."
I'm telling on myself too, yeah.