Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | chank's commentslogin

And Americans leave because employers will just replace them with offshoring and h1bs to save money. It's a self perpetuating cycle. Loyalty goes both ways. Employees finally realized that they should be treating employers like employers have always treated employees. That's capitalism.



> In 2025, social media has moved from self-expression to self-entrapment

I sort of feel if you're only figuring this out now you've been willfully/woefully ignorant.


How are we not full circle back to the early 00's with this design? It didn't really catch on then. Maybe this time? Wasn't a big fan of it then. Still not.


Over the years through my own involvement in sports and physically demaning jobs with trying a lot of different supplementation, I've come to the conclusion that most (if not all) supplements provide little to no value beyond a good diet. If they do, they're either illigal as non-perscription and/or require regular physician monitoring use correctly.


There are plenty of well researched performance enhancers which are legal, for example beta-alanine for middle distance runners.


The meaningfull context here was "good diet". If middle distance runners ate for middle distance running would they need to take beta alanine? E.g. ate more organ meat which contains high levels of beta alanine.


How much organ meat do you think would be needed daily to have an optimal dosage of beta alanine? What side effects are associated with eating large quantities of organs meats regularly?

Sometimes supplements are just the better option.


Honestly, likely not that much. From what I've found you can get recommended dosage and more from just eating the right foods. Right meaning foods rich in what you're looking for. Now in context that may be hard for some people or they just don't like those foods. So supplementing makes sense.


36 raw eggs per day seems the funny example here


Can’t say I’m familiar with that one



Every second thinking about what supplements you should take is probably better spent in the gym.


I don’t want to be rude but your anecdote (and all anecdotes like this on anything to do with health) is uninteresting and useless.


Unironically, I trust anecdotes more than any random nutrition study.

The more I personally know the person, or the more connectedness I have, the more his anecdote is worth listening to.

This study is a collection of mere 54 random anecdotes (!), random people of the street.

Anecdote of a random min-maxing turbo nerd on hackernews >= 54 random people from the street.


.


Are you a type of guy that needs "peer-reviewed" "scientific" study to brush your teeth?

Amazing, great job buddy, very proud of you


I support their anecdote. Any "supplements" that have significant effects are highly regulated and somewhat risky. Worrying about things that will make a 1-2% difference isn't worth the time, just workout one more rep.


> Just one more rep

It don't work like that.

The amount you can work out (at intensity) is limited by your recovery time.

Thus you take that "supplement" and can do one more rep, or go to gym extra time a week, especially if it comes to "regulated and risky" supplements, then you can do many, many more reps.


The point is, supplements will mostly only help you shore up deficiencies in your diet and generally won't do it as effectively as eating right. No matter how much supplementation you do, you can't out-run a bad diet.


I don't want to be rude, but your off-topic anecdote about my uninteresting and useless anecdote is also... uninteresting and useless.


I would say not really. This pretty much only fits the exact use case for its specific niche need. E.g. operating in RF adverse/non-recoverable environments. Otherwise it's a waste. So technically it's still not "popular" in the sense of general popularity. You're not going to see your general drone pilot rushing to put fiber optic on thier drone. This also isn't a new concept. Its the same thing as wire-guided missiles that have been around since WWII.


Because they already have something that works. Why switch if theres no advantage.


The API is compatible, and even if it weren't, it wouldn't matter anyway; everybody has been writing OpenAI API-compatible proxies, including Google, for months now. The only thing that matters is availability, throughput, cost per token (Google is ahead of everyone here: Vertex API is insanely cheap for what it does, Batch API at 50% discount, Prompt Caching at 75%, fully multimodal, better performance in multilingual tasks so actually useful outside the U.S. etc etc etc)


Salient point, the US is the only American country with America in it's actual name. Names of things change. It's how language works. Even though I think Gulf of America is actually more apt a name, I and most people in the US could care less what it's called. It's just Trump playing power games like China does with the "South China Sea" v. "Sea of Japan".


It's actually a perfect analogy, IMO. Tattoo, is a form of (typically chosen) self-branding. A lot of companies make great products and then deminish them by thier mis/use of branding. Usually in a tactless way. This is a prime example of that.


A lot of people buy products because of the branding. How many people would buy a YETI cooler if or a Coach bag if it didn't have the branding to show off that they have a YETI cooler or a Coach bag? It's conspicuous consumption.


I think those two in particular might be poor examples, since they generally do quite a bit of de-branding on their products. I know what you mean however. Supreme is a prime brand for this. Nobody is buying a Supreme t-shirt for any other reason than the logo. Whatever thoughts on people who buy things to impress others may be, those kind of people exist and to each thier own. They at least made the choice to let everyone else know what they value.


> Enforcing traffic laws is good, actually. Automated enforcement is even better so that we don't need to use armed police and can enforce consistently.

We don't use armed police to enforce traffic laws. Police mainly monitor traffic as a revenue device. It's already been proven that monitoring traffic and automating fines in fact promotes reckless driving and causes more accidents than it stops.


> We don't use armed police to enforce traffic laws.

In what world? In the US "manual" traffic enforcement is almost exclusively done by armed police and sheriffs. Unarmed civilian traffic enforcement is only done in Berkeley, CA, and a town in Minnesota, afaik.

> It's already been proven that monitoring traffic and automating fines in fact promotes reckless driving and causes more accidents than it stops.

Do you have a citation for that? There are numerous studies that show significant drops in accident rates in areas with red light cameras. On the order of 10-23%!

- https://tti.tamu.edu/researcher/tti-study-underscores-safety... - https://information.auditor.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2001-125.pdf


They are all armed in the US at least.


Do they really stop you at gun-point to get you to pull over? Didn't think so. Of course police are armed. You're taking the comment to literally.


I took it exactly as anyone who understands English would take it. Try communicating better next time.


Nah. Stop taking everything you read on the internet so literally.


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

Search: