geddy

Feel free to elaborate. Why is it that carnivores have short intestines, teeth for gripping into and tearing flesh, and don't die of colon cancer?

We have long intestines for lengthier breakdown of plant fibers. Not so dead animals can rot in it.

EDIT: Let me elaborate on this more, actually. Humans are omnivores in the sense that they can consume and not die from eating meat, but you will be void of fiber and other nutrients. Everything is not found in meat, no matter how much HN's god Shawn Baker says so.

You can absolutely thrive on a whole foods plant based diet, not destroy the planet, and not pay to support torturing animals, and that is where the fact that we "adapted to be omnivores" becomes irrelevant. We simply don't have to artificially breed billions of animals and feed them all the water and plants, just to survive. We can easily survive on plants alone, and would be much better off for it.

Or we can keep enslaving animals and breeding disease and stay quarantined forever. Whatever gives you five minutes of pleasure though, right?

Vegan for a year and a half and still crushing PRs and feeling incredible. Wife's pregnant and has had zero complications, no sickness, nothing. Also, she probably deadlifts more than more people on this thread.

The only nutrients "missing" are B12 and D, which are easily supplemented and/or found in fortified foods (cereals, plant milks etc). And the funniest bit - they only exist in meat because they are supplemented into cow feed. That's right - you're already supplementing D and B12.

They don't necessarily cause obesity, but they sure don't help. I lost tons of body fat when I stopped eating meat and dairy/eggs. Literally the only thing that changed was I ate more fiber and less fat. And of course removing trans fat and cholesterol from my diet, because they are only found in animal products.

Too much refined sugars + animal products = fat population.

Please explain how it is efficient to feed anywhere from 5-12 units of calories to an animal, to get out 1 unit of calories. Running plant food through an animal does nothing to increase it's value, and all you're adding to it is a) saturated animal fat, which raises your cholesterol, c) trans fats, and b) cholesterol itself, which yes, does affect your serum cholesterol levels, albeit less so if you already have a high intake of animal products.

Source: https://www.heart.org/en/healthy-living/healthy-eating/eat-s...

Two out of three 12-year olds have early signs of cholesterol disease. A meat and animal-product heavy diet, causing disease? Incredible.

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2912430

And to address your initial comment, human-created wildfires have been on the rise to make room for grazing cattle and soy growth - to feed back to the cattle. A 3 second search will show you that. How else do you think animals are being fed?

Be honest - you want to eat meat because you like it. I understand, meat tastes good, but it doesn't justify this. A whole foods plant based diet is the only diet proven to reverse heart disease and chronic illness, period. Furthermore, it's bad for the planet and is the direct cause of these pandemics that have plaguing humans for ages, but particularly in the past 20 years.

My point is, what is society supposed to do about it? I can't afford to live three towns over where it's nicer. I'd need about another $3K a month. Could you spot me on that, permanently?

And? Go somewhere cheaper?

If there's no "slippery slope", then why do 3-4 companies control the entire internet today, when a decade or more ago there were 15-20 players? Go even further back and you had a myriad of choices; now Amazon, Facebook and Google have sucked up and shut down just about all competitors.

If you don't care, then you don't care. But saying there's no slippery slope? It's capitalism. It's happened with internet providers, it's happened with search engines, it's happened with social media, online stores, it's been funneling into a handful of companies for over a decade now. People want things for free and companies are willing to sell your data to finance their payroll. Saying it won't happen anymore is just naive.

We are biologically herbivores, and we are built to process plants (jaw moves side to side and we have long intestinal tracts, the exact opposite case applies to carnivores). We don't "eat dirt" because we are built to eat plants. Your argument on that is a silly one.

You're running anywhere from 5-12x the amount of plant calories (depending on the animal) through animals (that need to be fed water in addition to plants), to produce fractions of calories on the other end. It's highly inefficient and that by itself is a terrific argument for stopping the consumption of animal products. Not to mention all of the potent affects on climate change, and the water usage associated with producing meat. We're paving the rainforests to plant more crops to feed back to animals, despite having millions starving to death.

Go search for `animal agriculture inefficient` and read the metric ton of studies if you don't believe me. I can't fathom how you could think that spending 12,000,000 calories of plants to get 1,000,000 calories of beef is worth it "for the nutrients".

I'm curious as to what nutrients you think are so critical here, because literally every vital nutrient can be obtained from plants, and in the cases of Vitamin D and B12, they are both supplemented into animal feed as it is, and can easily be taken in pill form.

What? How can meat possibly be more efficient for nutrients? Where do you think the animals get the nutrients in the first place?

Everything originates from plants.

Prior to the 7 Black I would have agreed with your original comment. For a few years, each iteration was essentially "we can record bigger and with higher fps. Also the battery life is a little bit better". 7 Black changed my mind.

What about when it's on another site that you don't have access to? What about when it's a type of content that is relevant to you? This is hacker news so I'll assume you're involved in technology in some capacity - what if something like Stackoverflow was purchased by Facebook or Google and you couldn't view questions without a valid Facebook account?

You're seeing step 1 and not realizing that step 4 or 5 is the entire web gated behind walls.

This is how it begins. Then as three or four companies gradually consume all smaller services (which is happening and has been happening for years), you need to sell your soul to them to view anything.

My advice is to just say "no thanks" and move on.

Sounds about right. Like everything in the US, some group is trying to figure out a way to siphon money from those to earn to those who “need it more”. I don’t care to support this, I want all the money I make, thank you very much. I’ll decide who to help with it. Or, I’ll help no one at all with the money I worked for, which according to college students and other people who have no skills and have paid no taxes, makes me “greedy”.

Now if you want to fix the screwed up healthcare system, I’m all ears.

Oh, we very much are, but it's not the coronovirus.

The next pandemic? That might be worse. But rising ocean levels are pretty bad.

> On the face of it, their main products in 2020 (i.e. action cameras) are barely innovative

The built-in software image stabilization on the Hero 7 Black is absolutely incredible. There simply isn't a competitor in the space that even comes close.

I've owned a HeroHD, a Hero4, and now a Hero7 Black. I have recorded countless dirt bike rides, mountain biking, downhill mountain biking ie. stuff that is incredibly bumpy, and with the onboard stabilization it looks like a walk through the park with the 7 Black. I thought it had peaked when I got the Hero4, but the 7 Black is just insane.

Completely and utterly false. Zoonotic diseases have been spreading heavily over the past few decades precisely in close proximity (factory) farming, and will continue to spread in the future in the horrible conditions we keep stressed out, sick animals.

I have a cellular Apple Watch! But Apple doesn't let Spotify sync music to it (or stream via the CELLULAR), so I can't listen to anything unless I'm near my phone.

Imagine my surprise when I got an Apple Watch with cellular specifically to avoid having to take my phone with me. Absolutely absurd - and it's obvious why - they want you to use Apple Music. I refuse to be forced into using a piece of software. And before someone comes back with the inevitable "well you should have researched it":

1) I never thought such a simple and obvious concept would be absent from the Apple Watch, and 2) I use the Watch for the utility of fitness tracking, and that far outweighed the inconvenience of having to continue bringing my phone with me everywhere. I'm not a big runner anyway, usually mountain biking, and my phone is in my backpack or mounted to my handlebars.

Bottom line is it's ridiculous.

EDIT: I did some research on this again and it appears that Apple actually does allow developers to stream and store data from the watch, and that it's Spotify who have yet to release an update for their WatchOS app that provides that functionality. Interesting turn of events; at least I know it's theoretically possible and not gated by Apple.

I kept my iPhone SE and was waiting for this announcement for literal years. I only just replaced it for an XS _2 weeks ago_ (refurbished off Woot!), and I knew at the time that as soon as I caved, the new SE would come out. And here we are. If only my Wall Street bets went so well.

The small form factor is really nice to have. Some people don't want a gigantic phone, it's true. Maybe we are in the minority, but a huge phone is inconvenient at the times where you don't need a big screen. I still can't even unlock the thing without having my big dumb face directly in front of it.

The screen is gorgeous OLED and it's terrific to watch Youtube/Netflix on in bed. The camera is incredible. A foldable phone would clearly be the most practical, but I know Apple won't ever do that, and I won't switch to Android. At this point, I just have this stupid thing attached to me at all times, and I'll have to accept it. You ever try running with a damn X/XS/XR or god forbid one of the Max phones strapped to your arm?

But my point is that just because people have gotten used to bigger and bigger phones, doesn't mean that they wouldn't appreciate it being smaller 99% of the time. Like I just mentioned, running or even going for a walk wearing gym shorts with one of these devices in your pocket is pretty much impossible. They are too large and weigh too much, flailing around and whacking you in the knees. I have a battery charging case which admittedly adds more weight, but it literally pulls my shorts down when I go for a brisk walk with my dog.

So to call those who desire a small phone a "hilariously small and vocal minority" sounds to me like "people are in denial that a bigger phone is always better" when that most certainly is not true. It has benefits but I still think they should have kept the SE2 the same size (4") as the SE. The ideal solution would be a phone that can be big OR small depending on situation.

Much like the concept of a touch screen as pitched by Jobs himself during the initial iPhone reveal (context-sensitive buttons/keyboards depending on what you currently need vs. a static keyboard), you can't tell me that the vast majority wants a huge phone every hour of the day.

The PSP did fairly well.

The Vita on the other hand, I maintain it was the high cost of the proprietary memory cards (combined with the high price tag of $250 for the console upon launch) that sealed its fate. They should have been giving those memory cards away for free (or used SD) because the online shop would have blown up. Instead they pigeonholed themselves by using more Sony proprietary cards and no one could afford the thing _on top of_ a cell phone.

The Vita has excellent games and it's my second biggest collection, behind the Switch.

>It's remarkable how their fundamental "lateral" insight of the last decade was so blindingly obvious in this age of the smartphone - portability is king

Amen to that. I pretty much only have time to play on the go, so the fact that Xbox and Sony (don't even get me started on how they treated the Vita...) have completely given up on portability means I'll never purchase another Sony or MS console again. Simple as that. I want to play portably, and Nintendo has consistently been the best at it.

Currently I've been really into the PSP scene that I missed (because I was too busy on my DS at the time), and I've caught up on a few years of Vita releases already. They really are some great systems, and I cannot believe in this age of "entertainment everywhere" that two of the three titans in video game consoles couldn't care less about portable gameplay.

Never thought I’d see Dr Gregor on HN! This is an amazing presentation. Humans never learn though and so we’ll be back to our old ways, blaming others and going “back to regular life,” when it’s regular life they got us to this pandemic in the first place.

Care to elaborate what's inefficient in your current situation? Ex. what your setup is at home, whether you have 12 kids all screaming 24/7 (hah), what situation is causing you ire?

> Our API service for existing customers is not changing today, but we will no longer accept new signups. The API will continue to function through the end of 2021.

And yet another functional API shut down and privatized. This is the way of the web now, a few companies owning the data, and nothing cool left to mess around with.

I can't be the only one who has noticed this trend happening for years. You used to be able to scroll to the footer of practically any service and find an API link. No more.

Yes but would it always hold up in court? You can give your soul away by installing a piece of software without reading the agreement but it wouldn't hold water, of course. Curious how this would work with federal or state level wiretap laws.

With ya on this one, but what kinds of problems would this cause for people who don't have another option to get to work? Un-doing this ridiculous culture of driving 40 minutes to work will take a lot time.

Still, I wholeheartedly agree on the concept. I'm curious as to how to fix the followup problems that will occur from fixing the primary problem.

Depends. Do you want pandemics to keep happening?

If you don't, then yes, animal farms in general need to be shut down. But they won't, because the world is addicted to eating meat, and pandemics will keep happening.

Speaking of which, I need to get back to work but I'll see ya in an identical comment section in four years where people will blame, oh I don't know, the eating of chinchillas or something.

Your phrasing suggests that it's very obvious, yet you are blaming salads as the real public crisis in an earlier comment. Fact is, breeding animals and raising them for food is going to keep resulting in pandemics. Like the one that we are currently going through.

Don't raise livestock or breed/catch wild animals, and the contact between humans and animals drastically lowers. Then pandemics don't happen. If that market in Wuhan didn't exist, we wouldn't be having this conversation today.

Sorry, but this is absolutely absurd to claim. Are you actually suggesting that keeping animals in cramped, filthy conditions, surrounded by dead baby animals covered in feces (ex. pigs in farrowing crates), is less likely to facilitate disease growth than growing romaine lettuce?

Edit: I re-read your comment and saw you were referring to food POISONING - but I'll still maintain my point here. Fact of the matter is, food poisoning is not contagious and is fairly rare, and there are machines in place for product recalls, etc. What we have at the moment is a global pandemic started by the close quarters of animals. Which one would you rather deal with?

And the reason it's more common to get salmonella or e-coli from plants is because they are eaten raw (lettuce or broccoli or carrots, etc); this doesn't mean meat isn't contaminated with it. It just gets "cooked off" because you heat meat (or pasteurize dairy).

100% agreed here, I am very hopeful that lab-grown meat will become the norm (when it gets affordable), and that as older generations die off and more environmentally and health conscious younger people make decisions, the average consumer eats little to no animal products. Lab grown meat will absolutely be a huge help to this transition.

We simply do not have a choice - we're either going to have massive climate change and mass displacement, animal-borne viruses wiping out chunks of the population, fishless oceans by 2050, etc. We can't feed the population with animals anymore.

I'd argue it's just as important right now to take the coronavirus as a massive warning and stop doing what we are currently doing. It's only a matter of time before this happens again - Bill Gates predicted this would happen back in 2015 in a Ted talk.