Hacker News Reader

But has there been any evidence ever that the pesticides used on foods are harmful? Or is it all just fear?

zngtk4on Daring Fireball on Apple's Rejection of Google Voice Apps From App Store

Apple should be perfectly allowed to do this, but if they insist on continuing with such behavior, you can be sure that when my contract is up for renewal, an iPhone will not be my next device.

zngtk4on When Debtors Decide to Default

Most people who are defaulting on the loans essentially pay nothing in taxes (excluding the payroll taxes, which allegedly are separate).

zngtk4on Apple Screws Google Over 'Latitude' iPhone App

While it's true that the article perhaps goes a bit too far without knowing much, I can't think of many other reasons other than that Apple is screwing Google because it is planning to integrate this feature into its own software. As a web app, Google Latitude is essentially useless.

On the other hand, this and the lack of an official google voice app (which, anyways, probably won't be able to fully integrate into the phone unlike on the Android) is giving Google plenty of opportunity to tout the benefits of competing phones.

zngtk4on The Longevity Experiment

And which type of omnivorous animals? And which type of fat?

Saturated fat has little effect on rats, but polyunsaturated fat induces tumors in rats according to to many studies. Low-fat, high calorie diets lead to more tumors than high-fat, low calorie diets in rats (in fact the high-fat, low calorie diets essentially stopped tumor production entirely). This latter was a major study in the journal Cancer Research. Only in high calorie diets was high-fat worse than low-fat, and in low calorie diets, high-fat was better than low-fat.

Atherosclerosis is often observed in pigs, cats, dogs, sheep, cows, horses, reptiles, rats, and baboons when fed exclusively vegetarian diets.

Monkeys in captivity often become fat and diabetic on high-fiber, low-fat, no-cholesterol diets.

It's entirely possible that a no-meat diet is best for humans, but I don't think we're anywhere near the understanding needed to say this -- and his recommendation to avoid fish as well would be viewed as dangerous by much of the medical and scientific community. What we really need are controlled studies, which are entirely possible to do.

zngtk4on The Longevity Experiment

My "knee jerk reaction" is simply that there isn't enough evidence to provide real nutritional guidance. The types of studies that need to be done have not been done.

And the fact is, there are not numerous studies consistently showing a correlation, there are many studies that do not show that those who eat more meat get more disease. For example, Cretan villagers have lower heart-disease rates than even the Japanese and eat diets consisting of 40% fat. The "French Paradox" is so termed because the French eat high quantities of animal fat but have low heart disease. Tokelauan's, who had a diet high in fat (50% fat) and saturated fat (90% of the fat they ate was saturated), were relatively healthy. After migrating they consumed much less fat and had higher heart disease.

In other words, there's a lot about diet we don't understand yet and you can't boost the relevance of epidemiological studies by saying that "virtually nothing is proven ever" and therefore we should just accept observational science, when it's known that epidemiology has significant flaws as anything other than a hypothesis generator.

zngtk4on The Longevity Experiment

I'm not reasoning that all foods are equally beneficial and harmful, and I accept that it may very well be that a plant-based diet is superior to a meat-based diet. I reject the idea, however, that we know enough to say that this is true, and I absolutely reject the idea of significantly changing behavior based solely on epidemiological studies -- the epidemiological studies should be the starting point for much further study. To date, most large-scale controlled studies on diet have unfortunately been shelved. It should entirely be possible to separate multiple groups on multiple different diets and see what happens over a period of, say, ten years -- one diet as vegetarian, one diet as meat/fruit/nut but no grains, a fish+vegetarian diet, while holding other variables constant (such as calories). This is what we need to do to know, and this is what has consistently been proposed, but not done.

zngtk4on The Longevity Experiment

I agree, this is one of the biggest flaws with this line of reasoning. However, it does say something (although it's unclear what it means for us) that some of those cultures had less incidence of the diseases commonly associated with old age compared with nearby similar cultures that ate less or no meat.

zngtk4on The Longevity Experiment

>follow-up studies to examine the processes in detail.

Examining the processes isn't sufficient to provide proof unless it's a completely thorough examination. Biological science isn't at that point yet, and so what this usually means is that group A performs an observational study, group B finds a process that would explain group A's results, assuming group A's results are true. That's different from showing that group A's results were true.

Human, and animal, physiology is very complicated, and it's just plain wrong to assert that we know that eating meat decreases longevity. We don't. There is some evidence to believe it, and some evidence to not believe it at this point (both epidemiological studies and at the molecular understanding of the processes involved).

Epidemiological may be persuasive, but it's misleading because you take a single variable out of hundreds that may not even be known. So you may get Texans who become vegetarians based on longevity studies in some region of China, but then live an even shorter life because their lifestyles and the particular vegetarian foods that they eat aren't as conducive to longevity. This history of epidemiological studies are full of cases like this.

zngtk4on The Longevity Experiment

Absolutely, and the observations suggested that hormone treatment was possibly even beneficial. That's why it's completely true that correlation != causation. You can try to "control" for differences in the observed groups, and epidemiologists try this all the time, but unless they already understand everything involved, it's impossible to get this completely right. And sometimes the things they try to control for are themselves based on other epidemiological studies.

This is the main reason we are always hearing in the press about how a "study shows that X is bad for us" then a "study shows that X is good for us". The majority of the time when there are such conflicting studies, it is the result of epidemiology or poorly controlled studies.

zngtk4on The Longevity Experiment

Which animal studies prove that eating meat will decrease longevity in humans? Sure, if you feed meat to rabbits, or other vegetarian animals, but there are just as many animals that are essentially incapable of eating not only grains but even vegetables.

zngtk4on The Longevity Experiment

Heart disease has also increased with sugar consumption. Older cultures that ate primarily meat, but not a western diet also showed almost no heart disease.

zngtk4on The Longevity Experiment

On the other hand, as I explain above, epidemiological studies are essentially useless for anything other than formulating hypotheses (see the debacle with hormone replacement therapy).

It baffles me that anyone would entirely change their diet and lifestyle based on an epidemiological study.

zngtk4on The Longevity Experiment

There are zero controlled studies showing this, however, and all of these studies are epidemiological/observational. It's confounded by things such as the fact that many of the groups that are vegetarian also essentially engage in calorie restriction (which has been shown in controlled animal studies to work). Meat eating, however, hasn't even been shown in animal studies to necessarily be bad, because it entirely depends on the animal (feed meat to a rabbit, bad things happen, feed grains to a cat, bad things happen). Cultures that engage in significant meat eating also tend to eat a lot of sugar, trans-fats, and other things. These studies are far from conclusive as a result.

Observational studies that are peer reviewed and exhaustive can yield results that are entirely opposite reality. Dozens of peer reviewed, exhaustive observational studies told doctors that hormone replacement therapy reduced the incidence of heart attacks. Only after 16,000 women were enrolled in a double-blind controlled trial of hormone-replacement therapy in the 90s (after 6 million women had received the therapy) did we learn that heart disease, breast cancer, stroke, and dementia actually were more common in people receiving hormone replacement therapy vs placebo. In other words, the exact opposite.

Epidemiology is only of value in formulating hypotheses, not in proving anything.

zngtk4on The Longevity Experiment

>It’s very clear that the more meat you eat, the earlier you die. Cut out as much meat as you can.

Absolute nonsense. The only thing that has a clear relationship with extending lifespan is calorie restriction. The rest is very very unclear.

This guy finds a population, finds one thing they do that supports his preconceived notions of what makes you live longer, and then says that this population's behavior in this respect proves that this action makes you live longer.

So he finds a vegetarian culture that lives long and says OK vegetarianism makes you live longer. He finds a culture that drinks a lot of alcohol and says OK, alcohol doesn't limit longevity.

He finds a culture that eats a balanced diet, a culture that exercises a lot, etc. etc.

None if this is really any type of proof, and if you examine many different cultures, you will find his evidence is contradicted by other cultures (meat eating cultures that live longer and have fewer health problems than nearby vegetarian cultures, for instance).

Our knowledge of what helps humans to live the longest possible life is, sadly, very limited still.

zngtk4on 9-1-1 Should Never Give Me A Busy Signal

But it would be a good backup -- it's far better than busy signal (which I have gotten on two different occasions of calling 911).

zngtk4on Startup Law 101 - Why not to incorporate your startup in Delaware

I could be wrong, but I got this from the book "Asset Protection" by Adkisson and Riser (well known attorneys in this area):

Under state law, having a registered agent in the state of incorporation creates nexus sufficient to allow the corporation to be sued in that state. This fact alone may affect the decision where to incorporate. A jurisdiction where jury verdicts tend to be very conservative may be preferable to one with a reputation for runaway jury awards. The cost of defending a lawsuit may also be a significant factor in this decision. Defending a lawsuit in the owner's home state will be substantially cheaper than defending the same lawsuit across the continent [or as one person here says, across the world]. This may be a factor in deciding where to incorporate

And you can always be sued in the state in which you are operating. So it seems that you can be sued in both states.

zngtk4on Startup Law 101 - Why not to incorporate your startup in Delaware

But incorporating in Delaware doesn't make you immune to the laws of your home state. In fact, it allows people who want to sue you to potentially sue you in either state, thus doubling the amount of applicable laws (and possibly forcing you to defend a lawsuit in Delaware, which would be expensive because of travel).

zngtk4on Microsoft to Vista Owners: You'll Pay for Our Mistake

It suggests that $120 is an outlandish price to pay for an operating system, but it doesn't seem so outlandish to me, if it's a good piece of software. People will spend that price, per month, on a cable or satellite bill (even in our current economy), so why wouldn't they spend that much for an upgrade to the software that all of their computer software runs on.

zngtk4on Lead Thinking - Incorporating a LLC

Does this mean that I can incorporate there and run the business with a physical presence from some other country?

Yes, but you will still pay taxes in that other country. In fact, most states other than Delaware will also not charge you income taxes if you incorporate there but not not earn money in that state.

zngtk4on Lead Thinking - Incorporating a LLC

The advice about Delaware and Nevada isn't necessarily good advice in terms of liability and in terms of taxes.

If you're sued, you may have to go to Delaware or Nevada to defend yourself, and even if not, you may be subject to the laws of Delaware or Nevada, which will be different from the state you are operating from. From a book I have (called Asset Protection by Adkisson and Riser):

Delaware also imposes different laws on the roles and duties of directors and treatment of Shareholders. Do you know what these are?

Further you do not avoid taxes by incorporating in Delaware! You have to pay taxes in the state you operate in. So even if you are a Delaware corporation, you would pay taxes in Pennsylvania if that is where you operate (and you have to operate in a different state to not pay Delaware corporate taxes).