Viewing profile — lfjmfkekdk
lfjmfkekdk
HN member- Joined
- Mon, Aug 10, 2015, 6:38 AM UTC
- HN karma
- 27
- Public activity
- 19 items
- HN profile
- View on Hacker News ↗
About lfjmfkekdk
No profile information was provided.
Recent public activity
-
comment
Comment #11492917
Your post is economically illiterate and no economist in their right mind would claim that school tuition spike is the result of privatization and deregulation. Car loans are priva…
-
comment
Comment #11441307
Can you elaborate on the who the large distributors are? Are those like Budweiser and Coors, who also distribute alcohol from other manufacturers?
-
comment
Comment #11423257
But even the Panama Papers report said that they're not implying (or suggesting) the entities listed are doing anything illegal. The entities listed could very well have legitimate…
-
comment
Comment #10972228
Crack wasn't even targeted in the War on Drug policies until the 80s. The drug was relatively unknown to the general public compared to the other drugs that were targeted. Even New…
-
comment
Comment #10972221
The crack epidemic had its origins in the 1970s and became widespread in the 1980s[1]. Crack was finally targeted in 1986 with laws that heavily punished crack dealers. This happen…
-
comment
Comment #10972151
"In a hundred years from now people are going to look back at things like the war on drugs as one of the most barbaric, absurd and useless pieces of legislation ever to have been i…
-
comment
Comment #10839715
Tumblr was created by a high school dropout so...
-
comment
Comment #10714759
You do make a great point. It does baffle me that Obama's daughters would theoretically get special privileges for YC's office hours over, say, an immigrant kid from China whose fa…
-
comment
Comment #10324929
That's not true. There is a scientific consensus on cigarettes and lung cancer. There is certainly no scientific consensus on sugar and diabetes/cancer. If the first amendment shou…
-
comment
Comment #10324916
Well if you wanted a ban on advertising sugary cereal to kids, you would have to pass the "Central Hudson" test. You would have to prove a compelling government interest to ban the…
-
comment
Comment #10324826
Well, not exactly. Tobacco advertising bans, aside from TV and radio, were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92990&page=1 You can ban i…
-
comment
Comment #10324767
There is no conclusive proof that eating too much sugar causes diabetes. http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/24/five-diabetes-myths...
-
comment
Comment #10324687
Well, you may have an increase (no definitive causation) although the chances of developing pancreatic cancer if so is still very unlikely. http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSTR…
-
comment
Comment #10324646
Yeah, was the same like like you as a kid. Was super skinny. Even as an adult, I'm not nearly as active but I do count my calories. IMO, banning things like cereal is not the answe…
-
comment
Comment #10324591
That will certainly not pass the first amendment test.
-
comment
Comment #10324570
I have a large bowl of cereal every morning. Yes, I eat those kids' sugary cereals. My BMI is below 20.
-
comment
Comment #10033127
Forbes 400 lists only Americans. It has nothing to do with Middle East billionaires or foreign government billionaires, who are listed under a different category.
-
comment
Comment #10033120
Well, the numbers are similar for millionaires. This is for individuals deemed in the ultra high net worth category, which is $30 million and up.... "Sixty-five percent of the ultr…
-
comment
Comment #10033022
30% of Forbes 400 billionaires inherited their wealth, 70% did not. What exactly are you using to claim that the super rich derive their wealth from inheritances?