Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A letter to our daughter

facebook.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

491–500 of 555 posts

Re: A letter to our daughter

#491

Post by ZenoArrow »

bambax wrote: post #489
ZenoArrow wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "aggressive fishing is the main problem." That is a separate problem from ocean acidification. Ocean acidification is directly linked to pollution from fossil fuel usage.

Yes, aggressive fishing is a different problem (but a problem nonetheless). Ocean acidification however, is caused by the fact that the oceans absorb the excess of CO2 present in the atmosphere; and livestock are responsible for more CO2 production than all of transportation.

> "Ocean acidification however, is caused by the fact that the oceans absorb the excess of CO2 present in the atmosphere; and livestock are responsible for more CO2 production than all of transportation."

There's a common misconception that all CO2 is bad. CO2 is a natural part of the bio cycles found on Earth, what's bad about using fossil fuels is the rapid expansion of CO2 (and other gases) in the environment where life lives, which causes instability and damage as the Earth adapts.

Re: A letter to our daughter

#492

Post by shopkins »

webwanderings wrote: post #133

Never much cared for Zuckerberg but this changes my perspective. Off-topic: can Facebook please go ahead and literally kill the blogging industry by giving the ability for everyone to use these updated Notes section? As is, the majority of the referrer on the Internet is Facebook. They might as well get the blogs out of the way.

I agree, let's put the entire internet in Facebook. News like this just proves Zuckerberg knows best. /s

Re: A letter to our daughter

#493

Post by sukulaku »

joeyspn wrote: post #470
robert_tweed wrote: post #426

Maybe I'm being too cynical, but this seems about as philanthropic as Ron Hubbard starting a religion. Firstly, the donation is stock not cash, so the value of this foundation will be directly linked to the value of Facebook shares. Secondly, it has been stated that one of the things this foundation will do is "participate in policy debates". If the headline was "Mark Zuckerberg to put $45 billion is stock behind lob…

You're just picking the part of the story that you don't like. Zuck maybe has taken decisions that some of us don't share (most likely all related to privacy/monopolies in the internet)... but (like Bill Gates) he's undoubtedly in a unique position to bring deep changes and improvements to the world through philanthropic activities. If having a child has made him rethink his views (which would be normal) then that's…

Gates managed to make people believe he somehow became a Saint after leaving Microsoft, even though he created and guided it to become pretty much the most evil IT company ever.

People just don't talk about it anymore, so he's all good now.

But there's obviously something shady about his dealings: http://newsjunkiepost.com/2013/06/07/bill-gates-big-pharma-b...

Re: A letter to our daughter

#494

Post by sukulaku »

mseebach wrote: post #483
brbsix wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a cheap game for someone with millions of dollars even. ROI on these sort of political contributions can be absolutely insane. Apparently corporations on average receive ~$760 for every $1 spent influencing politics. Depending on the industry, ROI is anywhere from 5,000 to 77,000 percent. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-03-16/words-greatest-inve...

> Depending on the industry, ROI is anywhere from 5,000 to 77,000 percent. That is clearly not true. If that sort of ROI existed in anywhere near the general case, a lot more people and companies would spend a lot more money on it, and they don't. Perhaps there exists lobbying opportunities with these kinds of ROIs, but they are limited, and there definitely isn't a 5,000% floor on it. https://www.washingtonpost.com/…

I'm not sure if you meant it that way, but for the record: politicians don't create jobs - entrepreneurs do.

The best thing politicians can do for the common good, is to get the hell out of the way and let productive people be productive.

Re: A letter to our daughter

#495

Post by hellofunk »

erikrothoff wrote: post #485
hellofunk wrote: post #446

I'm signed up for CNN's "Breaking News" emails that are sent out whenever some earth-shattering crisis occurs or particularly important news that affects everyone. I received one of these email alerts upon the arrival of their daughter. This gave me a great sigh; good news for them, but how did it become worthy of worldwide immediate news notification?

You didn't read the article did you?

I did. What does that have to do with CNN Breaking News?

Re: A letter to our daughter

#499

Post by mseebach »

sukulaku wrote: post #494
mseebach wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Depending on the industry, ROI is anywhere from 5,000 to 77,000 percent. That is clearly not true. If that sort of ROI existed in anywhere near the general case, a lot more people and companies would spend a lot more money on it, and they don't. Perhaps there exists lobbying opportunities with these kinds of ROIs, but they are limited, and there definitely isn't a 5,000% floor on it. https://www.washingtonpost.com/…

I'm not sure if you meant it that way, but for the record: politicians don't create jobs - entrepreneurs do. The best thing politicians can do for the common good, is to get the hell out of the way and let productive people be productive.

I agree fully with you -- I was trying to frame the comment inside the political calculus, in which actors can certainly redirect public funds in such away that it appears new jobs are created in their districts, even if it's often zero or negative sum for the economy at large.

Re: A letter to our daughter

#500

Post by dev1n »

miscellaneous wrote: post #362
dev1n wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I, for one, would absolutely voluntarily give more taxes to my government for the sole purpose that all this shit infrastructure would be fixed up. Put people to work on infrastructure projects and I will gladly give up more money in the form of taxes. Basic income on the premise of infrastructure renovations is something I'm fully behind and I think many more citizens would be too, specifically those getting by on f…

Yeah so you just agreed with the above comment - you want control on where your money goes. So does Zuckerberg.

Economically speaking, giving people jobs is far better than tossing 100 million dollars into schools where the students home life is the true source of abandonment in society.

This is a well received economic theory, not a way to save face on taxes by promising to give away money in the future so that I don't have to pay taxes now (Zuck).

Post reply on HN