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

How to Renovate Your Home for a Billion Children

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 43 posts

Re: How to Renovate Your Home for a Billion Children

#31

Post by [deleted] »

blfr wrote: post #29
mmastrac wrote: post #12

Tiktok is the worst of the brain-rotting social media products our world has produced, and that's saying a lot. I spent many years in the early days of social media building: starting at StumbleUpon, working on early Facebook apps, building companies in the space. It always felt that social media was an unstoppable train, but it seems like the benefits of connecting everyone together outweighed the negatives: the con…

TikTok shows you exactly what you like. Which seems like the reason it's both heavily watched and reviled. My FYP feed is full of golden retrievers, lifting tips, and popsci with some news and comedy/couples sketches thrown in. They even finally learned not to show dancing chicks. And you can even enable special STEM feed. However, these seem to be largely clips of videos I like more in full on Youtube. And there is…

[deleted]

Re: How to Renovate Your Home for a Billion Children

#33

Post by giantg2 »

BobaFloutist wrote: post #25
giantg2 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know of no proposals that don't involve the government regulation of care. The government can mandate treatment just as they can ban treatments in any of the systems. There are a variety of proposed systems that display these properties to varying degrees.

You can frame it however you want, but there's no common ground between the abortion position of even mainstream Republican politicians and the position of the typical Democratic voter.

That's because the real root questions have been hidden under all the political games. Now we will likely never get answers to these because of how perverted the debate has become.

The issue philosophical boils down to 1) what defines a human life, and 2) when is it acceptable to kill.

Re: How to Renovate Your Home for a Billion Children

#34

Post by cobertos »

csmpltn wrote: post #21

Let's get serious for a second here. You have to be a complete braindead zombie to find those videos entertaining. I can't believe anybody is wasting their time on these.

The mixture of the narrator + common elements between each one (galvanized square steel) + the weird corporatized animations and it all knowing it is satire is what makes it so funny.

Other people have made their own versions [0], which sort of shows all their elements of the meme transplanted into a different context (furry, in this case).

[0]: https://x.com/i/status/1804207289517359223

Re: How to Renovate Your Home for a Billion Children

#35

Post by squidgedcricket »

mmastrac wrote: post #12

Tiktok is the worst of the brain-rotting social media products our world has produced, and that's saying a lot. I spent many years in the early days of social media building: starting at StumbleUpon, working on early Facebook apps, building companies in the space. It always felt that social media was an unstoppable train, but it seems like the benefits of connecting everyone together outweighed the negatives: the con…

TikTok is young enough that it hasn't completed the full enshittification cycle. The worst is yet to come.

Re: How to Renovate Your Home for a Billion Children

#36

Post by dpkirchner »

giantg2 wrote: post #33
BobaFloutist wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can frame it however you want, but there's no common ground between the abortion position of even mainstream Republican politicians and the position of the typical Democratic voter.

That's because the real root questions have been hidden under all the political games. Now we will likely never get answers to these because of how perverted the debate has become. The issue philosophical boils down to 1) what defines a human life, and 2) when is it acceptable to kill.

If this were merely a philosophical debate then yeah, we could have a lively discussion to come up with some answers that would satisfy us individually. We probably wouldn't all agree and that'd be OK.

But IMO the debate is not really about that -- it's about what we do based on the answer to those questions. It's about what governments can force upon people. Should they be allowed to imprison you if those that write laws believe in something without hard evidence and for which harm is likely unprovable?

Re: How to Renovate Your Home for a Billion Children

#37

Post by [deleted] »

BobaFloutist wrote: post #25
giantg2 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know of no proposals that don't involve the government regulation of care. The government can mandate treatment just as they can ban treatments in any of the systems. There are a variety of proposed systems that display these properties to varying degrees.

You can frame it however you want, but there's no common ground between the abortion position of even mainstream Republican politicians and the position of the typical Democratic voter.

[deleted]

Re: How to Renovate Your Home for a Billion Children

#38

Post by musicale »

BobaFloutist wrote: post #25
giantg2 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know of no proposals that don't involve the government regulation of care. The government can mandate treatment just as they can ban treatments in any of the systems. There are a variety of proposed systems that display these properties to varying degrees.

You can frame it however you want, but there's no common ground between the abortion position of even mainstream Republican politicians and the position of the typical Democratic voter.

Do you think there is at least some amount of overlap/agreement between republicans and democrats on things like:

1) prohibiting late term abortion in non-exceptional cases, and

2) imposing some degree of penalty or liability for assault, including harm to a pregnant woman herself as well as to any potential offspring that are in development?

There may also be some other areas of agreement, even between conservative republicans and democrats, on permitting certain forms of abortion in some cases (e.g. ectopic pregnancies) to save the life of the mother.

Re: How to Renovate Your Home for a Billion Children

#39

Post by musicale »

dpkirchner wrote: post #36
giantg2 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's because the real root questions have been hidden under all the political games. Now we will likely never get answers to these because of how perverted the debate has become. The issue philosophical boils down to 1) what defines a human life, and 2) when is it acceptable to kill.

If this were merely a philosophical debate then yeah, we could have a lively discussion to come up with some answers that would satisfy us individually. We probably wouldn't all agree and that'd be OK. But IMO the debate is not really about that -- it's about what we do based on the answer to those questions. It's about what governments can force upon people. Should they be allowed to imprison you if those that write…

> Should they be allowed to imprison you if those that write laws believe in something without hard evidence and for which harm is likely unprovable?

Should they? Maybe not - penalties that are disproportionate to provable harm seem unjust and opposed to personal liberty.

Do they? Absolutely, because for certain things we've decided (rightly or wrongly) that we should lock people up. For example, a case of attempted murder can result in a life sentence, even if the attempted victim is provably very alive and physically unharmed.

Re: How to Renovate Your Home for a Billion Children

#40

Post by giantg2 »

dpkirchner wrote: post #36
giantg2 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's because the real root questions have been hidden under all the political games. Now we will likely never get answers to these because of how perverted the debate has become. The issue philosophical boils down to 1) what defines a human life, and 2) when is it acceptable to kill.

If this were merely a philosophical debate then yeah, we could have a lively discussion to come up with some answers that would satisfy us individually. We probably wouldn't all agree and that'd be OK. But IMO the debate is not really about that -- it's about what we do based on the answer to those questions. It's about what governments can force upon people. Should they be allowed to imprison you if those that write…

"Should they be allowed to imprison you if those that write laws believe in something without hard evidence and for which harm is likely unprovable?"

They do all the time, on a variety of issues. That's part of the social contract of living in a society.

Post reply on HN