231–238 of 238 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’ve noticed HN users in general enjoy being contrarian and argumentative. It’s a “I must be doing something smart if I’m going against the grain” attitude.
this is true, but I'm like 80% sure there's significant astroturfing on HN. look at any post that mentions relations with China. flooded with comments in similar formats to the ones here. I thought China was ..., but then ... and now I'm not so sure"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's mostly an urban legend and the vast majority of such cases happen when the parent is not sober and essentially knocked out unconscious. I mean, infants are typically warmer than adults and they wriggle around a lot - it's hard enough to sleep next to them, much less within suffocation distance.
If the combination of drinking and sleeping beside your infant leads to a higher chance of suffocating them you can ask people to stop drinking, stop sleeping beside their infant, or both. History has shown us that people won’t stop drinking so I think recommending the other potential solution makes sense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You're conflating marketing a product to a market and bribing politicians to not restrict the sale of guns. There isn't any overlap I disagree. In the case of gun ownership, lobbying creates the market, and the more generalised marketing helps to grow it. They're two tines of the same pitchfork. Lobbying is, after all, just highly focused marketing at specific demographics (politicians) and in often underhanded way…
> They're two tines of the same pitchfork. If we're discussing the market, there's several billion other tines you missed.
Culture is driven by marketing.
Quite literally last week I was randomly watching The Today Show (mainstream Australian breakfast television) and I couldn't believe what I just saw within the space of 5 minutes. It was the build up to the AFL grand final and there was a presenter on a football field with kids kicking footballs in the background. Anyway, he introduces the segment and it turns out it's a paid promotion for Shell. The show then cuts t…
Can those vouchers also be used for charging your EV? Shell is operating a lot of chargers already.
Quite literally last week I was randomly watching The Today Show (mainstream Australian breakfast television) and I couldn't believe what I just saw within the space of 5 minutes. It was the build up to the AFL grand final and there was a presenter on a football field with kids kicking footballs in the background. Anyway, he introduces the segment and it turns out it's a paid promotion for Shell. The show then cuts t…
I would love a petrol voucher. 90% of Australians have a car so it would be useful to pretty much anyone's family. It's also a somewhat inelastic good, meaning if I gave you a petrol voucher you probably wouldn't considerably change your driving habits. Maybe you would use it to go on an extra family trip, which yes gasoline bad, but it's not exactly conspicuous consumption. It would just give you some extra money in…
Pick a lane ;).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. Guns literally are part of the founding od America. We got the second Amendment precisely because England tried to do things like take guns and quarter soldiers. Guns are and always have been part of American culture. I would also research the history of gun control the U.S, it may surprise you.
> Guns literally are part of the founding od America. Guns are the founding part of basically every country , because in the end “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun”. You got the second amendment for the same reason the French got paragraph 35 of the Declaration of the Rights of the Man and of the Citizen of 1793 : «Quand le gouvernement viole les droits du peuple, l’insurrection est, pour le peuple et…
Reagan put the first gun restriction laws of California in place because of the Black Panthers. I wasn't defending him.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd never heard of the Haber process, it was interesting to read about according to wikipedia it cut the required farmland to feed a population in four. obviously it's hard to argue with more food for more people, but it clearly made urbanisation and overpopulation that much easier. quite a brilliant invention of engineering, but is it actually a good thing for a population to grow at that rate?
What are you implying by this comment?