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

The staff ate it later

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 313 posts

Re: The staff ate it later

#291

Post by Doxin »

danjc wrote: post #187
jfengel wrote: post #81

Restaurants (at least in the US) have very strict standards about how long you can keep something at room temperature before you have to throw it away. Those standards are extremely conservative, and lead to a lot of food waste, but if I were on the staff I'd at least want to keep an eye on how long something has been sitting out. Those standards have just been beaten into me. You also see that on a lot of fictional…

Once you notice characters aren't eating, you'll never not see it again. Related, where they're drinking coffee from a disposable cup, you can almost always tell it's empty by how they handle it.

> Related, where they're drinking coffee from a disposable cup, you can almost always tell it's empty by how they handle it.

NCIS has a running gag about that. In the show they invariably drink... some mysterious caffeinated product, I don't know if I'd call it coffee, with a straw. It always makes a slurping sound like the cup is nearly empty. Even when just handed a fresh cup.

That show is often lampooned for the silly "two idiots one keyboard" scene, but I am convinced they are doing dumb stuff like that on purpose.

Re: The staff ate it later

#292

Post by chithanh »

hollerith wrote: post #274
saagarjha wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why ask this question?

If I heard somewhere that insects are good people food, I certainly wouldn't go repeating that assertion in public without having tried eating insects at least once. It is unethical profess a belief in public, especially an unusual belief, but neglect to test that belief when a test would be inexpensive and straightforward. It is also unethical to propose a radical change to society with only very tenuous basis in re…

> It is also unethical to propose a radical change to society with only very tenuous basis in reality: people should be able to demonstrate knowledge (and not just knowledge about what beliefs will prove popular or fashionable) before they engage in public policy discussions. If the person I'm discussing with hasn't tried eating insects at least once (preferably a lot more often) he is doing us all a disservice in even engaging in a public discussion of the topic unless perhaps he has deep professional-level knowledge of the nutritional value of insects and the effect of nutrients and anti-nutrients on human health (and "insects are high in protein" alone doesn't begin to be enough knowledge).

That is a strange position. The most that I could contribute is anecdotal evidence anyway. The nutrient composition and the safety of insect-derived food has been rigorously studied, for example in: https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8009

I linked the EU FAQ on insects in my other reply.

Re: The staff ate it later

#293

Post by cylemons »

chithanh wrote: post #280
cylemons wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also a matter of purpose, killing animals for food is more acceptable than killing them for sport or entertainment

In the developed world and large parts of the developing world, meat is consumed for entirely hedonic reasons (ie. for pleasure). I would not consider this materially different from killing for sports or entertainment.

It is different tho, atleast eating meat is nutritionally beneficial while killing for sports is a waste of time.

Re: The staff ate it later

#294

Post by cylemons »

yurishimo wrote: post #181
cylemons wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also a matter of purpose, killing animals for food is more acceptable than killing them for sport or entertainment

Exactly this. Meat is a huge source of nutrition. Even though in our modern western society, we might not "need" to eat meat, but it's a hearty, plentiful, accessible protein and fat that stores well and can be easily moved and replicated quickly. It's simply much more practical still to keep eating meat in much of the world. I'm not going to go into the arguments about our biology either, but I think it's safe to sa…

Also, culture is shaped by biology, our brains are wired to find meat delicious because it gives us the proteins we need to survive.

Re: The staff ate it later

#295

Post by barry-cotter »

noboostforyou wrote: post #253
williamdclt wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Never heard of spanish people or greeks not being considered "white".

Just because you never heard it doesn't mean it didn't happen. For example, Irish people were heavily discriminated against in the US and were considered at one point to not be "white" https://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2008/10/06/negative-st... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Irish_sentiment

> Irish people […] were considered at one point to not be "white"

This isn’t true. Naturalisation was limited to white people and no Irish person was ever denied it in account of their race.

Re: The staff ate it later

#296

Post by barry-cotter »

krapp wrote: post #239
watwut wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an European, I find the definition of European that excludes Spaniards super weird. Likewise, not counting Spaniards into white is weird too, but at least it does not betray complete lack of knowledge about what counts as Europe.

>As an European, I find the definition of European that excludes Spaniards super weird. Because you are, as I suspect many people will, intentionally misreading the context of my comment. I am implying that the use of "European" herein does not literally refer to the geographic region known as "Europe," but rather that in the context of a statement about the likely physical appearance of Jesus it should be understood…

99.99% of the population of the Mediterranean basin at the time Jesus lived were white, almost certainly more given that the trans-Saharan slave trade was a creature of the camel and post dated the Arab conquest of North Africa.

Re: The staff ate it later

#297

Post by acdha »

barry-cotter wrote: post #296
krapp wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>As an European, I find the definition of European that excludes Spaniards super weird. Because you are, as I suspect many people will, intentionally misreading the context of my comment. I am implying that the use of "European" herein does not literally refer to the geographic region known as "Europe," but rather that in the context of a statement about the likely physical appearance of Jesus it should be understood…

99.99% of the population of the Mediterranean basin at the time Jesus lived were white, almost certainly more given that the trans-Saharan slave trade was a creature of the camel and post dated the Arab conquest of North Africa.

“White” didn’t exist at that time and the people of the Mediterranean certainly didn’t think of themselves as one homogeneous group. The various peoples had prejudices about each other which only consolidated into a hierarchy when the trans-Atlantic slave trade needed to legally define who couldn’t be property. Prejudices by, for example, the English or American against Greeks or Italians lasted into the 20th century.

Re: The staff ate it later

#298

Post by GuB-42 »

kulahan wrote: post #55
germinalphrase wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tripwiring (and thus fatally wounding) horses was quite a thing back in the day.

Wasn't there some horrible story about the number of animals killed in the filming of Homeward Bound or some similar movie? I simply cannot comprehend the callousness of people towards animals back then. I guess our cultures are simply too different, but it genuinely seems like people saw all animals as "things" until, like, the 1950s or something like that. What the heck?

> I simply cannot comprehend the callousness of people towards animals back then.

Just go to rural areas, where livestock farming is a common activity and people are confronted with animals as part of their daily life and you will see that animals are not always treated kindly.

For example, they may treat live chicken like you treat a KFC menu. It is food. When they want to eat chicken, they pick one up in the coop and kill it with the same detachment as you picking up your menu at the counter. Which is ironic because that farmer is probably treating his chicken way better than the ones destined for KFC.

Wild animals are just pests, if they cause damage to the crops and livestock, or game if edible. Dogs, horses, etc... are for work, guarding, herding, etc... they get some love, but they are nothing like pets.

In that context, animals are indeed more like "things". They still get some consideration, but so are things. Most people care for their cars for instance, they want it stay in good shape for as long as possible, same thing for animals.

I think the reason we care more about animals now is because as city dwellers, we don't really live with them, we have pets, we go to zoos or watch cute videos, so we have some unnatural empathy for them. Until they cause problems that is. Empathy for rats tend to go down rather quickly for people with a rat infestation.

Re: The staff ate it later

#299

Post by klodolph »

numpad0 wrote: post #146
klodolph wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Itadaku is literally the kenjogo form of taberu (eat). It just happens to have multiple meanings.

The literal meaning is more along "to honor", or as GP explained. No different from people wondering about others in English.

Etymology ≠ meaning

Re: The staff ate it later

#300

Post by nivertech »

wahern wrote: post #285
bambax wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Magi" were priests of Zoraster That's the etymology of the word, but there is no indication in the gospel of Matthew (the only one to even mention this) that it's a reference to Persia. That would be like saying when anyone who mentions "algorithm" is really talking about Uzbekistan, because al-Ḵwārizmī means 'the man of Ḵwārizm' (now Khiva).

AFAIU, in Ancient Greek culture Magi were often considered like Plato's Philosopher Kings. Greeks didn't have an accurate understanding of Zoroastrianism or the structure of Persian government, but for some reason they saw Persian leaders, and Magi in particular, as possessing a synthesis of political, religious, philosophical and scientific virtues. For example, they thought Persian leaders' grasp of astronomy meant…

I don't think there was a distinction between science, magic and religion (or rather, cults, since there were no organized religions in the modern sense).
Post reply on HN