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

The Slow Web

jackcheng.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 57 posts

Re: The Slow Web

#41

Post by lilsunnybee »

Sorry but this article and "movement" are a bunch of bullshit. People have always been in control of when they look at their computers or phones. If all your apps are notifying you too much, fix it in the settings, or uninstall them. Is this really a real problem people have in their lives?

If so just put away the phone and put some of that extra money towards making others lives better; there are lots of people that need it, that don't have the income or influence to solve those problems on their own. Have some perspective in how you spend your money!

Re: The Slow Web

#42

Post by UweSchmidt »

ZenPro wrote: post #40
UweSchmidt wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's true for certain things - maybe people didn't really recognize dementia as such back then, when old and frail people died from some infection before other problems could manifest. On the other hand, heart diseases are an area where things got significantly worse for no good reason. We can be safe from common infections (thanks to hygiene) and also not all suffer from heart diseases (by not eating junk), there'…

How many old and frail people do you think were cutting around prior to the 18th Century? I would wager not many. Humans have to die from something at some point. If you have compelling evidence that fast food reduces your life feel free to post it. A number of journals have begun to dispute that obesity even causes the conditions we currently associate with it.

Ah, this is the infographic I was looking for:

https://i.imgur.com/vuegm5x.png

My point is not that people were doing better then. My point is we could do better given what we know and what we have.

The simple fact that we are debating nutrition on such a basic level ("is something loosely defined as fast food bad?"), shows how fucked we are in that regard.

(Similarly, nutritional concepts, whatever their merits and benefits, that come with a name, be it "atkins" or "paleo", also resemble a pre-scientific worldview based on superstition and vague knowledge. Think "We're building this bridge according to the teachings of Prof. Dr.-Ing. Whatshisname.")

Re: The Slow Web

#43

Post by rdrey »

GuiA wrote: post #4

For an example of a slow web social network, see Uncommon. I love it. http://uncommon.cc

Looks like a very interesting social network.

BUT the presentation of the homepage felt too slow. Revealing a few words at a time quickly lost its appeal.

Re: The Slow Web

#44

Post by dasil003 »

ZenPro wrote: post #39
dasil003 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't have time to refute this kind of wrong-headed thinking in detail. Suffice it to say that I'm not just talking about fast food per se, I'm talking about the entire way that modern industrially prepared foodstuffs are processed, the huge proportion of grain that goes into it, and the way flavors are extracted and re-added while completely separating them from the nutritional value that said flavors would normal…

You do have time to correct my thinking because you attempted to correct it. Mark your words? You talk about being in the nutritional dark ages then mention eating fresh animal meat No evidence exists anywhere that human beings should consume meat. Our digestive tracts are 4X longer than any other animal that consumes meat (which leads to rotting flesh in our body (not ideal)) and in repeated tests the sight and smel…

You just went off on a rant about something I didn't say and I didn't mean. Try again, none of this is relevant to what I said.

Re: The Slow Web

#45

Post by ZenPro »

dasil003 wrote: post #44
ZenPro wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do have time to correct my thinking because you attempted to correct it. Mark your words? You talk about being in the nutritional dark ages then mention eating fresh animal meat No evidence exists anywhere that human beings should consume meat. Our digestive tracts are 4X longer than any other animal that consumes meat (which leads to rotting flesh in our body (not ideal)) and in repeated tests the sight and smel…

You just went off on a rant about something I didn't say and I didn't mean. Try again, none of this is relevant to what I said.

It's completely relevant. You are discriminating against fast food without any attempt to apply your arbitrary reasoning to other foodstuffs you consider "wholesome" or "good".

Re: The Slow Web

#46

Post by ZenPro »

UweSchmidt wrote: post #42
ZenPro wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many old and frail people do you think were cutting around prior to the 18th Century? I would wager not many. Humans have to die from something at some point. If you have compelling evidence that fast food reduces your life feel free to post it. A number of journals have begun to dispute that obesity even causes the conditions we currently associate with it.

Ah, this is the infographic I was looking for: https://i.imgur.com/vuegm5x.png My point is not that people were doing better then. My point is we could do better given what we know and what we have. The simple fact that we are debating nutrition on such a basic level ("is something loosely defined as fast food bad?"), shows how fucked we are in that regard. (Similarly, nutritional concepts, whatever their merits and…

All that chart shows me is the following -

If you remove X cause of deaths in human beings then it will result in a rise of Y cause of death in human beings.

As stated earlier; humans beings must die. If not from infection or injury then from lifestyle factors.

The fact that we have lived to an age whereby lifestyle not predators, infection, war, crime or malnutrition will kill us should be celebrated.

So have a damn burger. You are probably at greater risk from going skiing (no one is proposing limits or awareness about the inherent dangers of skiing). Last time I checked I was not subject to daily discussions about the economic cost of injured skiers.

Re: The Slow Web

#47

Post by dasil003 »

ZenPro wrote: post #45
dasil003 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You just went off on a rant about something I didn't say and I didn't mean. Try again, none of this is relevant to what I said.

It's completely relevant. You are discriminating against fast food without any attempt to apply your arbitrary reasoning to other foodstuffs you consider " wholesome " or " good ".

It's not relevant because I did not say what you said I said. You are putting words in my mouth and you are being intellectually dishonest about it. I am done with this conversation.

Re: The Slow Web

#48

Post by ZenPro »

dasil003 wrote: post #47
ZenPro wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's completely relevant. You are discriminating against fast food without any attempt to apply your arbitrary reasoning to other foodstuffs you consider " wholesome " or " good ".

It's not relevant because I did not say what you said I said. You are putting words in my mouth and you are being intellectually dishonest about it. I am done with this conversation.

You are done with this conversation because you are wrong and you know it. I am not putting words in your mouth.

You said "nutrients from fresh animal meat" in the same post where you expressed disdain for fast food.

Yet you clearly express no disdain for a food source that is on whole, extremely damaging to the human body.

I suggest you educate yourself about nutrition in it's entirety before you step on your anti-fast-food pulpit.

Re: The Slow Web

#49

Post by dasil003 »

ZenPro wrote: post #48
dasil003 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not relevant because I did not say what you said I said. You are putting words in my mouth and you are being intellectually dishonest about it. I am done with this conversation.

You are done with this conversation because you are wrong and you know it. I am not putting words in your mouth. You said " nutrients from fresh animal meat " in the same post where you expressed disdain for fast food. Yet you clearly express no disdain for a food source that is on whole, extremely damaging to the human body. I suggest you educate yourself about nutrition in it's entirety before you step on your anti…

My god you are insufferable. Go ahead and grep what I wrote if you know how you fucking moron.

Re: The Slow Web

#50

Post by drhouse_md »

dasil003 wrote: post #49
ZenPro wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are done with this conversation because you are wrong and you know it. I am not putting words in your mouth. You said " nutrients from fresh animal meat " in the same post where you expressed disdain for fast food. Yet you clearly express no disdain for a food source that is on whole, extremely damaging to the human body. I suggest you educate yourself about nutrition in it's entirety before you step on your anti…

My god you are insufferable. Go ahead and grep what I wrote if you know how you fucking moron.

You did say "animal meat", whether or not "fresh" only applied to vegetables, in which case the debate is about the value of meat in human consumption.
Post reply on HN