Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | diminoten's comments login

HN is a commons, and follows few/none of these principles. This comment, for example, could ungenerously be considered "low effort", but that's because it's easy to dismiss a comment with few characters, so making sure the number of characters written in a comment is long enough to match the magical "not low effort" value that's applied (unevenly, to be clear).

Even trying to talk about this problem leads to censorship on this site.


Even trying to talk about this problem leads to censorship on this site

Trying to bypass filters in noise and tone does incur downvoting, yes. I've been guilty of the offence and of the downvoting. Part of policing the commons is that some things people want to do in the commons are low damage but not no damage: we forbid murder but we also make you pick up your litter kind of costs. Is all litter picked up? No. But, most is, and very little murder goes unnoticed on HN


None of these 3rd party VPNs are really meant to be hardened against state sponsored attacks, at least I wouldn't think myself secure from that level of sophistication. They're basically most valuable to mess around against adversaries that have little to no access to security resources, like your average ISP or forum moderator.


Sorry, but what people expect doesn't matter. What is true is that digital identities are intrinsically linked between sites where the same username is used.

You can't hide behind, "but no one expected that" and expect to live a happy, unsurprising life. There is no law you can pass that will fix this, no matter how much you complain.


In no way is fasting healthy for you if you rely on having energy, focus, or any ability to function as an independent adult while fasting for more than a day or so at most.


That's not my experience. I've done a few 72hr fasts, and many 48hrs fasts. In general I find I have more focus, more even mood and more enthusiasm (though less energy for physical activity) while fasting.


If you don't mind sharing, what kind of starting body fat % (or as a poor proxy, BMI), did you have at the beginning of your multiday fasts? I don't care about the literal numbers, but: bottom of healthy range? Mid-healthy range? Above healthy range? Do you exercise regularly (and did you keep it up during the fasts)?

I guess this is always my question of anyone who has a positive experience with fasts. Personally, I have been at the mid-upper range of healthy bf%/weight for years and exercise frequently (running 30+ minutes 7 days a week for a few years, cycling 60+ minutes 2-3 a week this year) and find much shorter fasts (say, 20h) excruciating and completely draining mentally and physically. And I'm not at 7% body fat like that other guy. Lowest I got was maybe 14% while I was running daily; while I'm up to 18%ish now, fasting hasn't gotten any easier.

(Even if I skipped exercising, just the mental effects made my mood significantly worse by the end of the day, which makes it harder to work effectively in a collaborative environment.)


I'd say that I'm in a similar position to you, though not as fit. I do a short HIIT session every day and am marginally chubby.

What's your non-fasting diet like? Fasting is the quickest way to get into ketosis. If you're used to eating a carb-heavy diet, the switch into ketosis can be brutal. So if you either ease off carbs leading up to the fast, or just all the time, it'll be easier.

The other thing is electrolytes. Your body doesn't store them, so you (IMO) have to supplement. If you start to feel like crap, have 1tsp of salt in about 1L of water and see if it fixes it. I also supplement with magnesium and occasionally potassium.


I was going to say something similar.

I've fasted for up to 5 days before, and I felt just fine - especially on days 4 and 5, I actually feel like I have more mental clarity and drive than usual.


You're arguing against evolution. Not only are we deeply wired to function for long periods of time without food, but when you haven't eaten in a while your mind becomes focused and alert since your body thinks it needs to find or hunt food.

I'm sure Dorsey isn't the only high profile/ functioning CEO who does multi day fasts each week.


Who's arguing against evolution? Humans evolved to use our brains to help us develop ways to prevent having to go without food for extended periods of time.

"Not only are we deeply wired to function for long periods of time without food"

So the body doesn't collapse after x number of hours without fuel. Your body also has the ability to generate its own heat when it's cold. Does that mean that it's desirable or ideal that we deliberately use these abilities? Does it mean that there is no harm or risk in doing so? I'm not saying that there is or isn't; I don't know.

"but when you haven't eaten in a while your mind becomes focused and alert"

This is sort of like the focus that you get when you're being chased by a wild animal or falling out of a tree. I don't know that seeking focus from sources like this is a great idea, but YMMV.

"since your body thinks it needs to find or hunt food."

So maybe your body is telling you that fasting isn't such a good idea?

"I'm sure Dorsey isn't the only high profile/ functioning CEO who does multi day fasts each week."

I don't do multi-day fasts and I've lived for years longer than Dorsey.


I hear your perspective.

The evolutionary angle isn't the reason why I believe fasting is a good idea - it's just a rebuttle to "there's no way you function well while fasting"... of course you can, it was likely the MO for millions of years of modern human evolution (or 100+ M years for mammals). It's as natural to fast as it is to fornicate.

Rather, my reasons for fasting come from the scientific literature, centered around autophagy, insulin control, sirtuin activation, visceral (organ) fat depletion, and troves of clear lab test results of benefits (albeit most on non human mammals).

Based on many comments here I think folks just haven't caught up with the longevity research of the last 3-4 years.


From what I've read, this "evolution" argument doesn't seem to hold much weight. If you take other apes as examples, they tend to eat much more, and more regularly than modern humans. Modern hunter-gatherer tribes do as well. So, I don't think there is reasonable evidence that our ancestors normally followed a feast-and-starve diet.


What you've written here sounds a lot like the utter pablum that comes from the marketing literature of every fad diet on this planet. Besides, how CEOs behave and what is sane are not overlapping circles if you're trying to draw a Venn diagram relating the two...


Not my experience, having fasted periodically (2-5 day fasts) for years. It's absurd to think everybody reacts the same to fasting given the range of bodyweights/types out there. This article is evidence this is not the case.


[flagged]


Your earlier comment came across as a pretty literal blanket statement for me, FWIW.

> In no way is fasting healthy … while fasting for more than a day or so at most.

The italicized portions are both qualifiers that suggest / reinforce something like "literally no one in human history has successfully fasted."

If you meant "On average, low blood sugar will cause lower metal and physical performance," just say it. Sarcasm and hyperbole don't come across clearly on the internet. It's much easier and more considerate to write what you mean the first time, rather than writing a hyperbolic and simplistic statement and then retroactively rationalizing it.


I did write what I meant; there's simply no way, on average, fasting has zero negative side effects. That's what I wrote. The fact that you or others couldn't navigate your way to that conclusion is on you, not me.

And I did want to come across as sarcastic and condescending because it's frankly insulting to others when you claim such outrageous and wrong nonsense on the internet. You deserve sarcasm and negativity if you bring idiocy to a reasonable conversation.


We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines and ignoring countless requests to stop. We've cut you an incredible amount of slack, but at some point enough is enough, and this is it.

If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll really follow the rules in the future.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html


> it's frankly insulting to others when you claim such outrageous and wrong nonsense on the internet. You deserve sarcasm and negativity if you bring idiocy to a reasonable conversation.

I think you're replying to a different person than you think you are. I'm not nverno nor not_a_moth; I've made no radical claims about fasting. It's insulting to me to … claim such outrageous and wrong nonsense, to put it in your words.

Finally, one suggestion. If you find yourself writing, "You deserve sarcasm and negativity," click the X, take a break, and go for a walk to clear your head. That's just not really appropriate or useful anywhere.


I'm not you; I don't need the kind of help navigating the Internet that you do, and it's condescending as hell, writing what you're writing. You have zero clue what my mental state is, please don't presume to know how I'm feeling.

And no, I didn't misdirect my comment; you said my comment came across one way, and I replied to that. You are, again, not an objective arbiter of intent, and again, please stop trying to be.


It's easy to pretend that "badly written" code is intentional or desirable, because then when we write it, we can excuse ourselves by saying, "BUT IT WORKS!"

That's why this idea is popular, and your comment is controversial. You're taking away a crutch that many of our peers cling desperately to as a way to justify their shortcuts and poor decision making.


I'd bet literally tens of dollars it has no material impact on his fund.


The point is they do something, but for that something to be most likely good/positive, you also need therapy, which if you want, you can interpret as a "trip sitter" or whatever the phrase is.

Y'all aren't disagreeing.


> but for that something to be most likely good/positive, you also need therapy

I hear ideas like this (and "In other words, you would need to use the drugs in combination with therapy to obtain good results") repeated all the time, but I'm curious where they come from.

If one spends any time whatsoever in enthusiast communities, the overwhelming sentiment is that these compounds are incredibly helpful even when used alone. This is not to say that individual results wouldn't be even better with therapy, or that there aren't some people who have negative experiences, but these being true also in no ways logically implies that significant benefits cannot be realized by independent usage.

The precise answer to these and other questions, at this current point in time, is: we don't know, with extremely high certainty. But this doesn't mean we don't know anything. Reality is independent of man's understanding (peer reviewed studies) of it - a tree falling in the forest does not require the presence of a scientist.

While it's always a good idea to exercise caution, I suspect advice like "do not use these substances except under professional guidance" is likely more harmful than helpful. It will be years if not decades before formal treatments are available, for many people that may be too late, not to mention the exorbitant price tags these treatments come at. I am more of the mind that people educate themselves on the topic, proceed with caution, work with those who have experience, and proceed slowly and with caution, starting with low dosages and working your way up over time. There is very little trustworthy evidence that I know of indicating there is any kind of substantial risk, and even then that has to be weighed against not just the benefits, but also the risk of doing nothing.


Enthusiast communities are probably not the most objective group of folks, so I'd take what they have to say with a grain of salt.


Of course, but be careful not to make the mistake of assuming that members in those communities are homogeneous. There's certainly no shortage of woo-woo style thinking, but there are also enthusiasts who think about it very seriously and analytically. These same people will also tell you that anything they say should be taken with a grain of salt. These are the people who should be mainly listened to.

Regardless, I fail to see any evidence that supports the assertion that you also need therapy, that you cannot benefit substantially without it. Those who have literally no first hand experience with psychedelics are not exactly objective either, but it sure doesn't stop them from confidently passing out advice.


So if I found any evidence at all, you'd agree you were wrong? Seems pretty strong if a stance to take...


My emphasis is on the word need. I'd happily consider any evidence you've seen.


My emphasis is on the word "risk" (captured in the literal words "most likely"). It's risky to go without a guide, though it's not "needed" in the sense of a 100% failure rate.

Honestly, the fact that you assumed others were talking about "have a guide or 100% failure" is disingenuous on your part.


Can one submit a FOIA request, load that data into a database, and sell that data to others?

Why do companies pay the DMV for this information if they can just FOIA it from them for free?


I'm not familiar with CA's public records laws to say for sure, but I'm familiar with other public records laws, and have submitted ~1k requests throughout the US.

Technically, yes, you can request records from FOIA and sell them. Though, many public records laws are very specific about whether you are requesting as a for-profit org, and can deny your request on that basis. If that isn't the issue, then your request can be rejected for being voluminous, so generally you have to find a public interest argument for the release of records. That public interest argument very, very likely doesn't exist in the case of the info being sold here. It ends up being a major PITA to get large amounts of data.

So, orgs instead go down the contract route. There's really no need to go through the hassle of public records nuance if your contract includes access to those records.

(This is a super deep subject, so I'm just scratching the surface.)

https://mchap.io/that-time-the-city-of-seattle-accidentally-...


I hope soon, that's so cool!


Features, userbase, talent; the same reasons a developer or engineer would work with any company.

Let's play a game; how many degrees separated from Facebook is HN and YC? You go first, take a guess!


I can't be certain how many degrees separated the two are, but I have established a lower bound on the answer

Let d:(x,y)->n be the degrees of separation between x and y. Since d(x,y)=0 implies x=y, and we know that FB and HN are not identical, we have d(FB,HN)>0.

Then, since d takes integral values we know that d(FB,HN)>=1 in any case.


"They are not the same company" is, while true, not a guess. Come on, take a real guess! When was the last time Zuck spoke at YC? When was the last time YC worked with Facebook? How many of the folks at YC either come directly from Facebook or have invested in Facebook at one time?

Your hands aren't clean here, if you actually cared about avoiding Facebook at all costs, you wouldn't be here. The fact is, you don't (nor should you).


Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: