Hacker Newsnew | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit | icebraining's comments login

You mean "parliamentary democracy" (which is a subtype of representative democracy), not "parliamentary republic". "Republic" specifically means the absence of a monarch, which, as you note, is not a feature of many of the systems at issue.

As far as I know, both are true; most European countries nowadays are republics. There are only 12 monarchies in Europe, and three (Andorra, Monaco and the Vatican) are micronations.

reply


No, it's not arbitrary at all, it's just subjective and depends on your personal relation with the animal.

Frankly, that video sounds like BS to me. How much time did she spend within family farms that raise animals? The idea that you need "invisibility" or to abstract animals as non-individual or as objects is so untrue it's not even funny.

reply


The claim that every culture only picks a handful of animal species to be considered edible, and this is part of some sort of psychological defense mechanism, is BS too. Counter-example: China, or any society that has access to a diverse hunting ground for 'game' or 'bushmeat'.

Even a 'picky eater' society like the US that only eats a few kinds of land animal species treats all fish as edible but only a few named species as 'the good ones', and only a handful of plant species are commonplace in the diet despite lots more being readily available.

reply


The fact that people think dogs have higher intrinsic value than pigs, and hence deserve more rights, is based on completely arbitrary characteristics. The proof of that is that dogs are seen as food in some cultures, cows are seen as sacred in others, etc. It's all part of belief systems that, in most cases, are inherited without being questioned.

I have no idea if she has spent time within family farms, but I would guess that she, like most people versed in animal rights, would strongly disagree with exploiting the bodies and reproductive systems of animals unnecessarily. Regardless of it being done in a factory farm or in the best family farm, where animals roam free until the day they are sent to the house of slaughter, at a young age.

If you sent a perfectly healthy dog (or horse, or cat, or elephant) to slaughter, for profit or pleasure, in a culture that sees those animals as members of their moral community, you would get a very different reaction from society.

reply


The fact that people think dogs have higher intrinsic value than pigs, and hence deserve more rights, is based on completely arbitrary characteristics. The proof of that is that dogs are seen as food in some cultures, cows are seen as sacred in others, etc. It's all part of belief systems that, in most cases, are inherited without being questioned.

The fact that the reasons are different doesn't mean they're arbitrary, merely not universal. Some cultures practice(d) cannibalism, does that mean that our opposition to that practice is necessarily arbitrary?

I think it's clear that many, if not most, are not arbitrary - which doesn't mean they are well supported; not everything is valid just because it has some reason behind it.

I have no idea if she has spent time within family farms, but I would guess that she, like most people versed in animal rights, would strongly disagree with exploiting the bodies and reproductive systems of animals unnecessarily. Regardless of it being done in a factory farm or in the best family farm, where animals roam free until the day they are sent to the house of slaughter, at a young age.

No doubt, but that wasn't my issue with the video. I wasn't disagreeing with the opposition of exploiting animals unnecessarily, just with the theory of Carnism that she uses to support it.

I inquired about her experience with family farms, not because they don't exploit animals, but because I believe they put a very obvious hole in her theory about why people do exploit animals.

If you sent a perfectly healthy dog (or horse, or cat, or elephant) to slaughter, for profit or pleasure, in a culture that sees those animals as members of their moral community, you would get a very different reaction from society.

No doubt, but her theory had more than just "people treat animals differently".

reply


I think it's clear that many, if not most, are not arbitrary - which doesn't mean they are well supported; not everything is valid just because it has some reason behind it.

The definition of arbitrary is "having no reason behind it". Sure, judging whether a particular classification counts as "arbitrary" is hard because the definition of "arbitrary" is squishy. But what you just said amounts to:

It's not arbitrary. It might be arbitrary, but it's not arbitrary.

reply


No, what I meant is that even the non-arbitrary ones may not have good reasons behind them.

reply


The fact that people think dogs have higher intrinsic value than pigs, and hence deserve more rights, is based on completely arbitrary characteristics

Dogs are a bad example. Dogs have been our companions for tens of thousands of years. They have been so because they are useful to us -- we have developed a symbiotic relationship. Dogs understand us and are attuned to our emotions to a much higher degree than any other non-human animal. I wouldn't say it's arbitrary to place a higher intrinsic value on dogs than pigs.

Don't get me wrong, I don't claim that as justification of anything. I'm a vegan. I just don't think something has to be arbitrary to be wrong.

reply


I didn't watch the video, but it seems like a common misconception. People don't like the idea of killing an animal with a name and personality for meat, so they think it must be impossible. But in reality, plenty of farmers develop bonds with the animals they will eventually kill.

reply


All energy forms receive massive subsidies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies#United_States

reply


Hear hear. According to these stats, in 2013 renewable energy was receiving subsidies of about $7 billion per year and fossil fuels about $3 billion, but over the previous 6 decades fossil fuels received an average of $9.9 billion per year in 2010 dollars (with oil being 62% of that). Whether or not you believe in government subsidies, it can be argued that they have been the norm over the past half century regardless of whether you're talking about fossil fuels or alternatives.

reply


Give me those stats per kWh.

reply


Yes, but note from the linked wikipedia article:

"Oil, natural gas, and coal benefited most from percentage depletion allowances and other tax-based subsidies"

It seems disingenuous to directly compare taxing someone less than you theoretically could have vs the "direct federal expenditures" on renewable energy.

Also, "many of the 'subsidies' available to the oil and gas industries are general business opportunity credits, available to all US businesses"

reply


That's more than made up for the fact that fossil fuels receive enormous subsidies in the form of being allowed to pollute without paying anything close to the costs generated by that pollution. If you actually charged the fossil fuel industry for their externalities, the subsidies listed here would fade into insignificance by comparison.

reply


I really feel like you're getting to the point though, where the word subsidy has no meaning. (via the wikipedia entry and the discussion here, it seem's that any time the government isn't taxing you 100% and seizing all your assets you are getting a "subsidy").

In that light, I'd like to see the numbers a different way. How about the difference in direct cash injections. I have no idea where to find it, but it might show a different story.

Also, when it comes to externalities that are hard to measure, isn't there a good chance that the enormous increases in human quality of life due to abundant and relatively cheap access to energy are greater than the costs generated by pollution.

reply


I think it would be useful to have words that distinguish direct "government writes you a check" subsidies from the more subtle kind. But it's useful to discuss the more subtle kind too, and I don't know what else to call it.

I don't think looking at direct cash injections is useful here, because they tell such a small part of the story.

For an example, consider the case where the government takes your money and gives it to some company. That's an obvious subsidy.

Now consider the case where the government doesn't take your money themselves, but rather declares that the company has the right to come into your house and help themselves to $AMOUNT. It's no longer explicit, but it's still pretty clearly a subsidy.

Now let's say that they're in the business of disposing trash, and the government has declared that they can dump trash on your lawn for no compensation, when normally it would cost $AMOUNT. Ultimate effect is the same as above.

Now let's say they're in some other business, that just happens to generate a lot of trash. The government declares that they can dump trash on your lawn for no compensation when normally it would cost $AMOUNT, making their other business much more cost effective. Again, it's ultimately the same as above.

This last one is the fossil fuel situation. The government has decided that certain waste generated by burning fossil fuels can be disposed on other people's land, air, and water without compensation. The costs involved are enormous, but the users of fossil fuels don't pay. The end result is that fossil fuel prices are effectively subsidized by the population at large.

I'm sure the enormous increase in the human quality of life has more than compensated for this damage. But that's not an argument for ignoring the externalities. If it's a net benefit then the total benefit will exceed the total cost including externalities. If the total benefit does not exceed that total cost then it's not a net benefit.

It's especially important now when we're looking at transitioning to other sources of energy. If fossil fuels are only cheaper because of these externalities, then that means the net benefit to humanity is higher with alternatives.

reply


> the enormous increases in human quality of life due to abundant and relatively cheap access to energy are greater than the costs generated by pollution.

I dare you to write down that thought, seal the envelope and tell your children to open it in 40 years.

Try this one weird trick; Future generations hate us!

reply


As a small investor in an oil company I'd be surprised if there was any net subsidy of the oil industry. If you tax a company $10 but then give back $2 in allowances you are not subsidising it by $2, you are taxing it $8. In the UK of what you pay at the pump for petrol about 60% goes in tax.

reply


The USG is not giving me $10,000 to buy a ICE Ford (between fed and state, this is what I would receive). Your argument is fairly disingenuous considering the massive EV tax breaks in existence to today, that are temporary and have done nothing to lower the cost of high capacity Lithium-Ion batteries.

We're 12 years in with thie absurd corporate welfare and still no cheap EV car that can remotely compete with ICE. I'm getting a little sick of hearing "Elon will figure it out in the next 18-24 months." EV enthusiasts have been saying that for YEARS now.

I'm all for letting Tesla try to compete as-is. They've eaten enough corporate welfare. They clearly cannot compete with ICE. Luxury electrics should not be subsidized by the working poor, middle class families, etc.

reply


> "have done nothing to lower the cost of high capacity Lithium-Ion batteries."

What's the evidence for this claim? What I see is expansion availability of Lithium Ion batteries for average consumers in the form of the recently announced PowerWall, and EVs other than the Tesla. Could I have bought a 10kWh battery for $3,500 ten years ago? Five?

It's possible, of course, that this would have happened without the subsidies, but given the rapid growth of this industry in the last few years, I think the burden is on you to offer some evidence that it's totally unrelated to the subsidies.

reply


They probably do increase ratio of electric cars, which in turn increases supply of infrastructure, which will lead to increased demand for electric cars even when the subsidies run out.

reply


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_2008%E2%80%9310_...

reply


We train them that way the internet is scarce, closed and walled.

The Internet used to be scarce, closed and walled in the US and Europe. People adjust to the new conditions as they develop.

A DSL line and a wifi router could cover a whole village and give the real deal.

You write "a DSL line" as if India wasn't a 3M km² country and with huge areas without even central electricity supply. What would be the cost of installing "a DSL line" for the 600k+ villages in India?

reply


2g Internet in India already has high penetration, with most urban areas (any place with >10000 population) having 3g access.

I am not sure about DSL lines, but BSNL (Indian public telecom operator) has faced this exact issue 10 years back when telephones (landlines) were becoming commonplace in India. We got a personal phone somewhere in '98 I believe. It only took a few more years before the telephone lines had reached Dangoli (which is my remote native village).

Today, the very same village boasts of multiple telecom operators (cellular). We have done this in the past, and we are doing exceedingly well even today.

reply


I wasn't criticizing India's development, just the plan of installing a DSL line for each village.

I am not sure about DSL lines, but BSNL (Indian public telecom operator) has faced this exact issue 10 years back when telephones (landlines) were becoming commonplace in India. We got a personal phone somewhere in '98 I believe. It only took a few more years before the telephone lines had reached Dangoli (which is my remote native village).

No doubt, yet there's a reason why your country has less than 28M landline subscribers, while it has 930M+ cellphones. Passing cable is expensive and inflexible (e.g. harder to upgrade). Mobile Internet access is a much more sensible solution for the current situation, in my opinion.

reply


Yes. Cellular is a much more better solution.

reply


> What would be the cost of installing "a DSL line" for the 600k+ villages in India?

Worthy

> without central electricity supply.

If you have electricity for a base station and charging phones, you also have for pbx and copper wire.

reply


Worthy

Care to say why?

If you have electricity for a base station and charging phones, you also have for pbx and copper wire.

I pointed that out not because there wouldn't be electricity to run the DSL system, but to show how difficult it has been to run electricity supply cables. DSL would have the same problems. And it would be obsolete the day it got installed.

I just don't see ADSL being anything than a more expensive and less flexible alternative to mobile Internet for their current situation.

reply


Nope, that was the original intention, but it's not been restricted for a long time, if it ever was.

reply


I was denied a .net in the mid-90s because I didn't even claim to operate internet infrastructure. Was too honest to add "and local infrastructure" to the usage statement and re-apply.

reply


But it's not ad-free, the ads[1] just blend in better.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/jobs

reply


Good point :)

reply


To corroborate: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/08/who-serves-...

reply


No, it's not completely new from scratch:

So we set about to create a new engine using IE11’s standards support as a baseline. I watched Justin Rogers, one of our engineers, press “Enter” on the commit that forked the engine—it took almost 45 minutes just to process it (just committing the changes, not building!).

http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2015/01/26/inside-microsofts...

reply


At the risk of getting pedantic... they basically deleted the majority of it.

>> In the coming months, swathes of IE legacy were deleted from the new engine. Gone were document modes. Removed was the subsystem responsible for emulating IE8 layout quirks. VBScript eliminated. Remnants like attachEvent, X-UA-Compatible, currentStyle were all purged from the new engine. The codebase looks little like Trident anymore (far more diverged already than even Blink is from WebKit). What remained was a clean slate.

At this point, they kept basic stuff any rendering engine would do but it's as clean a start as you can get.

reply


A clean engine is Servo. This just sounds like cleaning up the codebase.

reply


Cleaning up implies they didn't add anything else. This is a major reworking that changes the entire stack.

Do they have to write every single line from scratch again? That would be an enormous waste of time. Even if they started with a completely new repo, they would just copy/paste that stuff anyway. The important bits are all new and that's what matters.

reply


They don't "have" to do anything, nor am I criticizing them. I'm just saying that's it's not completely from scratch like people are saying. If they take this an some sort of attack, it's their problem.

reply


It's a Ship of Theseus[1]. You can call it a derivative of IE, but that is doing a disservice to what Edge has become.

[1] http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus

reply


Not really from scratch, they forked Trident, removed the crap and built from there.

reply


That still sounds like Microsoft to me.

reply


Really? With all the new things coming out of Redmond and with them open sourcing the full server side .NET stack[1], the description above still sounds like MS to you?

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8595905

reply


"All the new things" You mean, flooding the market without a proper direction? :)

As for open sourcing, I don't see how that invalidates any of the points. None of them had "keeping platforms proprietary".

reply


Exactly what could Microsoft do that would indicate to you that they have proper direction?

Alternatively, please point to a company that you think has proper direction and tell us why.

reply


imo, it invalidates the following:

2 - the platform is not stagnant, be it Windows or .NET - new things are coming out;

3 - there is a proper direction, less towards Windows/Office as desktop apps and more towards services;

5 - the updates do happen more often, and at least for .NET they're done in a transparent way (being open source and all)

reply

More

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: