Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | o0-0o's comments login

I love Koreans. Come on, let's all get on board. The Germans never did a Sauerkraut fridge. :)


As a German married to a Korean, it was a definite upgrade to my Sauerkraut.

Jokes aside, the kimchi fridge is indeed quite common in Korea, and the household justification is typically that you don't want the kimchi's aroma to interact with all your other refrigerated food supply.

Especially the older generation makes kimchi infrequently in large batches, and it's very common to share the fruits of the labor among the different households in the family (you often leave with it on family visits), so it's routinely well stocked with the remains of various batches.

I'm most familiar with the single or double drawer types, integrated into the more modern kitchen aisles, making it easy to tower above and access the tubs/jars/containers. Since you usually wind up having one anyway, you're also gonna use it.


Almost no one makes their own sauerkraut in Germany (except some hippies/hipsters maybe) - it’s dirt cheap to buy and really good.

I might be ignorant but for me the flavour of kimchi is far more complex and varied - sauerkraut is pretty much always the same.


The problem with kimchi is that it is spicy. I won't understand why you'd ruin a perfectly good sauerkraut by making it spicy.

If you make your own sauerkraut, or anything else fermented really, the flavour is much more complex and varied than the store bought stuff.


There's quite a few different variants of kimchi, including non-spicy ones, known as white kimchi (백김치): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baek-kimchi

There's also diced radish kimchis (깍두기), sometimes non-spicy as well.


It's also the OG kimchi as Koreans didn't have red peppers until the Columbian Exchange (but have been preserving vegetable via brines since the Three Kingdoms era)!


Thanks, I will check it out!


If you can't eat normal kimchi due to spiciness, there are variants of kimchi that aren't spicy and resemble sauerkraut or doesn't even include cabbage at all.


So, more "black and brown" people (your words not mine), and less, what, White and Yellow and Red people and Purple people? = success? That sounds a bit racist to me, just saying.


Apparently Indians don’t count as Brown.


In DEI parlance, black and brown refers to African-Americans and Latinos, although, curiously they also do accept African H1B visa holders in this group, despite them typically having high education, wealth from home, etc.


> curiously they

Who is the "they" here. Whenever I see a pronoun (especially "they" it's always "they") with no referent, I ask this question.


In standard English "they" clearly refers to those that use DEI parlance.


When I have read writings on DEI, they usually talk about "African-Americans," a term historically used to refer to the descendants of slavery. Which writings by DEI professionals and experts have you read that say African H1B visa holders should be included in DEI initiatives?


> Which writings by DEI professionals and experts have you read ...

None. I'm a third party HN commentator that dropped in to address the incorrect assertion that the sentence in question contained a "they" with no referent.

I have six decades of reading, writing, and speaking Commonwealth English and four or so with American English and felt the user who asked could use the grammar assist.


But they are included. Because the companies talk about demographics and include "black" as one of those. A group which mixes African-Americans and African immigrants together


Achieving representation closer to that of the wider population is not racist.


Which population? FB hires from everywhere in the world and sponsors visas. Having an employee base that’s 30% Chinese and 30% indian should thus be the goal.


To start with, you can sort the employee records into a visa pile and a not-visa pile.


If you have to force something, it is. And it's being forced. If we made more white play in the NBA it might seem clearer.


You are explicitly considering a man's race, that is racism.


Are you serious? Measuring something is not discrimination.


You are explicitly considering a man's race for something that is irrelevant to that consideration, in this case to answer whether to hire/admit them.

You must consider a man's race if this concerns something relevant to that consideration such as their medical history. This is not one of them; there are actually very few instances where asking a man's race is necessary.


The person above was just saying that having a closer balance of hires to the greater population was a good thing. They didn't talk about how companies got there. We shouldn't just assume they got there by using race while deciding whether to hire or not. Maybe they did something else, or maybe they found some existing racism in hiring decisions and removed it.


The only way to change employee racial composition is to hire and terminate on a racial basis. The only way to force that composition to mirror social composition is to do so explicitly and strictly on racial basis.

A lot of factors go into proper hiring and terminations, most significantly the merits of the individual concerned. Such factors will lead to an employee racial composition that might not mirror that of social composition.

Certain hiring practices like favoring women for flight attendants and black men for basketball teams should be terminated with extreme prejudice, but to force employee racial composition and specifically that one way or any other is racism.


> The only way to change employee racial composition is to hire and terminate on a racial basis.

I put an example of another way in my last post. If you're creative, you can think of more.

Another one is seeking out people and inviting them to apply, at which point they enter the normal unbiased hiring process.


> The only way to change employee racial composition is to hire and terminate on a racial basis

That's ludicrous. If I hire only from Harvard, but then I start hiring from state schools as well, the employee racial composition is highly likely to change.


But is the goal to hire from certain schools or to hire certain races?

The axiom presented is that the employee composition must mirror the surrounding social composition, ergo you are hiring for racial reasons because you must set quotas and then hire based upon satisfying (and not exceeding) those quotas.

As an example, if the social composition is composed of 40% Earthlings, 30% Martians, 20% Venusians, and 10% Mercurians and your workforce consists of 10 men: You cannot ever hire more than 4 Earthlings or 3 Martians or 2 Venusians or 1 Mercurian and must refuse or terminate any excess. If you cannot hire even 1 Mercurian at all you arguably can't hire anyone.

That's racist.


Using quotas like that would be racist.

But the idea of quotas is something you pulled out of nowhere. It was not part of the conversation until you showed up.

It's a strawman.

Also the post up above was talking about statistics with error bars a thousand people wide. The idea of having a demographic match with 10 employees is... also a strawman.


I agree life is seldom as simple as the examples, the small numbers are just for sake of brevity.

In any case, none of that takes away from the crux of this conversation that programmes like mirroring surrounding demographics and others are discriminatory and have no place in free and civilized societies today.


It's a good idea to measure the imbalance, and sometimes it's a good idea to try to do something to work against it. It requires a lot of care, but it's not inherently wrong. When there are a bunch of bad actors, everyone else trying to be completely neutral leaves things quite unbalanced.


[flagged]


Man as in mankind.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/man

>1a(1): an individual human

>b: the human race : HUMANKIND

>c: a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens) that is anatomically related to the great apes but distinguished especially by notable development of the brain with a resultant capacity for articulate (see ARTICULATE entry 1 sense 1a) speech and abstract reasoning, and is the sole living representative of the hominid family


We're obviously not putting the master branch in charge of exploiting a bunch of slave branches.

And "a man" doesn't refer to mankind/humankind.


Interesting comment. Any thoughts on what you can use now?


The same thing? The community will maintain it


Hmmm

Raves died in the 90s for a few reasons.

1. They made dancing illegal (look it up before rage comments).

2. Corporate sponsors moved in.

3. Glow sticks / candy ravers

4. Drugs

5. Police tactics and not being able to be paid off by promoters.

6. The internet (remember map points and info lines?)

7. Models, actresses, famous types going and demanding special service / VIP.

8. DJ as GOD sick gross

9. OG promoters cashing out and not caring. Think Drop Bass and Daft Punk (google it).

10. Techno mainstream / a la hip hop. (DRUGS/S&M)


I hope the Chinese people will be free one day, and I hope their lifespan goes up.

#58 is nothing to be proud of. Work to death. Not very fun.

https://www.worldometers.info/demographics/life-expectancy/


Isn't this going to just force the insurance companies to close shop and not offer any coverage in California? They don't have to do business there.


They are forced to provide coverage, but can pass through their reinsurance costs. If you cannot afford it, you will either sell the property (if you have a mortgage, as your lender will require insurance) or pay off the mortgage and go without insurance.

> In exchange for increasing coverage, the state will let insurance companies pass on the costs of reinsurance to California consumers. Insurance companies typically buy reinsurance to avoid huge payouts in case of natural disasters or catastrophic loss. California is the only state that doesn’t already allow the cost of reinsurance to be borne by policy holders, according to Lara’s office.

> Opponents of the rule say that could hike premiums by 40% and doesn’t require new policies to be written at a fast enough pace. The state did not provide a cost analysis for potential impact on consumers.

Opponents of the rule want subsidies for poor risk decisions. Consumers want what they cannot afford.


Continental in Quebec. Go there. Keep them in business. They have Steak Diane, and a bunch of other Continental classics cooked table side. Not to be missed.

https://restaurantlecontinental.com/en/

One of the best restaurants on the planet, and zero pretentiousness. ~_*


The food on VIA rail is still pretty good.


Not very funny. Making fun of people with disease? Show some class here, please.


Depends on your culture. In many places dealing with bad things humorously is preferred to being all stone-faced about them. One of my grandparents has dementia and since nobody can change that, the family generally tries to be light-hearted about it. Sure, it's tough for everyone involved, for those who he doesn't recognize, those who take care of him, and for himself, but there's no need to make it drag you down more than necessary. Imagine you're struggling with some condition that affects your every remaining waking moment and impedes your ability to interact with those around you, and everyone is all stone-faced about it to boot. Humor is a way to make the best out of a bad situation.

Everything has it's time and place of course, but this was one of the least-bad places one could've made that particular joke. Everyone knows dementia sucks, but for now it's an inevitability for many people. There's no need to make it worse by being all doom and gloom about it.


Woah, wait. There is soursop juice! Pow!!


Yup. Personally I think he might have dirt on Paul Graham.


Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

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

Search: