Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | beeforpork's commentslogin

You don't say.

And while we pump CO2 into the atmosphere, we also shrink the engines that could get it out again, like the rainforest in Brazil. Perfect optimisation!

(I don't want to shame Brazil, it's a global chain of problems. And other forests are decimated, too, like in Sweden and Estonia, for the demand of produce worldwide.)


> while, of course, consumers get nothing

This would have been the case no mattern what.


Same here. And I have a friend who keeps his small IPhone because they stopped building smaller phones, too. There is a demand, maybe not that big.

For me, I want to be able to operate the phone with one hand, and the large screen makes it difficult to reach all the spots on the screen even with large hands. I do operate my Fairphone 5 with one hand, but it is super awkward and at some point, the phone will fall into a gully because I cannot hold it tight while navigating.

And I wouldn't mind 2mm more thickness if this means the cameras are flush with the back and the battery is larger.


> There is a demand, maybe not that big.

Whenever I see this when talking about small phones, I'm reminded of the stats, where the iPhone minis were a small proportion of iPhone sales but still by themselves outsold most manufacturers.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39104057


my sm-a260f is too smoll


And step relative sexual activity is prohibited?

This is about forbidding the depiction of such activity, so I don't think logic will help.


There seems to be a nuance (which is missing from the title).

The initial paragraph refers to activities which are prohibited.

    Peers agreed by a majority of one to ban videos and images depicting
    relationships that would not be allowed in real life.
There's perhaps a little more nuance (sexual activity with a step- partner has as an age of consent of 18, rather than the more-typical age of consent of 16)

    They also agreed to bring intimate pictures and videos of adults
    pretending to be children in line with similar images of real children.


So, what, I need to search for 'sister's friend' instead of 'hermanastra'? 'hot' OK?

face palm


> But roughly 15% are plausible: “wooden chair,” “morning coffee.” That’s still 30 billion sensible pairs.

(1) Who counted those? Whence those numbers?

(2) The examples are normal two-word phrases with one word modifying the other, often categorised as an adjective. The examples are counter-examples to the very claim made in that article.

(3) Using Clause to brainstorm s.t. is a weird thing to say...

(4) I would say the use of 'lexicalized' is wrong or at least uncommon. It usually refers to specialised semantics of something that could be interpreted generically, too. Like 'sleeping bag'. Or indeed 'cold feet'. Lexicalisation may involve deleting spaces, like 'hotdog'. And I am pretty sure lexicalised phrasal words are usually intensionally listed in dictionaries. And so 'ice' is not lexicalised 'frozen water', but it is not overtly a phrase but is a separate atomic word.

=> I don't get the point.


My bad. there's a little sidebar about it, but I put it lower after the chart because there wasn't room. You might still not find my logic on the 15% satisfying, but it's there.


This site made it my habit to search for granny knots on people's shoes on public transportation.


Did anyone else find it wrong that trends like fat-free, lots-of-fat, keto, proteins, sugar-free, low-carb are put in the same category as trends like GMO-free, organic, natural, clean? Lack of differentiation in this regard unmasks the article as opinionated and over-generalizing in a way that I have to ignore it, I think.

Sure, some market dynamics may be similar, and all are probably luxury topics, but the underlying intent and motivation of customers is completely different. The article's main point is to criticise blindly following bogus and unscientific health trends. But this is not really justified for decisions to avoid dirt, food additives, and optimised and exploitive farming methods.


Yeah, a "natural" or "clean" diet sounds precisely as well-reasoned and effective as a "paleo" diet.


Fair enough. :-)


GMO free is anti-scientific. At least a ton of overlap between those who pursue it and also have a whole lot of other woo-woo food related eccentricities. A rounding error of people against it when you talk to them will bring up "big ag" monopolies/etc. which are legitimate concerns vs. various vague health concerns from eating it.

Organic I suppose is borderline. My parents were in this space as farmers, and the commercial scale operations putting the "certified organic" labels on mass produced food would be largely indistinguishable from the farm or large ag business next door. It devolved into a near-meaningless label to me seeing how it's been completely gamed to the point of being meaningless.

I put all this stuff - including the fad diets - somewhere on the "started from a kernel of truth and descended into crazy" spectrum.


This makes me sad, because you are probably right. It's not the day for brightening my worldview.


The dietary equivalent of syncretism nonsense.


Hmm, but the accusations are so vague that it's going to be even more speculation, don't you think?


Yes, and that speculation is going to be entirely around "what did adafruit do" and not "what did sparkfun do".


There is no such thing as bad publicity...


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

Search: