justinpowers

I often open the fridge to find it packed with vegetables, fruits, eggs and other healthy ingredients. I then close the fridge, about 2 minutes later, still empty-handed and still hungry, saying aloud to myself and to whoever will hear…

      ”There’s no food!”

So, I completely understand.

“Feature” can mean “physical beauty” as well as simply “appearance” or “form”, though all such are considered obsolete usages.

This may just be a side-effect of the insurgence of new POS systems and customer-facing systems.

Many of the newer POS systems were first developed with the hospitality industry in mind. In those cases, tipping is on by default. These POS systems have since expanded into retail and convenience stores, leaving tipping on by default. The shop owners have little incentive to turn it off, or may not even know how to turn it off.

Additionally most older POS systems were not operated by the customer and so did not display set percentages. They relied upon manual input based on a signed receipt. So percentage norms were mostly word-of-mouth. Nowadays, with customer-facing POS systems, it’s easier to just provide a percentage button. And the owner or manager or even the lowly register attendant, can adjust as needed. And of course, higher defaults are better for all of them (within reason).

Most POS systems do not charge per transaction, neither by count nor dollar amount. It’s usually an upfront or flat monthly fee, based on number of terminals, level of service and feature set.

I agree. But I optimistically believe that decline will soon experience a renaissance.

We’re gonna start declining again. We’re gonna decline so much. We’re gonna decline at every level. We’re gonna decline economically. We’re gonna decline with the economy. We’re gonna decline with military. We’re gonna decline with healthcare and for our veterans. We’re gonna decline with every single facet.

We’re gonna decline so much you may even get tired of declining. And you’ll say “Please! Please! It’s too much declining! We can’t take it anymore. Mr President, it’s too much!”

And he’ll say “No it isn’t. We have to keep declining. We have to decline MORE! We’re gonna decline MORE! We’re gonna decline so much! I love you America. You’re gonna be so happy!”

Ahh yes. Soon. Soon.

Striped pie anyone?

It was a jo…oh never mind. Forgot where I was.

Well some ancient ape’s “clones” have already spread around and multiplied uncontrollably. Who’s to stay that this one’s won’t either?

This whole thread is equivalent to two people on opposite sides of the Earth arguing about whether the sun will be rising or setting.

Just go buy some sunscreen already.

“Sousveillance”, as a term, was new to me.

In case it’s new to anyone else:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sousveillance

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18493797

There are absolutely risks, but not to the degree that op's comment suggests.

If one is worried about a microdose, then one can choose to start with 1% of a microdose (or whatever minimal amount one can accurately measure) and then move up slowly.

Just like...exercise. Hence the forever present disclaimer: "Consult with your doctor before beginning this or any new exercise routine." One wouldn't start off with an ultramarathon when they could just walk around the block.

If, on the otherhand, you believe that _any_ amount is a risk, then at this stage it's up to you to provide that evidence. This isn't some new and mysterious chemical, it's been taken for millenia, intentionally or not.

The bigger issue is that people just assume that they don't need guidance or preparation. Or they ignore set and setting. Or they believes there's only one right dose or no such thing as a wrong dose. Or they simply don't know the dose because it's in whole mushroom form. And so they just take whatever they're told and then wait to see what happens.

These are where the risk comparison between exercise and psilocybin breaks down, because if you do make a mistake, you cannot abort the process as easily as you can with exercise. Once you've taken it, you're in for the ride.

But that's quite different from "it messes with your brain".

And thus exercise “messes” with your brain as well. For consistency, you should probably steer clear of that too.

> Biofeedback research in the 60's and 70's seemed to show that you could learn to communicate with your own tissues down to individual cells.

Trying to find more on this. Do you have a link or a good search term to point me in the right direction? (Specifically regarding affecting individual cells; brain state biofeedback overwhelms the search results)

Resistance won’t be needed if you name it 'Ohm'.

Most “walkability” scores either directly or indirectly account for crime. For instance, residents rate walkability and are specifically asked to consider crime and safety. Or, conversely, walkability is measured based on the number of actual walkers and the number of walk-accessible amenities in a given area.

High crime areas would naturally have fewer walkers and fewer amenities.

I can’t speak to Baltimore, but in Chicago, crime and scarcity of amenities go hand-in-hand. I can’t think of a single pedestrian-focused area that has both amenities and a significant crime problem (one must understand that Chicago crime is not nearly as prevalent or evenly dispersed as the media and non-Chicagoans enjoy imagining).

If you became that fly, you’d soon wish to be squashed rather than listen to adolescent chitchat.

Nah, you can’t subscribe to death. But…long, deep and recurring sleeps on the other hand…only to be jolted awake for another arduous day of boring existence until you pay the meter to be put back to sleep. Now that’s a profit stream

This is very interesting. Similar to a path I almost went down with some partners, but it fizzled due to too many unknowns and lack of energy to research them. Would you be willing to expound on your arrangement? Either here or privately. In particular…

What legal structure are you each using? sole proprietorships, llcs, s-corps? (Assuming you’re US based)

Are there any tax benefits/costs to this arrangement?

Has the government hassled you regarding the arrangement? (It sounds like it has, but…how exactly and how did you respond?)

Have counterparties hassled you or been scared off? Do they even “know” of the arrangement?

Are there significant legal/transaction costs between the three of you? If not, is that simply because you have strong trust in each other?

> Sovereignty of a nation is built on the sovereign individuals.

This is just wrong. Sovereignty is a term for having ultimate authority. This can be had by any kind of government as long as it is the ultimate authority over what it claims to govern. This can include a dictatorship even if it might not recognize the authority of the individual over their own body.

Whether or not other countries recognize another country’s sovereignty is another matter. As in the case at hand, Russia clearly does not recognize Ukraine’s and so it violates it. This qualifies as rape according to one of many definitions for the term. And that’s an accurate and appropriate labeling.

But, and this is my point, it doesn’t make your particular analogy accurate or fair. You are equating the rape of a nation with that of an individual. In particular, you are using the typical cliched scenario of the attacker being drawn in by the victim’s dress, which is usually used to suggest the perpetrator could not control themselves due to the supposed unspoken solicitation and temptation of the victim’s dress. This is not at all like Russia and Ukraine. This is not defensive, or even attempting to claim so. It’s just claiming powerlessness, a lack of agency. And Russia is doing nothing of that sort. It’s doing quite the opposite.

You even end your comment with:

> I hope no women in your family are raped by men with logic similar to your own, because you'll be blaming them.

You are suggesting that the two situations are so similar that the target of your comment wouldn’t be able to differentiate between them either.

Strange. A rape victim has a traumatic personal experience that the abstract entity we call a nation could never have, being that it doesn’t have a personal experience at all. The difference would undoubtably be quite apparent to loved ones.

And while the citizens of the nation would likely be wildly upset, unless their own individual sovereignty was also violated they would surely not have the same experience as that of a rape victim. This would be self evident just by asking any person whether they’d rather their own nation or their own sovereignty be violated. But we don’t need to ask, because we already know what the answer would be.

I’m going to bow out of the rest of this discussion though since I don’t even like talking about it. Fortunately I have never gone through either experience. And because of that, it doesn’t feel right for me to discuss the differences like I truly know the differences. Hopefully the same is true for you as well.

Edit, to preempt any misreading: I am not in anyway defending Russia. Their actions are despicable and Ukraine does not deserve any of it. Russia _is_ raping Ukraine, but that reality is very different from an individual’s despite the use of the same term.

That seems more retributive than defensive. It’s only construed as defensive when the attacker is forced to justify themselves, to themselves and others, to avoid shame and guilt. Consider the cliche of “defending one’s honor”. This phrase assumes the rightfulness of the aggressor’s actions. It begs the question.

This is a misleading and, frankly, rather disgusting analogy.

The sovereignty of an individual, especially over one’s own body, and the sovereignty of a nation are not even near equivalents.

And yes, I know that at this time the sovereignty of individual Ukrainians, men and women, is being horribly violated. But this did not need to happen even if the sovereignty of the nation itself was violated. It’s a separate matter for which Russians, especially individual soldiers and their commanders, bear direct blame for. They could have chosen another, less disgusting, far less inhumane means to gain control of Ukraine.

As well, despite the clear propaganda behind it, Russia can at least claim that they felt threatened by Ukraine’s chummy relationship with the narcissistic and occasionally-aggressive Uncle Sam. This entirely breaks your analogy as rape is never a defensive maneuver no matter how one might twist it.

No sugars might have been better said as “less sugars” for the pedantic amongst us.

Never said there was no mechanical cleaning. But they certainly didn’t have our “advanced” toothbrushes, toothpastes and mouthwashes. In fact, I’d say “mechanical washing” was an unavoidable aspect of eating harder foods rather than the soft, sticky processed items we tend towards today. And furthermore, with less stickiness (gluten and sugars) they would have needed less mechanical washing.

Anyways, lifestyle changes don’t need to be all or nothing to have a measurable effect

And yes even good bacteria can/will be bad at some point. Nonetheless they are still better than most others and will help maintain homeostasis for as long as time allows. We haven’t yet found a cure for time-related degeneration/accumulation, have we? But again, maybe I should have said “better bacteria” rather than “good”

Non-paywalled pre-publication version:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7853625/

There’s good (and bad) bacteria all over our bodies. Our skin is coated with them and needs to be coated with them. Without the good ones on our skin, bad ones take over, and then any cuts become more likely to get infected.

I’ll update later with a source reference or two. But I’m willing to bet that Wikipedia‘s “skin flora” page has good info. Im not sure of the term for the mouth’s flora though…but I have zero doubt that it exists, simply because bacteria is everywhere. And gut bacteria get there via the mouth.

Long story short, there’s no such thing as a pure human. We exist only because we are colonized by bacteria. We’re kind of like the earth in that regard. We house living organisms and they make us what we are, without them homeostasis crumbles and so do we. So, with that in mind, we should be selectively helping the good ones and killing the bad, instead of wiping them all out.

Regarding replacing the gut bacteria with suitable enzymes for digestion, that would probably be misguided. The bacteria do more than just help digestion… they also keep bad bacteria out. And furthermore, they actually affect our mental health, keeping depression at bay for instance. Whether that’s indirectly via suppressing inflammation or some more direct means, I don’t recall.

Edit: Looks like it’s a much more direct means of influence: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31100533 (There doesn’t seem to be much about this here on HN already, so I’m providing a source via HN submission in hopes of generating some discussion…)

You jest but you’re wiser than you realize, especially if you include a diet change as part of the driver.

Good diet (no sugars) and avoidance of broad-spectrum bactericides will allow good bacteria to thrive, pushing out the bad smelly ones.

People have noticed similar beneficial responses, ie lack of disgusting body odor, when quitting hot soapy showers or the use of antiperspirants.

Just gotta make sure diet goes with it. Along with general common sense cleanliness.

This. Especially those with real power, such as trillion dollar corporations.