skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Based on the researcher's comments about kindergarteners, they seem to think...

In this situation, one thing is supported by data, the other is inferred from what you think the researcher thinks.

Generally this forum looks down more on "they're indoctrinating our children with X!" claims without some actual data.
I despise ads, but I think paying for a stimulating, informative article (for example) with an ad view is inherently less destructive than paying for a meaningless, empty dopamine hit, or manufactured outrage.
Wouldn't a criticism of the form "you have no idea what you're talking about here. You don't have credential x or experience y" satisfy both constraints? You've demonstrated the person does not have the necessary domain experience. And yet you've not addressed the idea at all and only the person who proposed it.
Simple answer: No, this stuff is not good for you… get ready to shit your pants if you consume this lab goo on a regular basis.
Didn't know they did sausages. That could be a decent market to tackle. We don't typically make burgers at home, but we do often buy simple sausages as a quick meal for the kids. Usually the supermarket choice is premium sausages with more exotic combos (that I like but the kids don't), or basic plain ones which always seem a bit miserable. If we're buying plain sausages, might as well get something like this instead.
Yes, and? We're not using it for anything else. Saving 93% of the arid scrubland we use to raise cattle in the US wouldn't benefit us in any way.

OTOH, growing soy and other plant protein sources used for fake meat requires high-quality land and is extremely taxing on the soil.

As an interesting reference, take a look at how farmers in Brazil use deforested Amazon land to graze cattle only after depleting the soil to grow soy for a few years, at which point it is inhospitable to plant agriculture.
Terry had obvious mental illness. It's harder for me to be prejudiced against the imperfect nature of human brains than it is to evaluate work on its own merit.

As a counter example, do you feel comfortable benefitting from the work of people who you don't know haven't ever said or done anything that someone might find objectionable? If not, you're probably less morally or ethically motivated than you are susceptible to ostricism.
On the other hand /r/cryptocurrency introduced "moons" as tipping mechanism and the quality of the discussions went downhill really quick. Nowadays, there's lots of sob stories or random posts about how a person just bought in to some random coin, personal anecdotes, etc.

I think whatever tipping is implemented needs to be pretty much worthless (aka mostly symbolic), otherwise, people will just spend a lot of their time just trying to game it. In many parts of the world, even making a couple dollars a day is more than they would make in their local economy.
Just a heads up, you should use higher quality (or better, just use PNG) for the output.

The default Image.save quality is very low to a point that the JPEG artifact is more prominent than the line art themselves.

L91 @ data.py:
image_pil.save(image_path, format='PNG')
Better nutrition? I'd be surprised.
Not quite: https://www.wisconsinacademy.org/magazine/prions-plants
I believe all gofundme and similar links are given a rating penalty iirc
The project is much cleaner, and from the link you posted, the picture is noisy.
Also not familiar but presumably a temporal aspect weighs in, so whether something is a meaningful edge isn’t strictly dependent only on the content within a specific frame?
I also met up with acquaintances - quite a few in fact.

I participated quite a bit, but all of my acquaintances have stopped showing up too, even one who is a professional influencer.
According to https://waterfootprint.org/en/water-footprint/product-water-... , beef has a ~50x water footprint compared to vegetable.

It's hard to understand what "99% less impact on water scarcity" means but surely beyond meat can't use less water than vegetables? (since beyond meat is plant based)
The food that ruminants eat are mostly non-human edible leftovers, so they effectively reduce waste.
I don't know what this means, can you clarify?
Yeah that seems to be a problem.
Systemic racism no longer exists or at least I’m completely unaware of it. I find proponents of this theory like people who believe in big foot. Somehow he’s out there but they have zero evidence for it
Do you know of any good resources for learning ETH development? I've got the O'Reilly book Programming Bitcoin, but that obviously has nothing about Smart Contracts.
Aromat is great, but salt is the #1 ingredient in it.

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61RLf5EZveL...
California is no longer a big source of lumber because it's near impossible to get lumber out of the forests. Not sure what 1800 has to do with anything -- 90% of the trees need to go, and they need to go now. If someone is willing to cut them down and haul them away, then we should let them do that. Hell, we should pay them to do it.

"According to the California Forestry Association, tree density in the Sierra Nevada is too high when compared with the region’s historical rates, creating an elevated fire hazard. It estimates there was an average of 40 trees per acre in the Sierras roughly 150 years ago but puts that number today at hundreds of trees per acre [...]
The U.S. Forest Service estimates that California has 129 million dead trees, most in the central and southern Sierras. Insects and drought are to blame for the high numbers."

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/03/california-timber-firms-mayb...

But California makes this incredibly costly and difficult to do, even on private land. You need to submit 500 pages of paperwork for each cut, and the state has been notorious in dragging its heels to approve these harvesting plans.

In terms of the fascination with "old growth", an old growth tree is just a tree of a certain diameter, and these tend to survive forest fires.

Really the problem in California is that a lot of people from the East Coast have moved here and decided that forests were some precious resource that needs to be preserved as in Maine, rather than the dangerous pest that trees are in arid climates.

They just never got the memo that California is not New England and the role played by trees in our ecosystem is very different. California needs trees like Australia needs rabbits.

And so now we have 130 million dead trees, ready to kill hundreds of people, cause billions in property damage, and destroy air quality in the state, just so people can preserve these unscientific romantic notions of "preserving forests", when our top public policy priority should be to reduce the amount of land covered by forests back to safe levels.
This is a wonderful feature, including the ability to use picture-in-picture with YouTube videos.
> No one needed to die for you to eat it.

Except all those animals + insects that once inhabited the fields
Dopey middle class people who don’t know how to cook buy 95% lean ground beef or turkey, because fat and it costs more. Latchkey kids like me didn’t learn to cook unless we cooked it up ourselves. Dinner was a product.

If you use an appropriate cut of meat (like ground chuck), you don’t really need to salt as the meat has flavor. Salt will bring out more flavor, but you don’t need a lot.
Well everything I’ve ever read says otherwise and it’s often referred to as an interpreter.

http://progopedia.com/language/b/

>B is an interpreted programming language for mini-computers, a direct descendant of BCPL and ancestor of C.

http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/taoup/html/c_evolution.htm...

>based on Ken Thompson's earlier B interpreter which had in turn been modeled on BCPL,

Iirc, and it’s been a while since I’ve read the history of Unix. B started as an interpreted language but evolved into C as types were added and it was switched to compiled to better interact with UNIX operating system internals (with Ritchie wanting to rewrite large portions of Unix in the new language.)
This point is moot. Saying that people randomly emerge in all countries implies the stage of pre-birth during which a person hasn't been born yet, but a roulette is about to decide its destination, gender and other traits. This is basically the soul theory and if it's true, the new "assignment" for that soul would be decided based on its earned qualities. Buddhism, in other words. If we reject this idea and state that each person gets created at the point of delivery, then that new person never had "odds of being born rich or poor" for there was no person whose fate would be decided.
If this can be taught to children then it absolutely should be. Feeling like nothing is under your control is guaranteed to lead to stress and anxiety.
when this sort of data can distinguish between walking normally and walking drunk, identify the sex of the wearer, whether they're carrying heavy objects, etc, yes, it can distinguish between playing basketball, running, and sex.

this data can be 9D (accelerometer/gyroscope/compass), it's much finer-grained than "moving a bunch or not", and it wouldn't even take those kinds of movement analyses to differentiate between "horizontal, active, and highly correlated with person B (estimate: sex)" and "vertical, active, highly correlated with person B (estimate: dancing)"
That's probably true. It's probably also true that there are nutritional pros and cons to both. If we could engineer the "ideal" meat for nutrition, it probably wouldn't be exactly the same as real beef.
And the company is taking full advantage of that.

"Trust us."

Yet no company wants more personal information from you than this one. They want everything. Even when they have so much, they are going to great lengths to get more.

They are not in the security business, they are in the online ad sales business.
I mostly agree with you and personally love beyond ground "beef". However, it is going to be a long time before we replace meat. The only way is if we can produce it cheap enough that it literally costs an average person more to buy conventional 85/15 ground beef.
> The jobs they're being rejected for are run of the mill ones too, nothing to do with "striving for the top".

This is absolutely not true and you're just perpetuating the myth.

One of them was the head of another project at the company I worked at pre-covid. He liked the company we were at, but had to move across the country because of some family issues and wasn't sure if the company we were at would let him work remote full time, so he started interviewing so he could have a fall back if they said no. It took him about 6 weeks of interviewing to get 2 different offers. Both interviews were from companies you've probably heard of, but neither were companies I would classify as "tech companies".

If you've got more than a few years experience and are looking in the right places, there are tons of people who don't care that you aren't writing what ever the latest technology is.

Big cities that aren't traditionally "tech cities" have tons of these jobs. Also, like I mentioned above, big companies that aren't tech companies, but have internal tools that need to be maintained have these positions as well (regional banks, large school districts/colleges).
College admissions in the US are messed up. There is no way for a student to be in control of their destiny through hard work, because there are far too many variables and randomness in college admissions.

Ideally what colleges should do is to use a standardized test and go strictly by the results of the standardized test. Standardized tests are not perfect, but if there are flaws in standardized tests then fix them, because it is better than the alternatives. The advantage for students would be predictability and being in control of their own destiny. Students would not have to apply to 12 to 15 colleges, instead the would apply to 2 to 3. The benefits for colleges would be better predictability as well. Today colleges use complex mathematical models to predict who is likely to accept their admission offers. Then they use "yield protection" to avoid admitting highly qualified students who are unlikely to accept admission offers. It is complicated.

Colleges can use complex data analysis to guess which students are likely to accept but hapless students can’t run data analysis to determine which colleges are likely to accept. Colleges, especially public ones, ought to minimize the guesswork and use more objective criteria to admit students. Students need to be able to control their own destiny through hard work. That’s only possible if guesswork and data analytics and so on is minimized.

Other countries such as UK use test scores for college admissions. At one time the US too used scores. But US colleges introduced subjective criteria ("holistic reviews") because far too many Jewish people were getting admitted when they used objective criteria. (Not kidding, see https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2019/03/histor... ).

Even public universities perform complex gymnastics to decide which 4.0 GPA student to admit. Even when two students have taken the exact same courses (including AP courses) and have the same GPA, colleges do not consider them the same. (See here https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-04-12/covid-co... )
What about the rest of us? Should we just be just be shunted to the second, third, and fourth rungs of society because we didn’t have the right extracurriculars or only got a 1450 instead of a 1550? 99% of Americans have never attended and likely could not gain admittance to the top 20 schools, to paraphrase William Jennings Bryan the rest of us should not be crucified on a cross of Ivy.
The Beyond Beef burgers that my local burger chain (Grill’d) sell are pretty good, too. They’re a little drier than a good beef patty and a bit sweeter, but if you told me it was beef I think I would believe you, albeit not cooked perfectly.

My understanding is that popular opinion says Impossible is even closer, though I haven’t tried it personally.
The origin of Covid: Did people or nature open Pandora’s box?
@dang: could we please change the link to the actual website for the language (https://grain-lang.org/)?
This is the case for almost all food you eat, unless you survive by foraging.
There is a weird discontinuity in the data for 2020 which your quote - it was 12.3% the previous year according to https://lginform.local.gov.uk/reports/lgastandard?mod-metric...

This is also a proportion of students who take A levels which is already filtering down to about 38% of the population in that age group (766k 18 year olds in U.K. so about 643k in England of which about 250k take at least one A level.)

So in a normal year that 12.3% of A level students getting 3 A’s is only 4.8% of the age cohort.

Edit: I should add that medicine is about the hardest subject to get into in U.K. (other than vet med which has so few places) and one of the only ones where they expect you to demonstrate suitability beyond academic performance, e.g. work experience in a caring setting. (Source: shared a house with a med student in undergrad.)
I really enjoy both BeyondBeef and Impossible Burger.

My thoughts are that BeyondBeef has a kind of plastic-y smell, but is almost exactly right in terms of color and texture.

The smell is not concerning to me, but it is distinct for my palette. I still eat it, and don't mind. Aside from the burgers, I also really enjoy the spicy Italian sausages. There is a slightly different taste than pork-based sausages, but I would never complain about a Beyond Meat spicy sausage in my Italian food. The sweet Italian version tastes almost like a breakfast sausage to me.

For Impossible Burgers, I feel like the taste is virtually 100%. I don't actually know, if I were eating an impossible burger on a bun with the fixings, if I could tell you it was an impossible burger. The only thing they would lose on is the texture and maybe the color. The texture is more... chipped(?) than ground beef, so looking at a patty (probably easier with an 8oz than a 4oz) is pretty obvious, but man, the flavor is great.

Like I said, I eat either one of them as my first choice whenever they're sold at a restaurant.
Move to the east coast! We waste water like it's water.
That nutritional profile also includes increased risk of GI tract cancers among other serious conditions, so I'm not sure what the argument you're trying to make is.
IIRC someone was working on a seaweed-based feed additive to cut down on the methane production, not sure what came of it.
I have indeed tried them, and they aren't as nice as a real beef burger in my opinion. And as a predatory animal, the fact that something "needs to die" for me to feed doesn't factor into the equation. (Of course, you can certainly reduce cruelty if you move away from a US-style factory farming model).

Looking forward to seeing how the technology develops, but yeah. It hasn't changed my habits yet.
I’m always surprised to hear folks having such negative opinions of beyond and impossible burgers. I quite like the taste despite it not being an exact beef flavour, and I think the texture is more or less spot on.
While I assign pretty significant utilitarian value to "stop eating animals", it still falls a few orders of magnitude short of "provide for the health and wellbeing of humans".

We are, at the very least, decades away from having a complete enough understanding of nutrition to safely replace the nutritional value of beef with a substitute fake beef product. Once we accomplish that, there are some second-order effects to worry about, like increasing single-path reliance on complex agrochemical supply chains to meet basic nutritional needs.

It's also worth keeping in mind that living off plants generally kills more total animals (although smaller animals) than living off medium-large animals.
And tastes 99.9% worse than real meat.
So many animals die at the blades of the harvester. Also, the reason the argument fares poorly is likely due to the fact that it’s devoid of reason and couched entirely in emotion. Emotion is powerful and important, as it is part of our humanity. But it’s not a good basis for argument, given its fickle and poorly understood nature.
The parent is actually talking about a far larger category that existed commercially in a studied way long before the Kardashians, it's simply: sex sells.

Madonna knew it in the 1980s. Britney or Jessica Simpson knew it in the 1990s. Paris Hilton knew it in the 2000s. The Kardashians have known it the past 15 years. Hugh Hefner knew it 70 years ago. Every model of consequence knows it.

The Kardashians are extraordinarily talented at selling sexuality. They know how to package it. They know how to market it. They intentionally replicated the system that worked so well for Kim, on to Kylie Jenner as she came of age.

Once you gain an initial position via your sexuality, leverage it into further gains. Sex rarely fails to sell.

And the parent is also correct in that it mostly (not exclusively) works for women, regardless of the downvotes attempting to change human nature and reality. A few male celebrities have benefitted tremendously from the effect, including Brad Pitt and Matthew McConaughey (how many famous male models can you name from the past 20-30 years though?).
More crops are grown to feed the livestock than people, so if you want to save the field animals and insects, going plant based will save even more.
Which is still a lot less death and suffering than factory farming livestock produces. (Aside from the fact that growing cattle to eat requires a lot more acreage under cultivation--to feed the cattle--than growing plants to eat.)

It's impossible to feed people without causing some death. But that doesn't mean we can't work to minimize it.
I guess the difference would be though, that without the demand for meat, those cows would likely never have lived at all. 99%+ of all cows alive are used for human agriculture.

From the perspective of any living creature, I generally think of existence as a positive good versus non-existence. I know I certainly would rather come to a violent death at a young age than have never been born at all.

I think there's a plausible argument that modern factory farming is so horrific that it's worse than non-existence. But a cow raised with a decent quality of life, and slaughtered humanely for its meat does not seem worse for animal welfare than eliminating the entire existence of the cow.

(Of course I realize there's ecological and health arguments for giving up meat, but purely talking along the dimension of animal welfare.)
While the OP might not have intended it this way, that's also a formula for perpetuating any 'difficult circumstances' that happen to be profitable for others.

A simple example which was in the news this week due to a Supreme court case: crack sentencing disparities. You made a bad life choice and sold 50 grams of cocaine and got caught, you might go away for 2 years and then turn your life around. But if you sold 5 grams of crack and got caught, you were probably going away for 20 years. The penalties for crack were literally 100 times higher.

Now, consuming crack is really bad for you, but consider the situation of some kid without much life experience that is tempted into making a quick buck. Depending on where they happen to be and what's in front of them, the same failure of morality/judgment would have staggeringly different consequences.
Please consider spending the ~hour or so it takes to read this. Yes, this is a repost, but I'm posting it because it hardly grabbed any attention the first couple of times people posted it. [1] [2] Yes, it's long, but it's very much worth the read.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27056327

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27062021
I agree with you, that is especially the case for burgers that are usually not made of particularly refined meat. I’m still "old style" and enjoy a piece of steak but less than once a week. I still need to cut down on ham… decrease in meat consumption is rational. It’s mostly a matter of habit, and people hate changing those.
True, however proponents for animal cruelty don't often* factor in the destruction of natural biodiversity, and generally only care about the 'big' animals that they can 'see'.

*Edit, removed the blanket generalisation. I know a lot of people do care about broader biodiversity, it's just not quite as commonly seen.
That's a very cool way of putting it, and you're right. Beyond Beef isn't more different from beef than buffalo is, for sure.
Cows are fed by plants that grow on the same kind of fields, except cows need to eat many pounds of food to generate one pound of cow.
Twitter Tip Jar
Not that I expect you to care, but I'm not buying it. I was specifically asked what changes I proposed to alleviate the problem discussed in the submission. I gave an answer briefly detailing a system that has been and continues to be used around the world. You don't like that system, so you banned my account.

I never said I wanted to shame women. I said I thought society should do it to alleviate a problem I consider very serious, not because I'm personally enthusiastic about doing it. I think people around here are able to understand the nuance.

>You've been creating accounts to break HN's rules with for a long time now.

Now I'm starting to think you just don't like me.