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

do you think these are comparable? are you equating lobbying to the infiltration of government systems or coordinated efforts by Russian assets inside a campaign team to influence elections?

yea considering they made 6 bullet points all just to say "rated and tested capacities are usually different" reeked of pedantry (although not surprising as we are on a tech site) and IMO did not warrant the label of "very poorly researched article"

ant-seed oil is anti-scientific and prays on people being ignorant about the research on health outcomes and relies on emotional appeals and appeals to nature such as "the genetic engineering and solvent-based extraction of canola oil".


Calling the rejection of a novel highly processed food replacement like this anti-scientific is comically illogical.


Who are you trying to kid? You listed sunflower seed oil alongside canola --- you're presumably just as opposed to mustard seed oil.

It would be funny if the one seed oil you're OK with is mustard seed oil, the oil closest in composition to canola, the one oil anyone has a legit gripe about (it doesn't taste very good).


you care more about morally loaded terms than research and call me illogical. ok


> But when an omni dieter looks unhealthy we just say “that guy looks rough” and when we see a vegan who looks unhealthy we say “vegan diets make you look rough”.

many such cases. People have no idea about how much their bias influences their perception of the world and then share the output of that worldview as if it is relevant to reality


Yep, and we can even see it in others. I have little doubt that if the person I replied to was a passenger in a car, the driver got cut off by someone and they responded by making a sweeping generalisation about people of that race/gender/religion driving poorly they’d be able to identify the same bias at play.

As I say, my thesis is that these double standards/logical contradictions are intellectual tools to protect us from our cognitive dissonance. We’re not really operating from a set of logically coherent principles for the most part.

I say this without judgement or any belief that I’m not doing the same thing in a million areas in my life. Just to point out that this is why I lean more towards cultivated meat than outreach activism when it comes to veganising the world!


> But I have yet to see a healthy looking vegan person.

This anecdata is so wrong and only serves to degrade the conversation. I can only imagine you have some sort of bias that convinced you this was worth sharing.

There are a wide range of people who are vegan with various aesthetics, just as with any diet. There is also a selection bias as veganism can attract people who have health issues that they are treating with diet. Your judgement of the efficacy and impact of a lifestyle being based on some people you've met tells me your way of thinking about the world is deeply flawed and shallow.


Wow tell me how you really feel. Who am I going to believe angry people on HN or my own lying eyes?


> Adderall can cause a high

> Interesting. FYI ADHD people feel none of that.

Please don't speak for a whole group of people when you don't know what you're talking about. Euphoria is very common when people with ADHD first start taking amphetamines, it just goes away after a week or so.


the euphoric high also happens in those with ADHD but only when they first start taking it. I would assume if you took it recreationally and not consistently you would have the same effect


My problem is I forget to take my Adderall. I've also experienced shortages in my area for 3+ months. When I eventually start back on my meds after a long hiatus, it seems to work just like it did when I stopped.

I could use some more euphoria in my life, sadly Adderall does not provide it (for me.)


Eh. When you take it the first time the euphoria is more that you can focus and the mind becomes quieter. It’s not like a party drug


The euphoria from amphetamine (in reasonable doses) is also rather subtle - it's no MDMA where it's very much in your face.

But lifted mood and energy is why it's taken recreationally, the euphoria can then come what you make from that.


One neurotypical I know who took 20mg of Adderall IR ended up going into a hyperfocused ‘can’t look away from the road’ 12+ hour road trip without stopping and couldn’t sleep for 3 days afterwards.

An ADHD’er I know who did the same thing, took a nap instead, and then actually started their taxes.

These are not the same thing.


Not doubting you but… how? Adderall leaves your system in like 4 hours. The half life is crazy short and it’s extremely noticeable when it happens. I don’t understand how someone would fail to sleep for 3 days, or even hyper focus for 12 hours, when the drug is going to be completely gone from their system and not affecting them a fraction of the time into that period. Are you sure it wasn’t something else or they didn’t take more doses or other things?


Dosage response curves != Individual biochemistries and neural architecture/metabolisms. Some people it'll just hit different.


Drug responses can be weird. Plus if you’ve been told this will make you manic and hyperfocused, your body will respond accordingly even if biochemically that doesn’t make a lot of sense.


Extended release. Those fucking things would keep me up for 3 days. If I take a the same dose of instant release, it'll be worn off at the end of the day and I'll sleep like a log. They say it wears off in 4 hours, but a single dose keeps working all day for me. Depends on how you metabolize it.


I got some 10mg Dexedrine Spansule's when I usually take normal 5mg's and I didn't sleep until 4am :(


That’s what they described.


> You see this kind of dismissal on /r/science all the time and it's always just evidence that they're not qualified to actually read the study. reply

In my experience it's more because the conclusions butt up against the persons personal beliefs or experiences (like OP's)


"I experienced negative side effects so the science must be bought and paid for"


I might have given a shred of charitability to you if you said "far more open fashion than the left." but the fact that you said "liberals" tells me I shouldn't take your political perspective seriously


So “I would take your politics seriously if it aligned with mine”? I am afraid that whole point of politics is finding compromise with people who you don't agree.


it has nothing to do with alignment of politics, it's that your description of reality is so wrong that it would be difficult to seriously engage


It’s more about good versus bad faith: you can compromise with people who are willing to be honest, but that isn’t possible when someone is redefining terms or contradicting all available evidence to make their position work. That commenter was conflating two very different sets of activities to smear liberals, implying that they somehow know someone else’s true intention even though that contrasts with their actions and public statements.


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

Search: