"On May 22, 2010, the yellow stamp was auctioned once again by David Feldman in Geneva, Switzerland. It sold "for at least the $2.3 million price [that] it set a record for in 1996"." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treskilling_Yellow
I don't agree that this is a breakthrough. Type 2 diabetes has existed for a long time. What we're seeing here is a new type of diabetes, type "obese with bad diet and constant inflow of blood sugar either from fat or from food" diabetes. This new type is obviously treatable. Real type 2 diabetes is neither an insufficiency of insulin nor is it an excess of incoming blood sugar. It is insulin tolerance developed within the cells and it is barely treatable by any method.
My father was a Type 2 diabetic for many years. I never thought much of it, I knew he "watched" his diet and didn't have sugar and he went to the doctor who prescribed him insulin and medication. Slowly over the years it got worse. He had to have eye surgeries, his feet started swelling, his kidneys got bad.
I finally decided to do some research on the topic and learned all about insulin resistance and how it's mostly an issue with the liver. I read about the Keto diet (which is high fat, extremely low carb) and discovered tons of people who it seemed to helped, so I got my parents to both try it. Within 6 months, my dad lost over 50 lbs, he no longer had to take any insulin. He went to the doctor and they were amazed at how quickly all of his levels improved. His kidney function improved.
He still has more weight to lose, but it's been pretty miraculous and I urge everyone to look into it. I've been a carbivore my whole life. I'm still young so it hasn't caught up to me, but I imagine that it probably will eventually. So I don't do extreme Keto, but I'm starting to eat much healthier now. More veggies, fewer refined carbs like bread and pasta. I also cut out soda and most meat and dairy.
Strange, only because my dad was type 2 as well, but my entire life (79-2006, when he passed from cancer), he would constantly talk and knew if he would eat right (meaning no macro-extremes, mainly) , he wouldn’t need insulin, so he knew his sugar binges weren’t good for his diabetes (his cravings ranged everywhere from twinkies and regular Coke, to piles of pasta with no flavoring but a ton of butter).
However, he was able to bring his weight and diabetes under control before he found out he had cancer, and he was able to control it with just a balanced macro diet (and he had tried everything from Atkins to acupuncture advice).
I guess I’m saying this for two reasons: 1, it’s so crazy how little we know about diet and biology regarding individuals, and 2, there might be other options for people with the diabeetus out there, but it’s crazy how calorie control works best for different people, depending on the approach.
Also, I was pretty sure that keto was primarily high protein and high fat, (though thinking about it, an 80% fat diet could still be considered keto; I just think protein is not only calorie saving, it’s muscle sparing effects are incredibly important, esp for men).
The diabetes experts say it is Type 2. You really know more than they do? Perhaps you could do some research studies, publish some articles and books. Or maybe you are just making thing up.
We've banned this account for repeatedly violating the site guidelines and ignoring our requests to stop. Tossing this sort of flamebait into an HN thread is vandalism, let alone going full Hitler once people take the bait. We're trying for an entirely different kind of site here.
I appreciate that you also post the occasional substantive comment, but your balance is negative and it isn't worth it. If you don't want to be banned on HN, though, you're welcome to email us at hn@ycombinator.com and commit to using the site as intended from now on.
Hmm, interesting. A shadow ban. I agree that my first comment was too without substance. However, I feel that the entire thread was rather without substance.
I don't really see the problem with the second comment though, or how it is going "full Hitler". Godwin's law doesn't apply to discussions that are literally about WWII. Yes, it may be negative, but is negativity wrong in of itself it if my negativity is backed up by rational discussion?
It's hardly a shadowban when we explain it to you at length!
The issue is that your comment history has frequently violated the site guidelines. That's not just about negativity—it's possible to say critical things in civil, substantive ways. But you've been doing it in a way that damages thoughtful conversation, and that's a net negative here.
"La Marseillaise" is the French national anthem. Here are the words in English:
"Arise, children of the Fatherland,
The day of glory has arrived!
Against us tyranny's
Bloody banner is raised, (repeat)
Do you hear, in the countryside,
The roar of those ferocious soldiers?
They're coming right into your arms
To cut the throats of your sons, your women!
To arms, citizens,
Form your battalions,
Let's march, let's march!
Lest an impure blood
Soak our fields!
What does this horde of slaves,
Of traitors and conspiratorial kings want?
For whom are these vile chains,
These long-prepared irons? (repeat)
Frenchmen, for us, ah! What outrage
What fury it must arouse!
It is us they dare plan
To return to the old slavery!
To arms, citizens...
What! Foreign cohorts
Would make the law in our homes!
What! These mercenary phalanxes
Would strike down our proud warriors! (repeat)
Great God! By chained hands
Our brows would yield under the yoke
Vile despots would have themselves
The masters of our destinies!
To arms, citizens...
Tremble, tyrants and you traitors
The shame of all parties,
Tremble! Your parricidal schemes
Will finally receive their reward! (repeat)
Everyone is a soldier to combat you
If they fall, our young heroes,
The earth will produce new ones,
Ready to fight against you!
To arms, citizens...
Frenchmen, as magnanimous warriors,
Bear or hold back your blows!
Spare those sorry victims,
Who arm against us with regret. (repeat)
But not these bloodthirsty despots,
These accomplices of Bouillé,
All these tigers who, mercilessly,
Rip their mother's breast!
To arms, citizens...
Sacred love of the Fatherland,
Lead, support our avenging arms
Liberty, cherished Liberty,
Fight with thy defenders! (repeat)
Under our flags, may victory
Hurry to thy manly accents,
May thy expiring enemies,
See thy triumph and our glory!
To arms, citizens..."
It is a patriotic military song about defending France from attackers. It's not fundamentally different from many other such verses in the anthems and patriotic texts of competing nations. The Quran contains similar wording when describing calls for Jihad to defend the fatherland.
While the Nazi's were evil, that does not mean we should be brought to tears by any nation which stood against them. Stalin's propagandists also wrote hymns which brought tears to many a Russian's eyes during and after the war.
And France was far from perfect at the time of WWII. Hitler is still admired by a large minority of Arabs because the Nazi's helped "liberate" former French colonies! [1] I'm not picking on the French here though. My point is, that we shouldn't be confused in our passions into worshiping "something anything so long as it's against the Nazis". While it is not true that "the enemy of your enemy is your friend". In a broader sense, it is not true that every ally is your friend. And you should not equate a champion with their cause.
Flawed reasoning: "Communism is the main force against capitalism, therefore if I want to fight capitalism I should become a communist."
More flawed reasoning: "Russia has the most troops fighting against Hitler. Therefore, if I want to fight Nazism I should become a Russian."
More flawed reasoning: "Hitler attacked France, therefore, if I lived in France and feel harmed by Nazism, I should love France." (Remember, France was all for getting rid of the Jews [2]. They just didn't like being invaded... )
> It is a patriotic military song about defending France from attackers. It's not fundamentally different from many other such verses in the anthems and patriotic texts of competing nations. The Quran contains similar wording when describing calls for Jihad to defend the fatherland.
But it is different. La Marseillaise isn't about how great France is, and why it's worth defending. It's about how our enemies are coming to rape, pillage, and murder everyone, and we need to fight to the end to prevent that from happening. It's also quite notable in that it doesn't specifically insult other countries or lay grandiose claims to land in its lyrics, which were quite common features in national anthems in the 1800s.
One should also point out that the song the Germans are singing is literally about how Germans need to stand on the Rhine to defend Germany from France--it antagonizes France both implicitly and explicitly. So in context, you have Germans singing about how they need to defend themselves from a country they've already defeated which is drowned out by the French singing about how they need to defend themselves from enemies come to destroy them (which, for them, had already happened).
> It is a patriotic military song about defending France from attackers. It's not fundamentally different from many other such verses in the anthems and patriotic texts of competing nations. The Quran contains similar wording when describing calls for Jihad to defend the fatherland.
Some real mental gymnastics going on there. I'm not sure what your point is: that nationalism is bad? That France isn't perfect? That anthems are bad? I don't get it.
One thing is clear, however: you fundamentally misunderstand the Casablanca La Marseillaise scene.
Well, European style nationalism was the single most destructive force of the 20th century. So, bad is putting it mildly. La Marseillaise is an exhortation to form battalions, march on to war and to water the fields with the blood of the impure. It represents exactly the kind of militant nationalism that led to war in the first place.
Also, as someone from a country that was colonized and exploited by the British for centuries, I can't but help roll my eyes when the Allies are portrayed as the champions of freedom.
La Marseillaise is undeniably martial. It is not particularly nationalistic, however. It does not extol the virtues of France, it does not affirm territorial claims, it does not attack any other country directly or by allusion. All of these are fairly common in national anthems in the era. By contrast, the central theme here is basically "Fight! ... Because we're really screwed if you don't."
While I don't deny the issues with nationalism, nor that national anthems were a major tool of fomenting such nationalism, I think it improper to assert that La Marseillaise was a major contributing factor to that end.
Your viewpoint is myopic to say the least. I was also born in a country that was exploited for centuries by the Russians and the Austro-Hungarians (and before that the Romans and the Ottomans). But I can keep things in perspective and make the (pretty obvious) conclusion that yes, the Allies were champions of freedom.
What you express is the kind of cynical misanthropy that leaves men powerless in the face of grave danger perpetrated even by egregious evil. Thankfully, there has existed, even in the 20th century, men and women immune to this kind of mean minded guilt trip.
I'm sorry, but the French would have to have force fed human infants to fatten them up and eaten their little livers before any sane person would have to wonder what side to take in a contest between them and the Nazis. But, you enjoy your sophisticated moral calculus, and bon chance!
Would it be so terrible to end sactions against North Korea? Trade should rise the middle class North Koreans up, and the last thing a wealthy middle class wants is war. A well fed and housed middle class seems the best insurance against war possible.
why would they need money? Why would they need to trade with anyone? It is not like North Korea is infinitely small and the earth infinitely big. The earth is a small globe, and NK is a region of that globe, one which almost certainly can be an autarky.
> Why didn't Obama appoint someone from the green party?
Because aside from the law governing appointments, there is also the Senate confirmation process, and such a violation of both the spirit of the law and the established informal norms would both be unlikely to survive that process, and complicate other matters before the Senate, which was blocking more routine nominees.
How do you know which sites sell product placement? Are you %100 sure that NYTimes does not? What about theoutline.com? Do you KNOW that they don't?
I happen to be familiar with the book publishing industry in my country, and I know that many journalists will publish an article on a book written by a publishing houses PR manager, just to save themselves the effort of writing an article themselves. And these are the biggest newspapers in the country.
As much as the obvious reflex is to think that "oh we should move BACK to a more austere, toy-less environment." It is important to remember, that children that grow up in nature are surrounded by thousands of "toys". I remember camping by creaks as a child, and finding there far more "toys" than in my play box. Rocks, sticks, bushes, leaves, mud, bugs, animals. Somehow, I still managed to focus for hours trying to damn the creak. So I don't really believe that more toys = shorter attention span. It must be something about the nature of these artificially created toys that makes them less engaging.
If your childhood was anything like mine, you were probably trying to dam the creek - no 'n'. Not that I'm judging you or there's anything wrong with a young and free imagination that seeks to condemn the naiads to eternal suffering.
If you leave a stick alone for 30s it doesn't flash and play a tune to try [desperately?] to get you to play with it.
I'd guess the issue is that the toys are designed to so that they will get picked up in a toy store. They have to get off the shelf and to the checkout, they don't have to entertain one jot beyond that ...
Maybe at least partly because you had to engage your imagination a bit to make that stick into a gun, or whatever? Toy guns are obviously guns; point 'em and say "Pew! Pew!" — if they don't already make the noise for you, too...
Sticks, there's a visualization step or two somewhere in there, too. I'm not specifically aware of any research directly investigating the relationship between the degree or intensity of imaginative play and focus, but I wouldn't be at all surprised — read: fully expect — to find them strongly positively correlated.
Hahaha when I was a kid, we went a few times on holiday to Richmond in Yorkshire. We'd spend hours by the river which was my Mum's favourite place. I'd consequently spend hours trying to dam the entire river with rocks. An. Entire. River. It never occurred to me that I couldn't do this... My Mum would just let me get on with it, she thought that was the best game ever. She'd spend the entire time pointing out rocks she thought would be suitable and me carting rocks back and forth. HOURS!
It's only now that I'm a parent that I realize what a genius parenting strategy this is. I wear myself out trying to complete a fruitless labour in the hope of achieving impossible success. No 8 year old on the face of the planet is ever going to damn a river of that size with a pile of rocks. FOR HOURS I WOULD DO THIS!
What all kids need are an endless pile of rocks and a river. Best. Toy. Ever.
Then any child growing up in a home is also surrounded by 1000s of "toys then. The pillow, blanket, shoes, dog, chair, tv remote, keys, mouse, tissues, tissue box, etc....
Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. Things at home are the same every day. They may be fun for first 5 minutes but then, well, they are not. Outside - city streets, playground, park, forest, you name it - there are unlimited amount of "toys". Everyday new, everyday exciting. You may go to the same place but people are different, animals are different, rocks are different, sticks thrown into stream are flowing differently every time. My kid is bored at home, even though we have way more toys than we planned to, and she's craving for full day walks. She's bringing me her shoes in the morning and points at the door. She's explorer and there are plenty of opportunities out there.
The fact that you have to quote “toys” is very telling. Sticks and stones aren’t designed by teams of people whose very goal is to draw a children’s attention.
To be fair his mother eventually had to take him away from the box to keep him on his feeding and nap schedule. He cried all the way up the stairs because he wanted to keep playing with the box. But his dad opened the box when the child couldn't see it and eventually all was well when he discovered the bike inside. It wasn't intentional cruelty as much as the crushing disappointment visited on any child that has to do what his parents want.
"On May 22, 2010, the yellow stamp was auctioned once again by David Feldman in Geneva, Switzerland. It sold "for at least the $2.3 million price [that] it set a record for in 1996"." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treskilling_Yellow