We chose "carbondoomsday" to be provocative, and to push into a silly level of seriousness about climate change. Similar to http://blog.ycombinator.com/why-toys/
> Chelsea Market is an amazing place with great offerings of food etc.
It really isn't. It's a tourist trap, especially with the completion of the High Line. The food isn't good and it's overpriced to take advantage of the tourists.
> As long as this transaction does not ruin the ecosystem of CM then New Yorkers are OK with this transaction.
Like new yorkers' opinions matters in manhattan. The only thing that matters in manhattan are billionaires - whether they be from california, israel, russia, china or anywhere else.
I don't think anyone really believes Chelsea Market is a culinary wonder, or that it's catering to the True(tm) New Yorker. It's pretty, it's in a fairly nice area, there's no entry fee, and it's easy to have fun there if you take it for what it is.
Yeah don't know what the complaint is about. The lobster place, tacos stand, Vietnamese sandwich shop are all really good spots to eat. And not expensive
> Cumulative return for the S&P 500 over the past 9 years (conveniently leaving out the 2008 crash), with dividend reinvestment, is equivalent to a YoY gain of 16.25%
That's a bit disingenuous to use the generational market lows of 2009 as your starting point. It would be like using the all-time highs of 2000 and the 2009 lows as your range. Then the cumulative returns would be negative ( including dividends ).
> However I think it would be foolish to presume that the stock market will continue to post those kind of gains forever.
It's impossible for any economy/market/whatever to maintain a 16% return every year.
> That's a bit disingenuous to use the generational market lows of 2009 as your starting point. It would be like using the all-time highs of 2000 and the 2009 lows as your range. Then the cumulative returns would be negative ( including dividends ).
Right, I did that on purpose, just as a way of showing that luck (in terms of accidental market timing) has a huge impact on returns. As I said in top comment, even 8% is not sustainable, let alone 16.
They did in fact ignite the electric car market. The attempts to deny them credit for that are fascinating.
Every major auto manufacturer is aggressively moving to electric vehicles because of the spark that Tesla provided. It wasn't the Nissan Leaf that caused BMW to freak out and radically alter their plans and move everything toward electric. The same goes for all the rest of the automakers.
It'd be like pretending the iPhone didn't set off the smartphone boom, because hey the blackberry existed.
That's pretty funny right there as Tesla has no marketing budget to speak off. Kindly tell me last time you saw a Tesla ad (made by Tesla)?
Electric cars are as old as ICE cars (look up Baker Electric for one's). That's beside the point. What Tesla did was to produce an electric car that was truly desirable and from many metrics, better than an ICE car. You simply cannot deny Tesla's massive impact on the car industry, even GM have publicly acknowledged it.
Anecdotes are the data that lead to further investigation. It would be nice to know what, if anything, is different about those data points who smoke yet still live into their 90s. If it's due to lifestyle factors, maybe there are practices that smokers would be able to adopt even while they're unsuccessful at quitting.
Also class 2A carcinogens are simply a class of things that probably increases your chance of cancer. That doesn't mean it gives you a huge chance of cancer most of the time the increased risk is trivial.
To give some context red meat is on the same list as:
Hairdresser or barber (occupational exposure as a)
Shift work that involves circadian disruption
Very hot beverages (more than 65℃)
High-temperature frying, emissions from
Household combustion of biomass fuel (primarily wood), indoor emissions from
"On the other hand, any form of protein is likely to be effective, it concludes, not merely high-protein shakes and supplements. Beef, chicken, yogurt and even protein from peas or quinoa could help us to build larger and stronger muscles."
That's really the part you took issue with? That's a list of protein examples, not "it's first source of protein." It even says "any form of protein is likely to be effective."
Fake HN outrage?
It goes on to say "On the other hand and conveniently, any type of and time for protein was fine. The gains were similar if people downed their protein immediately after a workout or in the hours earlier or later, and it made no difference if the protein was solid or liquid, soy, beef, vegan or any other."
Anecdotes are not facts. Cholesterol and most fats are still generally bad for you, it's not so black and white, it never is or was. It's not an excuse to stuff yourself with cheeseburgers.
What's there to be on the fence about? It's terrible and a infringement of free speech. But reddit has the right to ban it as a private company. It just make reddit look terrible and hypocritical.
But considering they are planning on IPOing, I guess they have to sell out.
> If you distribute movies and media to the public, you normally are breaking laws.
That's not what we are talking about. You can transform any public image for parody, criticism, etc. Porn is considered speech so anyone can make pornographic parodies/etc. This is especially true if fans are doing so for fun and not for profit.
Of course reddit has a right to ban it from their platform, but you as a fan can transform any public image and criticize, parody, etc it.
> Of course reddit has a right to ban it from their platform, but you as a fan can transform any public image and criticize, parody, etc it.
Maybe, maybe not. Transforming generally creates a derivative work. On its face that requires permission from the owner of the copyright of the work, but there may be exception that allows it in particular cases. In the case of parody in particular, it MAY be covered by fair use.
A lot of people on the net think that parody is automatically fair use, usually from misunderstanding the Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994) case.
Briefly, in the case, the district court said that parody was fair use. The appeals court said because it was commercial parody it presumptively could not be fair use.
The Supreme Court said they were both wrong, and it might be parody and sent the case back down to the lower courts.
A lot of people just looked at as the Supreme Court reversing the appellate court's reversing of the district court's ruling that parody was fair use, and took it as therefore the Supreme Court saying parody was fair use. (I don't blame people for misunderstanding--the press is generally terrible at reporting Supreme Court decisions. They often fail to interpret Supreme Court rulings in the context of the lower court decisions that led to the case).
That's not what we are talking about. You can transform any public image for parody, criticism, etc. Porn is considered speech so anyone can make pornographic parodies/etc.
This is true. It's not censorable free speech, meaning the government can't prohibit it ahead of time. But speech can be subject to tort claims despite surviving the First Amendment. A deepfake victim can sue for damages in civil courts, and there's a 99.99999% chance they'd win massive damages every time.
This is especially true if fans are doing so for fun and not for profit
Profit motive may affect the amount of damages, but it doesn't effect whether or not the victim can sue and win in a court of law. Even in the US, you'd be paying out significant damages to someone for damage to reputation or use of likeness.
What would their suit entail that isn't covered by existing porn parodies? So long as the final composition is labeled as a fake I don't see them winning on damage to reputation. Use of likeness might go through in a few states that cover non-commercial use but in most states as long as it's fan-made they would probably be okay.
And the market is saturated exactly because the consumerist need to continuously renew the mobile phone is gone, beyond a few percent that always need to show they own the latest gizmos.
