You're missing out on an infinity of great food - great for anyone, vegan or not. Just think of all the Chinese, Latin American, Indian, etc. food that is vegan. Think of many appetizers even in mostly-meat restaurants. And there are world-class restaurants that serve vegan dishes
Eliminating beef, fowl, and fish leaves a universe of foods including all fungi, fruits and vegetables, grains, nuts, and legumes. It also includes all spices and herbs.
Double that. I'll also recommend to try some fungi/bacteria pre-processing as it bumps the taste:
Kimchi & Sauerkraut to wet the appetite.
Don't use salt, use Miso. The darker the better.
Tempeh is awesome and comes with soy (nutty), lentil (strong taste like aged meat), chickpeas (floral), beans (melty), or other legume/cereal/nut. Can include spices and seed for extra taste and crunch.
Nuts cheese tastes "cheesy" in a similar way similar to their diary version (Roquefort, Cheddar, Blue, Camembert, Brie...) depending on the ferment, without the "milky" taste. Nut taste instead, obviously but that can be offset with other oils/fats.
Vegan Chinese food? Ah, if you are vegan and go to China you need to be careful because there isn’t much vegan food, although plenty of veggies and they even have a few vegetarian restaurants in recent years.
Wherever you are, the local Chinese food is an adaptation - there is Indian Chinese, for example. But tofu, for example, has a long history in China, and you can find vegan food in Chinese restaurants in many places. I expect most people on HN don't eat their Chinese food in China.
>Just think of all the Chinese, Latin American, Indian, etc. food that is vegan.
What? Outside of Indian food, which does have many vegan options, but the best food is usually still non-vegan (lots of dairy and butter used). Chinese and Latin American food is almost never vegan. Chinese love meat, and you would have to be a buddhist monk to actually find vegan food in China. Even with a lot of cheap plant protein options, like tofu, most things use some meat for flavor. Latin America loves cooking in animal fats.
> Chinese and Latin American food is almost never vegan.
I've seen tons of vegan food on menus of restaurants for those cuisines (and eaten some of it), so that's not true.
If you just mean 'in China', that's irrelevant to this conversation - only a small proportion of people here eat their Chinese food in China. But I acknowledge, lots of people on HN like to demonstrate their worldliness by making sure we know they've been to China, relevant or not.
> the best food is usually still non-vegan (lots of dairy and butter used)
It's a bit hard to make a definitive statement about what is 'best'. Personally, I much prefer Indian without all the ghee. That vegan food exists in many varieties is an objective fact, however.
If you make the AI software, then your software malfunctioned.
If the laser printer screws up a page in the middle of the document, and the user doesn't catch it and includes it in the board of directors binder, the laser printer still malfunctioned.
> The marginal cost for publishing a study online at this point is essentially nil.
The marginal cost for doing a study remains the same, which is quite a bit. Society doesn't have unlimited scientific talent or hours. Every year someone spends replicating is a year lost to creating something new and valuable.
Another solution - in addition or instead - is requiring LLM output to be labeled.
The biggest danger of LLMs is impersonating humans. Obviously they have been carefully constructed to be socially appealing. Think of the motivation behind that:
It is almost completely unnecessary to LLM function and it's main application is to deceive and manipulate. Legal regulation of LLMs should ban impersonation of humans, including anthropomorphism (and so should HN's regulation). Call an LLM 'software' and label it's output as 'output'.
Imagine how many problems would be solved by that rule. Yes, it's not universally enforceable, but attach a big enough penalty and known people and corporations will not do it, and most people will decide it's not worth it.
I generally agree in that I don't see them as particularly brilliant, though I think the average is higher and there is a much higher minimum in some capabilities.
And corruption of power is the cause, I suspect. It has poisoned human minds in all places and times; none of us are immune (which is why we design governments that limit individual power). An early lesson in being in charge was that, having nobody to whom I reported, who would see my work and compel me to a high standard, I let things slip.
Reportees rarely help you: Often they don't know what you do; when they do see it, they assume it's acceptable - you know what you want, and you set the standard of quality and establish the norms. Generally they have obvious disincentives against disapproving of you, and not just as some political tactic but for personal comfort: days are much more pleasant if your boss is friendly. They will give positive or at least non-negative responses to most substandard boss work.
I had to learn to think of it in two ways: First, would I accept this work from someone reporting to me? Second, I internalized the medium- and long-term consequences of substandard leadership and management: once your organization has caught that disease, once that's your reputation, it's very hard to change.
> That's just how busy people type. You see it a lot if you communicate with upper managers/Csuite regularly. They don't have anyone to impress in private emails, as long as the message is communicated well enough.
There is a time pressure to communicate this way, but I think it's generally a management mistake:
Managment includes leadership (usually). Your messages are most of what most people in the organization see of you. You set the high bar; nobody will prioritize quality and attention to detail more than you. And that standard is global IME - you can't very effectively set the example that messages can be sloppy but nothing else.
For messages to my social inner circle, for example, I am much less careful - misspellings, abbreviations, etc. For messages to people I manage or lead, I make sure it's perfect every time.
Messages from the CEO to the whole company should be carefully checked, and in my experience they seem to be. Spelling/grammar is just a tiny part of check, there is also the whole inclusive language/not offensive to anyone set of checks, and the is this even legal check (perhaps more, that is what I can think of offhand).
Messages to a single vice president get much less care.
I agree that's the reality, but that VP will follow your example - as a leader, excellence is a performance, a superficial presentation for others, not something to do in private. Also, it's normal to not take your reportees seriously (to some degree).
This could be read as a condemnation of the text input interfaces we've designed; the users are busy and have little choice. Typing on a phone still is awful:
* Very time-consuming, especially for edits/corrections
* Lacks functionality (where is undo? the right/left arrow keys?) and other functionality is very poor (mouse/pointer control)
* Frustrating!
* Consumes attention: I can type on a full keyboard while looking elsewhere - including talking to someone else, though of course all actions suffer. On full keyboards I can type while reading something, to transcribe it, or I can just watch the output. Or just imagine using keyboard-based commands (e.g., Vim) on a smartphone.
I've tried alternative screen keyboards and they are a bit better, but it still sucks a lot.
Doing anything on a phone is a miserable experience, even compared to using a laptop, which is already a lot worse than a desktop with good input devices. IMO it's shocking how many professionals are willing to tolerate such bad interfaces. Compare how picky professional musicians are about the exact components and setups of their instruments. No amount of convenience should lure you into accepting touch screens.
touch screen phones are a useful compromise. If I'm going to write a lot I want a real keyboard and large monitor with all the features thereof. However often I just need a quick note and I'm not in the office. I would not carry a desktop computer to the airport (I'm old enough to remember the IBM XT luggable computer - built in CRT monitor, not battery: it was portable, but it was a real workout). A laptop is sometimes useful, and it isn't too bad to have one in a backpack, but it is still big and so won't be with you. A phone is the correct size of have in your pocket so you can "do something" while "the refs try to figure out which rule applies to this play".
Phones will always be miserable - but they are the least miserable option in a lot of situations and so I expect people to use them a lot just because the other tools are even worse.
Phones (really, the pocket/handheld form factor) are a necessity and are limited; I agree. We could deliver better text input interfaces for them.
For heavy typers, physical keyboards in candybar phones (.e.g, old Blackberrys, etc.) and landscape-oriented clamshells fix many issues, but those are outre for some reason. Even on-screen UIs could be better. Just arrow keys to move to the cursor precisely would be a signficant improvement.
The first Android phone had a physical keyboard and a little trackball. The rest of the phone was a bit anemic even by the standards of the time but those two features were glorious.
I still hold my uncles HTC dream and my droid 2 and wish for a landscape slider android phone. This is not Atlantis technology! Though it is 20 years old now, so probably there are HN readers here who think of that device with the same alien fascination I have for those who carried around Psion 3s in their college days when I was eating crayons.
I think the blackberry I had before the current trend of full touchscreen smartphones was the only cellphone I ever enjoyed using for the device itself.
Bingo. I have oft opined that the switch to an audiovisual culture was (bandwidth and compute gains notwithstanding) simply due to the piss poor ergonomics of the touch screen.
IRC was a literate culture, owing to its roots in the physical medium of the typewriter. It imposed technical barriers to entry selecting for a minimum of intelligence.
After kneecapping the literate media by destroying this input mechanism with touch screens, the audiovisual media flooded in to fill the vacuum - and brought with it the illiterate masses who now all see themselves as amateur videographers, unencumbered from the previous burdens of needing to "read the fucking manual."
I use a bluetooth keyboard for typing on my phone unless I'm out in the world. The number of people who want to have long-form conversations through a phone interface is shocking to me since it's such an awful experience and there are so, so many available alternatives.
I'd agree UIs are a sh*tshow but just saying this misses the wide variety of things that can put under "language is usage". Of course, the article itself misses the way the reveals texts between current elites are more equivalent to the grunts of cigar smoking old boys in clubs than to formal business communication. And that's just scratching the surface of the implication of informal business and other language. "Is it laziness or power signaling?" - both in complex layers.
As a side note, I grew up in the era of typewriters and cursive and that "interface" was utterly miserable - composing at the typewriter was considered bad, a fair portion of people couldn't type and typists would/could be hired for various tasks. I was vastly heartened when PCs with word processors became available at the college computer center senior. I think text processing interfaces reach their apex around 2000s (fusing power and usability) but when something gets to certain optimality, it can only go down and that where phones are.
> a fair portion of people couldn't type and typists would/could be hired for various tasks
Was typing harder then than it is now for some reason? Or are you saying that editing now (compared to correcting ink typed onto paper) means you don't need as much skill?
Was typing harder then than it is now for some reason?
Uh, yes it was. A manual typewriter required you to exert enough force on each key to get a metal arm to strike a ribbon and make a mark. Pressing two close enough together in time would cause them to hit each. An electric typewrite required less finger effort but it would send vibrations back to one's fingers. Also, erasing mistakes was a serious pain in the neck. Also you had calculate line-breaks yourself, keep track of the end of each and so-forth. "Cut-and-paste" People did that with scissors and tape but, again, a total pain in the neck.
There was a reason that word processors were hailed as a great innovation.
One reason might be how off-putting the Neovim community is, hijacking Vim discussions to denigrate an all-time-great, beloved work of technology and its creator (who did decades of work for free, gave it to the world, and gave any money to actual orphans) all for Neovim users'/devs' own egos, promotion, and obsession. Almost all of Neovim was made by Moolenaar, from concept to execution, and I don't know that I've ever seen any gratitude.
I've never seen Vim users do that. If I had to choose, I'd use Vim.
Just want to say that although I don't use either Vim/Neovim, I feel grateful for what Vim has done. Vim keybindings can be used by a multitude of editors and you can even have the keybinding concept into browsers and other software's.
Its truly revolutionary when one thinks about it how much impact Vim has on terminal users.
(Neovim's plugin system is nice but I agree with ya that I also feel like some aspects of community often don't appreciate Bram because of the Vim vs Neovim thing from my observation) It's best if instead of treating it as Vim vs Neovim, we use the tools that we prefer and appreciate the tools other are using too and the contribution of one in another. Appreciating Vim doesn't make your appreciation for Neovim lesser, appreciating both can be great.
Something which is hard within Editor space in general.
Can't say I really interact with the "community", I installed the program and I use it a lot. I am grateful for the existence of vi and vim. I now use neovim where I can. vim or vi as needed.
Everything any one person does is a 'drop in the ocean'. Thankfully, we organize and do things collectively very well - it's in our fundamental nature going back to non-human ancestors, and there is a long, rich history of how much we accomplish. Alsmost nothing that has ever been accomplished has been done without a lot of people doing it together.
I think it's much simpler: People who have power can blithely ignore the problems of others and then say those people are 'overreacting'. Also the powerful react very strongly to any threat to the status quo that gives them power; it is an outrage to them.
In the West it happens with males, white people, religious groups, political groups, and much more.
> enables women to be socially transgressive
That usually means, transgressing the status quo. Women (and men) are free people who can do whatever they want, unless they actually injure someone else. Exercising their freedom isn't transgression, it's the norm.
We can't have an honest conversation from the basis of, "people can do whatever they want as long as they don't hurt people."
Because it's just not the world we live in. I don't care to enumerate this here.
But I agree with you that part of the problem is politics of power. I just happen to think there is more nuance.
Criminality, there are a handful of stats we could looks at. For example gendered differences in sentencing.
> When examining all sentences imposed, females received sentences 29.2 percent shorter than males. Females of all races were 39.6 percent more likely to receive a probation sentence than males. When examining only sentences of incarceration, females received lengths of incarceration 11.3 percent shorter than males.
But instead of arguing about stats, in general -- and this goes back to the social transgression bit. In the real world, women can do things to men that men can't do to women. This is largely due to the politics of power. Im not particularly preoccupied by it, but I do acknowledge that it exists.
Your response is _precisely_ what I'm calling out: two people talking past one another. I do not feel that youve interpreted anything I've said with grace. Instead it's more along the lines of, "yeah yeah yeah, but it's really about power"
Maybe. Hacker news is probably disproportionately powerful white males. I try not to assume bad intent with these things.
I'm merely pointing out that culturally, we will only get worst by trying to shame "normal" people (men) into feeling ways. In fact, I think the "cultural moment" as they say is indicative on how much that has failed.
> Because it's just not the world we live in. I don't care to enumerate this here.
Whether or not you enumerate it is irrelevant. Individual liberty is the foundation of the modern world. Of course there are exceptions, complications and imperfections, but the principle and the widespread practice are very clear and well established.
(Edit: Also, if we are talking about right and wrong rather than legal principles, liberty is what's 'right' to me (and most others). Everyone should have the same liberty, not merely the powerful.)
> sentencing
> shame
Victimhood is irresponsible (and a tactic used almost universally by the powerful to change the subject). The overwhelming amount of actual harm done between genders is men harming women, and it has been for as long as anyone can remember. That is the responsibility of men generally and the problem that needs solving. In some societies, they do address it.
If that makes you feel ashamed, that's your problem. When someone points out a problem to me, I feel responsible for solving it and get to work. 'I'm ashamed' is an obvious excuse.
> politics of power
The same behavior has very different outcomes because of differences in power between powerful and vulnerable parties: Bad behavior itself isn't dangerous, bad behavior + power is the problem.
If in a white suburb a black person says to a white person, 'we don't want your kind here', it's a bit crazy, but it's not especially dangerous. If a white person says that to a black person, that is real danger because white people have power, including government, law enforcement and the courts.
Similarly, imagining healthy, normal-sized adults, if a woman says to a man, 'I'm going to kick your ass', it's a bit threatening but not too serious. If a man says that to a women, it's very serious, dangerous to her, and he probably should be arrested.
Eliminating beef, fowl, and fish leaves a universe of foods including all fungi, fruits and vegetables, grains, nuts, and legumes. It also includes all spices and herbs.
reply