So the author tried to fix a non-issue of somebody else's dog with human-grade probiotics.
I think that actually there was no issue at all and he just wanted to YOLO it.
And then he only goes to discuss if it was ethical as he didn't ask the dog? What about just not medicating a dog when there is no medical problem? What about consent from the owner? So much more issues with this than what the author discusses.
There was a debate here in the comments a few months ago about whether it's actually forbidden by their ToS. Lots of people said they don't care if you use it for personal streaming and aren't pumping a hundred gigs per day.
Health insurance should be rooted in solidarity. It is supposed to be a collective mechanism designed to prevent individuals from financial ruin due to unpredictable medical crises. It is not about hedging individual risk, but about sharing it across society, because health problems can strike anyone regardless of preparation or behavior.
Maybe so - in any case a public option wouldn’t inherently indirectly be decided by the public via voting so we will see if people accept the higher taxes or lower spending make it happen.
This is a very cool project, and I like the nostalgic feel of it! However, this project got me thinking:
We are on a forum filled with people working on these super addicting infinite scroll technologies at YouTube, Instagram, maybe even TikTok. At the same time though, this post removing all these addictive technologies has reached the #1 spot on HN (and HN is deliberately made without any of this addicting tech!!)
I think it is time for people to really realize how addicting the tech they are making is, without masking it with words like 'friction' and 'engagement'. And hopefully they will slowly work on making their tech a little bit less addictive.
Before Covid we had some kind of movement like this, but it has sadly dwindled.
It's less about the children and more about the adults.
Most parents that I know are scared that their children will be victims of violent crime. They may trust their kids explicitly and implicitly, but do not trust the world.
The sad thing is that constantly tracking the child won't help with these problems. If someone wants to murder a child, a tracker watch isn't going to stop them. If someone wants to kidnap a child, a tracker watch is going to be ripped off and discarded (along with a smartphone, if they have one).
Pretty much this, my mother would always say I'm not worried about you, I'm worried about others. This went for most things during childhood, walking home from school, driving a car etc
This has gone all the way back to around 2007 as a free roaming kid
I don't want to compare life to video games and I think comparing a genocidal dictatorship that ruthlessly suppresses its citizens and occupies foreign lands (Tibet for example) a challenger is a bit of a downplay
I think that actually there was no issue at all and he just wanted to YOLO it.
And then he only goes to discuss if it was ethical as he didn't ask the dog? What about just not medicating a dog when there is no medical problem? What about consent from the owner? So much more issues with this than what the author discusses.