Because the majority of opinion holders are refusing to read and internalize the parent article. You're just echoing sentiments that people make regarding their opinion on typical welfare - which your parent comment already addressed completely.
Either TRY and refute those comments or don't comment at all.
I read the article. It's a compromise of UBI. The start of the plethora of confusion diluting the concept, part of the eventual destruction of the idea.
There's no way someone who designed, manufactured, tested and refined all this original equipment wouldn't include some technical photos, documents, experience or anything to 'sell' the product. And with pre-orders? There isn't even a single video of it making espresso without total cropping.
For reference - The owner lists his studies in media design and works for Terra Kaffe - claiming involvement in building Terra Kaffe TK-02
I'll happily change my opinion if anything resembling original invention is presented.
If this were a cash grab, why in the world would a scammer post this to Show HN, instead of targeting a much larger, less savvy customer base via a crowdfunding platform?
Anything is possible, but I don’t know why you would jump to that conclusion without taking the opportunity to engage with the OP.
Yeah honestly I'm in the same boat here. Something seems very off about this. There's not a single video on the site or YT of the device working. The video on the site is intentionally cropped so we only see the portafilter. Why was that conscious decision made? The price also seems WAY out of line, as handmade machines like this go for many thousands of dollars. The builder also is completely anonymous, which seems odd for a passion project like this.
I spun up a little project a few years ago and designed a product based around analog synthesizers. It was something I really loved doing, and I dropped videos of the R&D process all the time. How could you not!? It's the best part of the process and it's great marketing too. Again, things just seem strange here. I hope I'm wrong. Someone in this thread seems to have bought one, so I suppose we'll see.
That's survivorship bias and thus your comment is just an opinion and nothing more. During restrictions covid vaccines were rapidly handed out and improved upon - this undoubtedly halted the spread of a virus that ultimately killed 1,212,000 people. So please go ask those peoples family and those people themselves if 'everyone was fine'
I'd challenge you to read those results again. They admit to the evidence for health effects being elusive (due to limited or no robust studies), yet there is still enough evidence to summarize the following:
"
There is substantial evidence of a statistical association between cannabis use and:
The development of schizophrenia or other psychoses, with the highest risk among the most frequent users (12-1)
There is moderate evidence of a statistical association between cannabis use and:
Better cognitive performance among individuals with psychotic disorders and a history of cannabis use (12-2a)
Increased symptoms of mania and hypomania in individuals diagnosed with bipolar disorders (regular cannabis use) (12-4)
A small increased risk for the development of depressive disorders (12-5)
Increased incidence of suicidal ideation and suicide attempts with a higher incidence among heavier users (12-7a)
Increased incidence of suicide completion (12-7b)
Increased incidence of social anxiety disorder (regular cannabis use) (12-8b)"
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Health Effects of Cannabis and Cannabinoids: The Current State of Evidence and Recommendations for Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/24625.
I would warrant that these summaries should be a concern for anyone using cannabis and that blanket statements regarding the overall tone and summation of the report negating health effects of cannabis is somewhat misguided.
None of which are causal associations. Given the millennia-long history of cannabis use to self-medicate, and lack of evidence (not without trying!) for a biological mechanism of any of this, it’s probably safe to assume this is largely people with an issue (or a proto-issue) self-medicating.
This has also been studied more since 2017 now that there are a lot more people taking cannabis, and many of these links have been confirmed, although some have not.
It has also been confirmed that heavy use of marijuana has negative effects on cognitive performance and short-term memory even in adults, although these symptoms go away after you stop using.
"I'm not spending a dime or a second of MY time cleaning this toilet (that I also use) until someone fixes the root-cause, now AND forever! (never mind that I am also at least partially a contributing factor if I've ever eaten a single fish in my entire life)"
As an 11,000 word explanation on what stock buybacks are, decent article.
What this article fails to do is repudiate the 'hook' espoused in the first paragraph. Workers are pissed because stock buybacks are highly visible reinvestments by companies of their profits unto themselves and shareholders. The single article source used to argue against flat-line wages through the ensuing decades (from 1997 no less) is all but worthless as it contains no real data, but only expositions without factual source claims. Regardless, flat-line wages ARE real and ARE felt by almost every single person. You would need to waste 11,000 words arguing against that to have better effect.
Finally, spending all that hot-air to explain buybacks and calling workers economically ignorant is lazy writing. No one cares if it's dividends or buybacks, they want to be paid more for the work output they provide. Buybacks are just highly visible and reinforce the point even more so.
Stock buybacks and wage increases are not necessarily related issues. A stock buyback is just a way to return money to shareholders. A wage increase is about paying your workforce appropriately. The only connection between the two is that they both involve a transfer of value from the company to a group of stakeholders but it is not as if the choice is exclusive or correlated.
Companies generally pay their workers more only if they have to (tight labor market, threat of stoppages, etc). Companies generally do stock buybacks if that is the best use of the cash at hand (ie there are no better investment opportunities for the capital available). The considerations are completely different.
> Stock buybacks and wage increases are not necessarily related issues.
Workers (or their union representatives) asking for wage increases are usually told "sorry, there's no money". If the company then does a share buyback, employees who haven't seen significant raises in years are going to take umbrage. In that context, that's why buybacks are such an issue: they're seen as a "fuck you" to underpaid workers.
"Sorry, there's no money" is not a complete statement. The more honest statement is "Sorry, there's no money for you".
Clearly, companies spend money on things (offices, factories, private jets, etc) other than salary increases all the time. The company has decided that its money is better spent on this thing rather than the other. Sure, workers might quibble about whether the money is better spent going to them but buybacks are not any different than any other thing the company is spending money on so it is not any more of a "fuck you" than other types of expenditure.
Either TRY and refute those comments or don't comment at all.