setecgastronomy's comments

> LOL Techmeme River :

Oh god.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11637697/Catcal...

Yes. There are bad people everywhere. Did you lock your children in the basement? I'm not denying there are dangers in the world and on the internet. My point is that those threats are overblown.

And there have been clickbait fearmongering articles every decade.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/technology/personaltech/28...

> Research absolutely proves that children need to feel safe.

And you telling your kids that there are dangers everywhere must make them feel real safe.

> Again I am not for helicopter and over protective

Okay. But everything you've written and the "research" you've done says otherwise.

> Did I say every?

You kinda implied it.

> Yes when the 4th grade boy wrote down the url to where he saw a man having sex with a dog and gave it to my daughter, yeah that kid had some issues. He also had a tablet with Netflix when he was in Kindergarten and still has unlimited access to the internet. Sadly that kid ins't in school anymore due to his mother not protecting him physically or mentally.

Anecdotes?

> Hey buddy if I could swear at you I would.

No need for that.

> The first step of parenting children is that you make them feel safe from day one till they are mostly adults.

And I posit that you did just the opposite. I doubt there was a day in your kids life that they felt safe.

> That's how we have Alex Jone's audience members.

What? Oh my god. I now am very concerned for what you did to your kids, if you had any.

> It probably wouldn't have been at peace since 1815 if it had not had enough defences to put off other countries from invading in WW1 and 2.

This is a oft repeated myth. Switzerland would have been conquered within a day by any major power in ww1 or ww2. The reason why switzerland isn't conquered is because they serve as a money laundering/transfer center for every power. Swizterland's "defenses" are for show. Swizterland's shield is it's dependable position as banker for nations and the elites.

>I don't know how old you are, but personally (in my early 30s) the internet of my youth was pretty vastly different than the internet of today, i.e. as you say:

I too was a 90s kid. No. It really wasn't. The same dangers that existed back then existed today. There was threats of child predators, internet addiction, gambling, porn, etc. That's why we were taught to be anonymous on the internet. You could argue today's internet is a lot safer than it was in the 90s when most parents didn't even know what the internet was.

> Well now most kids have a high quality webcam in their pocket at all times.

And? 99.99% of them don't use them to sell their photos to pedophiles.

There are pedophiles lurking at libraries too. I guess we should stop kids from using the library. It's funny how people who want to control kids and who are so scared of everything find something to be scared of no matter what.

Just because 0.000001% of kids might do stupid stuff on the internet isn't a reason to monitor every kid or keep kids from the internet without supervision.

Every HN thread about china has the exact same anti-chinese comments. Every single one.

> but I have a hard time believing that foreign tech investments in China really pay off.

If it didn't pay off, apple wouldn't be the most valuable company in the world.

> The Chinese strategy seems to be to woo big foreign companies, build a critical mass of local users who want the product, ban or otherwise limit the foreign company's influence in China

What else do you expect them to do? Cede their entire market to foreigners? Every country did the same thing. The europeans did it. We did it in the US. The japanese and the south koreans. It's really common sense.

> If Google accomplishes anything worthwhile at this research center, won't China just shut it down and re-employ those researchers at a domestic company?

If they did, why would google invest in china? It's been 40 years. If investing in china wasn't lucrative, it would have ended a long time ago.

> Why do high-tech companies even continue to try to break into China?

The real question is why is it that we get the exact same type of comments in every thread about china?

Go through every china related thread on HN and every single one has the exact same comments. Why?

> At its core, the current cryptocurrency craze is simply an unprecedented wealth transfer to China from the rest of the world.

Actually it's a wealth transfer from china to the US. The chinese are using bitcoins as a means to evade CCP capital controls.

There's a reason why china cracked down on bitcoin. Do you think china would stop wealth transfer to china? Of course not. They are trying to stop wealth transfer from china to the US.

> Children given unsupervised access to the internet is ridiculous.

Why?

> People freak out if a predator lives int heir neighborhood but they let their child be accessible to millions of predators via their phone or table.

Well advise the kids of the dangers. I and most of my friends had unsupervised internet access. We are all doing fine.

> This is why kids initial exposure to porn is 8 in the US and 10 when kids are getting addicted.

Every kid is getting "addicted"?

> I still remember working with children and teens and found out, through the police and parents, that a few of the kids 11 to 15 were using their webcams to get people to buy them stuff online. This was in the late 90s.

And guess what? 99.99% of 90s kids didn't use webcams.

> My job as a parent is to help them become awesome adult selves and learning not to be addicted to anything from drugs, alcohol, laziness or phones is part of being a parent.

No offense, but your kids aren't prepared for the real world. What will they do now that they are adults with no parental supervision. Also, no parent with 5 kids is "responsible".

You could argue that government help in wiping out the natives and stealing their land and giving it to the white settlers is an agricultural subsidy. It's true that we've never had persistent hunger in the US. But that's cause we stole all the natives land. The natives however suffered tremendous hunger/starvation though.

> In the USA, welfare spending dwarfs farm subsidies by a factor of >50.

That depends on what you count as a "subsidy". Are all the roads, dams, diverting of rivers, etc counted as "subsidies"?

> Its effect has been shown quite convincingly in Massachusetts and China.

Modern subsidized agriculture in both countries has quite convincingly showed it.

Not sure why you are now moving the goalpost to welfare.

> There is nothing specific wrong with industry people working at regulatory agencie

Sure. In the abstract. But in practicality, it doesn't pass the smell test. Just like if I committed a crime and my mother was judge of the case, there isn't anything specifically wrong with it. But there are potential issues of conflict of interest and she should probably recuse herself from the case.

> in fact, good regulation should include the input of the regulated industries (failure to do so was a causative factor in the bankruptcy of railroads in the 60s and 70s).

Of course regulatory agencies need input from the industry. But there is a difference between providing input and leading the agency. I'm all for input. I'm not too keen on former Directors, CEOs, etc of banks, ISPs, etc leading agencies that regulate those companies. Especially when we have people going back and forth between regulatory agencies and companies.

It's like speculation on top of speculation. Reminds me of the MBS/CDOs of the housing crisis. Speculative loans of speculative loans.

> All we need now is someone adding leverage and hilarity shall most certainly ensue

Oh, it's already starting. Believe me.

Usually when you start hearing of "record setting" purchase of art, you start your clock on the next recession. I guess this could be that moment. Wouldn't be surprised if we have a recession in the next 2 or 3 years.

> He was brazen enough to admit, early on, that he does not care whether or not his plan is unpopular and that what the public thinks makes no difference whatsoever.

Looks like it. It's pretty surprising how ambivalent the guy is to public pressure.

Also, we really need to look into how government and regulation works in this country. What's the point of having a regulatory system for industries if the officials of companies in these industry lead the governmental/regulatory agencies?

If former goldman sachs officials run financial agencies and if a former verizon official runs the FCC, what's the point of these agencies?

> I am in my mid-60s, manage a machine learning team at a fine company, busy writing a new book, and getting close to being an investor in a new company.

I think you just proved OP's point. Seems like you have nothing going for you but work.

> My Dad is 96 and does 3D animation, makes movies and documentaries

This is a problem I have with modern american society. I wonder whether it would be better to give those resources to younger and more capable people who can actually make good movies and documentaries.

> and is still a member of the national academy of science.

People are members of NAS for life.

> Life ends either when one gives up learning and doing new things, or when our bodies finally wear out :-)

That's not what the guy was talking about...

But you've highlighted a lot of problems we have in our society. Too much resources and wealth have been "stolen" by the older generations like you and your father. And the younger generation are suffering from lack of opportunity and resources. I don't think this is very healthy for society over the long term. But I guess only time will tell.

That's blatantly false. The US, Europe, China, Japan and every top agricultural nation subsidizes agriculture.

Subsidized agriculture has been responsible for pretty much ending hunger in most of the world. Free market agriculture hasn't been responsible for ending any hunger.