Recent submissions

Comment · 2 years ago
If you’re referring to the shiny pieces in soil you buy from a garden shop, that’s actually perlite - a natural volcanic glass that’s added to improve soil drainage.
Comment · 3 years ago
Counterpoint- I have three children (one still not biking in his own) and have exclusively used a cargo bike to cart them to school since Kinder unless it was exceptionally icy roads.

That said, I live in a very bike friendly city now, close to their school, can afford a cargo bike, etc.

Comment · 4 years ago
Comment · 5 years ago
Comment · 8 years ago
Dollar-denominated debt in emerging markets is the big exception. If the dollar rises, those debts become more expensive to repay, regardless of the emerging market's underlying economy. That's why Ukraine, Argentina, Turkey and Brazil have seen the recent volatility.

The question is whether these problems are limited to those countries with high dollar debt or whether it could cause a regional capital outflow that reduces economic growth in neighboring countries or trade partners.

Comment · 8 years ago
Or the market's reaction following the announcement. I would imagine that they have to have two draft titles ready for every piece written about earnings announcements.
Comment · 10 years ago
I think it's important to look beyond hypertension before completely ending the war on salt.

Very high salt intake may influence the risk of H. pylori infection - the main cause of stomach cancer. It increases the risk of atrophic gastritis (chronic inflammation of the stomach), which makes the stomach more prone to infection, and increases the susceptibility of mucosa to neoplastic change once an infection occurs.

If you think nobody consumes this level of salt, the Chinese and Japanese had extremely high levels of stomach cancer decades ago before reducing their salt intake and preservative consumption. To some extent, these problems persist to this day. Completely ignoring salt (especially in convenience foods) could reignite the issue.

Comment · 11 years ago
Comment · 11 years ago
I have an interesting anecdote related to ketosis: I was in nutritional ketosis for three months to test its effects on my body. My ketones were consistent with being in the ketotic state, but my LDL-P and triglycerides skyrocketed with no meaningful improvement in HDL. It's debatable whether this is "bad" for you without inflammation (atherosclerosis relies on both), but I certainly wasn't comfortable with the elevated levels and went out of ketosis.

Saturated fat sensitivity seems to have been my issue (VERY difficult to be on that diet without high levels of saturated fat) and I'm now on a low-carb monounsaturated fat diet that has dramatically improved my blood lipids.

So, for me at least, I would have to disagree with "the rest is just calories" statement. I think too many people are trying to simplify nutrition with a single book, diet, or pill, when in reality, it's a complex system that might very well be impossible to predict.

Comment · 11 years ago
Thanks for the post-

It would be interesting to see some more detailed N=1 studies posted regarding Soylent. In particular, I'd be very interested in seeing a blood lipid profile, blood pressure readings, and blood glucose readings before and after to see its effects on key markers for metabolic syndrome.

I'm not opposed to the idea of engineered food (it would certainly be convenient), but I'm not convinced that the same macronutrient profile is ideal for everyone. My other big concern is that there's potential harm in the lack of diversity - e.g. "unknown unknowns" so to speak.

Unfortunately, the field of nutrition is not very WELL studied despite the high NUMBER of studies published, so I won't pretend that I have a better answer than Soylent to the problem with nutrition in society. It's good to see that people are at least working on the problem in creative ways, so long as they aren't harming anyone.

Comment · 12 years ago
Let's look at it another way.

You own a company that's trading with a P/E of 100x. Investors expect a lofty growth rate to justify that multiple and organic growth only lasts for so long as a market leader. In finance, price-earnings to growth ("PEG") ratios tend to be 1.0 at fair value, meaning a 100x P/E means investor expect 100% annual growth. Your high valuation makes acquisitions easier (assuming your overvalued now, you are buying assets at a discount). And, those acquisitions are perhaps the only way to achieve/maintain those lofty growth rates over the long-term. So, what's stopping you from making those acquisitions when others are in the same boat?

Comment · 12 years ago

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton