marky1991

'Religion is culture...'

This argument appears to me unjustified. This equating between culture and religion seems especially unworkable in modern times, where cultural groups don't have single religions at all. Eg in america there is in my opinion a single shared american culture, shared across people of different religions. If we were to equate these two things, does that imply that there is no shared american culture? I just don't see how this interpretation doesn't lead to a single stretched 'culture' term which basically ends up subsuming everything about people, and don't see how it is a useful term or how it aids in thought or understanding.

In this case, the point really isn't 'culture' vs 'religion' it's 'moral' vs 'preference'. Consuming vegemite is not a moral mandate for anyone, it's just a preference, like mayonnaise, fashion, or coke.

What is a 'secular dietary conviction'? Religious restrictions are 'God says it is morally wrong to consume this'. Are you suggesting that australian culture suggests 'it is morally wrong to not eat vegemite'? I don't think that's true.

Because if it's just 'australian people like to eat X, I'm australian, thus it's morally wrong to deny me 'X', I don't see how that's reasonable. It's also a strong australian cultural norm to not be confined to a small cell every day for the rest of your life, but that norm was knowingly taken away as part this inmates' conviction and sentencing. Surely eating vegemite is a much smaller concern compared to the imprisonment.

Could you please communicate instead of just replying? I have no idea what you're talking about and would appreciate a fully expressed thought instead of a one liner or a vague 6 word phrase.

Could you explain how?

How so?

Both are os-specific graphics apis. It seems pretty comparable to me.

Ok, but even if that were true , it costs nothing to say "we'll let you know when we think we have fixed the issue so you can then retest"

"Idk lol, it'll probably be fixed one day, keep testing and find out" is a pretty crappy response.

But sugar is literally added to jelly as the preservative, that's why jelly exists to begin with.

For example, the very first recipe for strawberry jelly from some horrible spam recipe site:

2 cups (16 ounces) pure strawberry juice (I used 3 1/2 pounds ripe, fresh strawberries to get this amount of juice) 3 1/3 cups (666 grams) granulated sugar

It's literally more sugar than strawberry juice.

How is this a 'hack'? It's listing ingredients in order of quantity. The nutrition facts already tell you total amount of sugar per serving separately, that's not what the ingredient list is for to begin with. Also, I don't have much sympathy for someone surprised that jelly contains a lot of sugar: A) Have you tasted it B) Do you have any idea what jelly is or why it exists C) Have you ever made it?

Jelly inherently, as a direct consequence of its very reason for existing, contains a lot of sugar, duh.

If we were to take all preceding arguments seriously, couldn't that be explained by americans going to live in a low-cost-of-living country once they've earned their living?

(Don't know your country to know if that's true or not, but it's a possibility)

I was always taught that the executive branch enforces the law, not interprets it. If the executive branch or legislative branches disagree with the judicial branch, then they have the responsibility to appeal or deal with it; they can't just ignore it because they disagree.

Eg Python is barely trudging along with random forks of a library that stopped being supported 10 years ago, each fork only getting maintained for about a year at a time.

I really think outside of Java and c#, soap is totally dead.

So why are you commenting here?

Sorry, but that's not an answer to my question. To be honest, I'm starting to feel like you're not really talking to me, you're just responding to me.

If you're asking for evidence of people changing their minds, I've done that, though I will admit I haven't done it in the past page of comments on hackernews.

Normally it's not a wholesale change of opinion, but a shift in nuance or a changing of details.

But even if I found such a thing, that doesn't answer my question.

If you aren't interested in changing minds, why do you comment in forum threads at all?

So, are you admitting there's no moral justification here? It's just 'do-it-because-you-want-to'?