zaque1213

It appears you have given a perfect illustration of the comment you are replying to.

I'd be interested to see stats on how often people skip over the ads during a podcast. I admit I do occasionally, but most of the time when I'm listening to a podcast I'm simultaneously doing something - like driving, exercising, mowing the lawn - that makes it inconvenient open my phone, navigate to to the app, and press the skip button a few times. Coupled with the fact that the adds are generally not too long, I don't find it to be too intrusive to the episode.

I think their statement about Dawkins’ apparently having never opened a Bible was in regard to his theological understanding, not historical.

Having read Dawkins, my primary critique of him overall is that he regularly demonstrates a willful ignorance as to what religious people actually believe. He’s content to attack straw men and not the propositional truth claims at the heart of religious belief.

Author advises business person not to make others the butt of a joke, then makes fun of all business persons for not being funny and not understanding what a good metaphor is.

Mark Bittman was the second biggest influencer of the way I prepare food. The first was a college roommate, who literally improvised everything he cooked, as far as ingredients and proportions go, and it tasted amazing every time. It opened my eyes to how subjective cooking can be.

I tried Blue Apron once. So boring.

I broker professional liability insurance for design professionals (architects and engineers), which means I don't much fit in on HN, but I enjoy the content anyway.

Most would call what I do boring, and some of it is. I do enjoy working with our clients, most of whom are easy going, like to shoot the shit and talk about the interesting designs and projects they are working on. Some of them have worked on some incredibly large projects in Houston and Dallas. I also enjoy digging into their contracts and offering non-legal advise to help them mitigate their risk.

Is it fulfilling? A little bit, but I realized that if I allow work to be my biggest defining factor, I'd probably be frustrated most of the time. I like my team, and others in my office, and I get paid very well for my market. I'm not overworked and have time to do other things that interest me. I spend a ton of time with my wife, and have a great community of friends.

My life as a whole is fulfilled. My job contributes to that, but I count it a small factor.

I like the idea of carpooling and would be happy to if / when I find someone who works near me. We moved recently and I don't know the neighbors well enough yet to ask.

I drive a fairly fuel efficient car. Only fill up every week and a half. That's pretty good I think in my situation.

I'd be happy if Houston made it easier not to drive! Maybe I'll try to find activists working toward that end.

You may be correct.If we felt that renting was the best option for us we would rent. But it's not necessarily the best option when you are trying to start a family. Also in our situation we are currently paying less on a house note than we were when we rented.

Hey another Houstonian! My thoughts exactly.

> Driving is a choice, and provided that drivers pay all the costs associated with making that choice, there’s little reason to object to that.

I mean, kind of. I'm not sure where the author lives, but in Houston, I don't have much of a choice. I already pay tolls and taxes, gas prices and my car note. I live as close to work as is affordable, and still have to drive. There's no bus route from my apartment and I'm not about to ride my bike on I-10. I ask this next question in seriousness, because I'd love to change my habits without moving to a more expensive city with good public transportation: what are my options here? I'd rather not be "disinsentivized" from doing something I have no choice but to do.

I think it was Jessica Yellin on NPR's On Point who said something about Washington being way more like VEEP than House of Cards. Comforting somehow.

There are some theories, such as those laid out by Francis Fukuyama in the Origins of Political Order, which postulate that homo sapiens are optimized to form functioning societies of about 120 units. However, certain features have evolved in our species, such as the ability to speak AND write, and form mythologies and stories, which allows our ability to form political societies to exponentially increase. Who's to say we won't keep evolving to find ways to cooperate in ways that were impossible before?

I propose we base truth on whatever epistemological grounding that allows one to assert the truth claim of relative truth.

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." - George Orwell