Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | jachell's commentslogin

Just because video games are popular doesn't mean they are not juvenile and a waste of time :)


actually, it kind of does. Technically, watching TV is a waste of time as well. But watching the latest show, i.e. Game of thrones, office, etc. Is not considered a waste of time, society almost sees it as a requirement.


> society almost sees it as a requirement

I never seen office and it never mattered. Majority of people I know never seen Game of Thrones and would not liked it. Some people do like Game of thrones. So no, it is definitely not a requirement by "society". It may be requirement in your own bubble of society, just as some other bubbles treat dota or Witcher III as requirement.

I also cant recall people defending TV watching as not-a-wasted-of-time. There seems to be consensus that it is waste of time. That if you spent whole weekend by watching tv or watched tv till late hours, you should get a grip and self control.


Watching TV is a waste of time. Watching the latest show wastes one hour a week.

Being a “TV watcher” as in spending several hours a day doing it as your main hobby is not any better than being a “gamer” for dating purposes.


I haven't used it, but maybe TikTok?


I think this will happen too.


>Humanity isn't going to go extinct from climate change

Seems like the most likely way right now.

>Causes of climate change are fossil fuels

Yes, and fossil fuels are used in livestock production.

Through use of petrochemicals to produce feed and deforestation. 18% of GHG emissions are estimated to be from livestock and dairy production.

This article covers a lot of the usage: http://www.docbrownscience.com/uploads/4/8/7/2/4872895/food_....


I agree it contributes, but the problem is that fossil fuels are cheap and convenient. Getting rid of meat would delay the problem but not solve it.

I'm very skeptical that climate change can lead to extinction. Maybe civilizational collapse (I don't believe it will though), but there is no plausible path to extinction.


The factory farming way of producing beef is certainly not good for the environment and soil.


I bet if you ask any random person in the US if McDonald's is bad for you, they will say yes.

I don't think the obesity epidemic is from lack of information.


I remember some statistics that showed smokers thought cigarettes were more carcinogenic than non-smokers, and actually more than they actually are.

So yeah, information is certainly necessary but not enough.


Information does nothing to counter addiction. Sugar is just as addictive as nicotine, but doesn't have the negativity associated with it.


I think McDonald's is probably ok for you in small portion sizes, no soda, and with reasonable exercise throughout the day.

I think the trouble is that people get big portions, a big soda, and they live their entire lives in a car or seated.

We had McDonald's in the 80s and if you look at random footage of any 1980s street scene you will see fewer obese people than the same places today.

Relatedly, I have a suspicion our basic food ingredients since that time have higher sugar now.


There's a huge variation in how bad McDonald's food is wrt obesity, if you look at calories versus satiety. Probably the worst are sugary soft drinks and milkshakes. Potato fries are quite bad. Hamburgers are okayish. Salads are okay.


I bet if you ask any random heroine addict if heroine is bad for them they will say yes - they'll just have more compelling reasons to keep using.

Addiction is a disease and junk food is super addicting.


You're moving goalposts.


I disagree - I was trying to provide a counter example to your statement on the lack of a contribution of ignorance to addiction. I think most addicts are well aware of the negative effects of their addiction at a conscious level and at the very least, if asked if their addiction was harmful, would reply "Well yea a bit" or "Well yea it could be" - people with drinking problems don't live in a happy go lucky land where they think everything is a-okay, they are coping and trying to survive. Most are quite aware that their habit is destructive but either don't see another way to move forward or endow a lack of personal strength with all the guilt of their habit - "If I could stop I would, but I'm too weak."

So I think mentioning that people are generally aware of the bad side effects of junk food isn't helpful - some people indulge due to perceived financial pressures (especially time pressures) others because of the short term pleasure- "Everything is going to hell - at least I can enjoy this milkshake and forget about things for a while." Additionally you have just plain old cravings and other factors.

I agree that the obesity epidemic isn't caused by a lack of information - so I think your point is important, but I think it's also important to realize that addictive substances almost never have that lack of information. Booze and cigarettes both tend to come with really heavy warnings about side effects but those warnings don't really have a noticeable effect.

Forcing manufacturers to put those warnings on products is essentially a big cop out by the government to avoid taking any real action.


This is incorrect.

Honestly - I can't blame anybody who could be found lurking, let alone posting on hackers news to think there's no way that this isn't common sense. However, it's not. It's really, unfortunately, very far from it in the U.S.

I now cannot easily find it (at least in a brief search on Google) because of recent bullshit regarding the keywords, but a few years back, there was a medical case that briefly made news. Woman in her thirties, not mentally deficient (by any diagnosis anyways), job holding, etc - was hospitalized at near death from a variety of issues that had gradually become quite severe.

Cause of the issues? She'd, by her, family, and friends accounts, not drank plain water in years, pushing near a decade. The majority of her fluid intake, that entire time, had been Coors Light (sparingly sodas, other sugary/alcoholic drinks that weren't plain water). Her justification as to why she had no idea this could cause any bodily harm is because it was "light"

It's bad. Truthfully, I'm happy for you that you get to live a life where you don't know/haven't been exposed to how bad. But, it's bad and I don't see it getting better any time soon.


I don't appreciate the condescending tone.

"2013 nationally representative phone survey of about 2000 subjects showed that one-fifth of Americans thought FF was good for health, whereas two-thirds considered FF not good. Even over two-thirds of weekly FF consumers (47% of the total population) thought FF not good."

Note: FF = fast food

https://academic.oup.com/advances/article/9/5/590/5062131

There's also this scene from Fat Head: https://youtu.be/evcNPfZlrZs?t=1258


> one-fifth of Americans thought FF was good for health

I wonder what portion of Americans have a troll mentality and will say stupid shit to pollers just for fun. Probably not far off one in five...


A variety of issues? So not something simple like alcohol killing her liver? Then I'm skeptical. There's nothing special about plain water.


Huh?

I think you've missed the point.

There's a person out there who thinks it's a perfectly healthy way of life to consume beer as their only fluid intake. Every day. For years. I guess you really need the context of the article - the main concern of it was really highlighting the fact that they weren't aware only drinking beer could been even remotely harmful to somebody, specifically because it had "light" in the name. Like, even if it had nothing to do with her being hospitalized. Not an argument as to whether or not doing so/having the choice to is wrong - simply that the fact a beverage, alcoholic nonetheless, could not be even slightly bad for the human body, because it had "light" in the name...

I know that may seem like satire to us - but this person was completely serious. Or is there something about your comment that I'm missing?


I'm suggesting that the story is missing very important pieces or possibly not true at all.

(And if it didn't actually harm her, was she even wrong to think a light beer was safe to drink? And by that I mean safe in the amount she drank, not some strawman about it being impossible to harm a human ever in any quantity. Note that not even water passes that strawman test.)


I thought we made it past the era of every company having a blockchain patent.


I'm not convinced that legislation, created by politicians who are unfamiliar with the internet, will break up Google and transform the web in a good way.


Who's "we"? Uber?


We humans and our economies, I'd imagine. Because the problem isn't just Uber. It isn't even just tech. The fear of meat shortages is because we've condensed to very few, very large meat distributors, and a couple of them had outbreaks. I know less about this first-hand, but previous comments on HN have detailed how optimized the toilet paper supply chain is such that it can't absorb people working from home all of a sudden. Bigger, more standardized, more efficient, ruthlessly so, and then can't handle a virus. Borg-like.


We as in the audience here, I think. The tech industry.


Society, I imagine


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: