I use Discord in place of Slack for hobby/non-professional projects.
The problem with Discord tbh is I've found it to be less reliable than Slack in terms of uptime/push notifications. It also has fewer devop functions prebuilt which means building them out.
Not a big deal if you are a hobbyist, is a big deal if you are paying people $100+/hr to do it.
While it has happened, the West's free trade and globalist policies are built on the belief that trade greatly reduces the odds of war. The WTO, the UN, the EU, etc. are all built on the idea that strong/fair economic ties reduce the risk of WWI/WWII type conflicts.
> I would argue it's not colonialism, these countries can always say no, it just depends on political will and strength. That's not really China's fault or concern.
That is the US's rational for doing the same thing, yes.
It doesn't end well. It results in stuff like the Iranian revolution. Installing and/or supporting "friendly leaders" who then push deals that are against the local national interest results in a great deal of hostility in the long run.
The reason the US is hated isn't that the US is evil. It is the fact the US meddled in the affairs of others more than they should have and then leveraged concessions beyond what the native population wanted. China is repeating that mistake.
> Again, the US has done similar things in the past, hence the numerous US air force bases scattered around the world. It's simply practical to gain soft power, and then convert that soft power into harder power.
Practical? Yes. If you are expecting to go to war.
If no war materializes, you've destroyed any chance of popular support in that country indefinitely. China is burning bridges with the native populations in these countries that won't go away in 5 years.
Please keep nationalistic and ideological flamewar, and internet gunslinging generally, off HN. Regardless of how right you are, they're not what this site is for.
Individual actions by individual actors in the US political system were evil. That does not mean US as a whole is evil. Merely that evil people got into power for periods of time.
A country cannot be judged as if it acted with one mind, one body, and one will.
The people consented, and benefited from, that state of affairs. In a democracy, that means the people can answer for the actions of their leaders. Although I concede reality is far from being as simple as this, to some extent at least we must hold the electorate of the US responsible for the actions of the government of the US, no?
Can you please stop using HN primarily for political battle? That's a violation of the site guidelines and the spirit of intellectual curiosity that, against the odds, we're trying to keep up here.
Also resulted in the greatest era in human history in terms of peace and prosperity.
>It is the fact the US meddled in the affairs of others more than they should have and then leveraged concessions beyond what the native population wanted.
I think it's hard being at the top and maintaining global order. You get blamed for everything and you get credit for nothing.
> Also resulted in the greatest era in human history in terms of peace and prosperity.
You are confusing Capitalism with foreign policy.
> Why not?
Where do you think all this anti-US violence comes from?
Empires have never fared well once they fell from power with the exception of the British who were geographically isolated and had very powerful allies.
Simply because the bloodshed caused by US foreign policy mostly occurs on foreign soil doesn't mean it will stop just because the US is no longer an empire.
> I think it's hard being at the top and maintaining global order. You get blamed for everything and you get credit for nothing.
The US actively instigated violent revolutions, torture, and abuses in other countries. Pretending that is "part of maintaining global order" is absurd.
The pillars of what the US is credited for is something half the population actively rebels against (globalism, free trade) and were achieved in spite of the popular will domestically.
Simply because I believe a certain technique should be verboten doesn't mean I ignored credit for the US's successes.
> I think it's hard being at the top and maintaining global order. You get blamed for everything and you get credit for nothing.
Being at the top (say, a superpower in today's world) means you enjoy at least an order of magnitude advantage over any other country in the majority of interactions you might have with them.
If you think of maintaining global order as helping to maintain that lead, then not getting credit for anything really doesn't factor into any of the decision-making calculus.
>If you think of maintaining global order as helping to maintain that lead
Except I wouldn't think of it that way. I don't think that's the correct interpretation. I think maintaining global order means you live in the world you want to live in. Americans wanted to spread American ideals of Democracy, free speech and free enterprise. Soviet Union wanted to spread Soviet ideals. I think that's as simple as that.
>You are confusing Capitalism with foreign policy.
Do you think it's a coincidence the world adopted the economic and political system of the world's superpower? When there two superpowers, the world was neatly divided by the economic and political system of those respective of superpowers. Another coincidence?
Before WW2 and America's official accession to a superpower status, even Europe didn't really embrace democracy (outside of Britain and France), with fascism and communism taking hold of much of the continent.
>Empires have never fared well once they fell from power
I'm not even sure how to contextualize that statement. Empires have always fared well but you're right they don't last, and when they fall, it leads to anarchy, misery and war... until the next Empire. So I wouldn't be so quick to celebrate America's decline as the maintainer of present global order.
>The US actively instigated violent revolutions, torture, and abuses in other countries.
Forest for the trees. I'm sure you can pick out many individual cases where you think America didn't live up to your ideals ... but it's a big world, and lots of things happen and this sort of selective focus on negatives is easily done and gives a warped perspective.
Look at the big picture. We live in the most peaceful and prosperous time in the human history. Things like that don't happen by happenstance.
> Not stopping the overthrow of the Shah (and then admitting him to the United States) may have been a mistake because of the hostage crisis that unfolded and also created geopolitical instability that continues to this day.
Fighting to defend a dictator the West effectively installed to suppress a populist movement was unlikely to have a better outcome than the Shah being ousted.
People in the West seem to forget the Iranian Revolution was _extremely_ popular in Iran.
Why was it popular?
Because the Shah was a corrupt and oppressive regime that was hated by the Iranian people. The Iranian Revolution wasn't the first time he was forced out of Iran either.
This delusion that Iran could be "ruled" by the Shah as a positive outcome needs to stop. It isn't borne out by the facts and it would have ended up collapsing eventually. Popular leaders don't need organizations like SAVAK to torture its own people.
> At what point does the technical community stop trying to technically interfere with the efforts of law enforcement, and start trying to change the laws that make law enforcement behave this way?
Law enforcement and government are addicted to power to an unhealthy degree. Convincing people to voluntarily give up power is rarely successful.
You seem to believe majority support is enough to make something happen. It is not.
The Public Option has 75% popular support. Medicare-For-All has 59% popular support.
After President Franklin Pierce's child died gruesomely in a train wreck, it was believed, even by his own wife and family, that it was God's punishment for him seeking authority and power.
I didn't live in the past, but my reading of it leads me to believe that, at least through US history, it seemed that the public consciousness in the past has had very real skepticism of authority.
Perhaps that is the opposite today in many parts of the developed world. For example, a German guy recently looked me dead in the eye, smiled, and said sincerely: "But why would anybody not trust their government?"
Pierce was part of the first generation of U.S citizens and would have grown up with stories of British ruled colonies, which could have helped foster the skepticism of authority you mention.
The Public Option has 75% popular support. Medicare-For-All has 59% popular support. [HR] Yet we have neither. Brexit was decided on an embarrassingly close vote: 51.9%
So we have two seemingly popular things that haven't happened and one that has happened but was not so popular (but it turns out that it was more popular than was suspected by anyone beforehand). I'm afraid that is politics. If it helps, I am not a fan of Brexit but will have to live with it anyway.
There is no conspiracy and I don't think that it is fair to accuse your police and government of being arseholes (to put words in your mouth!) Sometimes we simply have to accept that our personal will does not always dovetail with that of the majority - that is how democracy works. To be fair though, there is also nothing wrong with getting a good rant in on HN.
If you feel really strongly about healthcare, why not emigrate to the UK? Our NHS is bloody amazing and only costs: https://www.gov.uk/national-insurance/how-much-you-pay - roughly 12% of your salary. There is a lower band and an upper band so it is not 12% of everything you earn and it also covers unemployment payments and other things.
> Sometimes we simply have to accept that our personal will does not always dovetail with that of the majority - that is how democracy works.
That's true. But said acceptance doesn't need to translate to acceptance of the laws that the misguided majority enacts - you can sabotage those instead, Underground Railroad style.
> There is no conspiracy and I don't think that it is fair to accuse your police and government of being arseholes (to put words in your mouth!) Sometimes we simply have to accept that our personal will does not always dovetail with that of the majority - that is how democracy works. To be fair though, there is also nothing wrong with getting a good rant in on HN.
You've clearly never dealt with either in the US for a protracted period of time.
Yes, they very much are. Their response to them breaking the law and/or making a mistake is "Fuck off, sue us."
> If you feel really strongly about healthcare, why not emigrate to the UK? Our NHS is bloody amazing and only costs: https://www.gov.uk/national-insurance/how-much-you-pay - roughly 12% of your salary. There is a lower band and an upper band so it is not 12% of everything you earn and it also covers unemployment payments and other things.
A) You are moving the goal posts from the original discussion.
B) I was born here. I'm not leaving just because I don't win every battle.
> Brexit was decided on an embarrassingly close vote: 51.9%
> The four most recent readings - taken by BMG Research and Survation between November and January - have, on average, once the 8% who said "don't know" are left to one side, put Remain on 52% and Leave on 48%.
Now that it isn't being influenced by an outside party, it is no longer narrowly winning.
To be honest, I don't think people should cry they have a mandate from the people with less than a 55% majority.
Now that it isn't being influenced by an outside party, it is no longer narrowly winning.
My original point about Brexit being very close still stands and I would suggest that your Remain on 52% and Leave on 48% are still very close given the sheer pain of the separation that has become apparent since the original vote (you try listening to the news here - its bloody boring.) If you had waved say 60% Remain, I might take notice.
It seems to me that you've gone off topic here without offering detailed support of your arguments.
Re: "Conservatives have a far, far lower bar to censor people than Twitter, et al. (i.e. /r/The_Donald on Reddit)" This is a generalization with only one example for support.
It isn't that complex and to be 100% honest, once you know how it works, its very easy to test for yourself with extremely consistent results. The bans are more a result of me testing their belief in the first amendment for my own curiosity rather than anything you need to apologize for. I intentionally bait conservatives that claim they are pro-free speech to watch the hypocrisy and to confirm my belief in their dishonesty is correct.
The loophole used to "justify" my bans is almost always:
User who doesn't agree with conservative narrative posts facts viewed as damaging -> Conservatives report you as "spamming" -> powers that be ban you as a "spammer" due to moderation mechanisms based on N reports.
Sometimes it involves human intervention as well, sometimes not.
> PC case maker CaseLabs says it has been 'forced into bankruptcy and liquidation' by US tariffs (Prices went up 80%!) -- Thanks Folks and I await your censorship ban.
I know they are going to do that after I posted that, even included it in the title, and was banned. :)
I was also banned for similar posts on a couple news sites.
-----
Pretty much any major "Conservative" subreddit has banned my account (or another one of my Reddit accounts) at this point. Voat/Gab, I'm banned platform wide.
TastyBite is definitely a similar product/company. The key differentiators are:
- Our products are fresh and don't have any preservatives, meaning they must be refrigerated or frozen whereas TastyBite is shelf-stable for 9+ months. Our food is inherently fresher and tastes more homemade because of this.
- Our recipes are crowdsourced instead of developed in our kitchen. This ensures that the food is actually authentic with a homemade taste and we are able to expand into a much larger variety of products much quicker. For instance, we have a few recipes in our pipeline that you would be hard-pressed to find in TastyBite or even regular Indian restaurants because they are authentic to smaller regions of India.
- I can't say that you'll definitely like our product's taste better than TastyBite, but I do believe so :)
From the amazon link to TastyBite's packaging, it looks like they also don't use preservatives (It's explicitly mentioned in the packaging that no preservatives are used). Good luck with your startup, but their shelf life of 9+ months doesn't seem to be due to use of preservatives, it could be due to the packaging process.
On a relative note, there are tons of such products in India and most of them taste sub par to home cooked food. One exception I found was Butter Chicken I used to buy regularly when I was spent some time in Newyork few years ago. You just have to freeze it until you open and then, heat it in microwave and ready to go. It tasted very good, but spoiled my stomach (I am bearing the burden even till today) due to the usage of preservatives. Anything that doesn't use preservative is a welcome addition.
One more, when you mentioned sustainable packaging, what does it mean? Is it paper or bio plastic? If so another +1.
So you are going to market as an upscale version of TastyBite with no preservatives that sells niche Indian food?
I wish you the best of luck with that.
Personally, I find a package of Vindaloo from TastyBite, some riced veggies, and a shredded chicken breast lasts me about 2 meals and is comparable to the price you are charging. I really only use TastyBite as a backpacking/on-the-go meal or as a quick curry out of laziness. I'm probably not your target market but shelf stability has alot going for it.
Your use case for TastyBit makes total sense. We're hoping to be a go-to option for a normal meal at home when you don't want to spend the time/money/energy on making a meal from scratch.
We are starting with Indian food but will hopefully be expanding to different cuisines, too!
>With nearly everyone focused on the supposed benefits of salt restriction, little research was done to look at the potential dangers. But four years ago, Italian researchers began publishing the results from a series of clinical trials, all of which reported that, among patients with heart failure, reducing salt consumption increased the risk of death... Those trials have been followed by a slew of studies suggesting that reducing sodium to anything like what government policy refers to as a “safe upper limit” is likely to do more harm than good. These covered some 100,000 people in more than 30 countries and showed that salt consumption is remarkably stable among populations over time. In the United States, for instance, it has remained constant for the last 50 years, despite 40 years of the eat-less-salt message. The average salt intake in these populations — what could be called the normal salt intake — was one and a half teaspoons a day, almost 50 percent above what federal agencies consider a safe upper limit for healthy Americans under 50, and more than double what the policy advises for those who aren’t so young or healthy. This consistency, between populations and over time, suggests that how much salt we eat is determined by physiological demands, not diet choices....
>People tend to consume about the same amount of sodium no matter where they live, and this amount hasn’t changed much in decades. Those facts hint at the biological basis of our sodium appetite.... “Over the last five decades, salt content of commercial food in our food [in the United States] has gone up. But if you look at people’s 24-hour urinary sodium excretion, you see that the amounts of salt people consume have been constant,” he says. Irrespective of age, sex or race, between 1957 and 2003 Americans have been eating on average 3.5 grams of salt a day. “This suggests that we are somehow regulating the amount of salt we are eating,” Breslin says.... In one of Leshem’s studies, babies who had low concentrations of sodium in their blood in the first weeks of their lives grew up to be teenagers with a penchant for salt, even salt that is seemingly hidden in processed foods. “Even if you can’t taste the salt, apparently your body does. It’s working on an unconscious level to condition a preference for sodium,” Leshem explains.
Except Tasty Bite tastes terrible. There's another competitor making the same thing (sealed cooked food, no water needed) Maya Kaimal that is _much_ better. It actually tastes good.
Personally, I enjoy Tasty Bite curries. It may not be the perfect authentic Indian dish you get at a good restaurant but I find at its price point there isn't any real competitor for my $$.
It's definitely a subjective thing! It's hard to find authentic Indian food that tastes good, is easy to make, and affordable. That's where we come in :)
> It looks to me like the biggest difference is that these are not sealed, they're perishable. Tasty bite can be kept at room temperature for 9+ months.
Yeah, which isn't really a positive unless it saves on sodium/etc. If it does, its really a niche "healthy" version of TastyBite and they need to market it as such.
Only reason I moved over to Discord was too many chat apps and the hobby users were all on Discord anyway.