Did you intend to be so insulting, condescending, and dismissive? "Left to their own devices, farmers will often chase after last season's cash crop. That is bad. It's far better for farmers to stick to more predictable growing and for more dedicated incentives to be issued."
I grew up on a farm and lived around farmers. This is my lived experience.
I saw first hand farmers tear up a barley fields to plant wheat when the price got high enough.
Farming is a game of speculation. Planting last year's cash crop can be a successful strategy just like buying APPL today will likely yield good returns. Yet, it's a very hard market to predict with a lot of luck involved. Maybe only a few chase the cash crop and you win big. Maybe everyone does and you lose. Maybe there's a natural or political disaster that pumps up your crop.
There was nothing insulting, condensing, or dismissive about my comment. Highly speculative markets, like food, have booms and busts that can swing wildly. That's bad for something like food. The free market does not work with crops.
I'd argue that this should be refined to something like "farmers that speculate heavily struggle in an under-regulated free market".
Financial stability in highly volatile markets depends on appropriate planning, saving, and distribution. I say this from the investment perspective, but I would venture to guess that it also applies to hard goods like food-stuffs.
The nature of farming is speculation. It's inescapable. In a completely free market there's no way to guarantee success. Even with the best planning and saving you can't know what the rest of the market is doing and because of the long tail, you are locked in to harvesting and selling your crop no matter what.
You can speculate and be the farmer that always plants and grows wheat. You'll see booms and busts based on that. You can also switch up what you are growing based on your best guess about demand. Both strategies can be successful.
Funnily, one way to make farming less risky is a futures contract. And, if you know anything about futures commodity trading you know they are some of the most risky forms of trading.
It's true though, these regulations exists because speculation and profit-chasing in agriculture is what lead to the dust bowl and worsened the great depression. We really, really don't want a repeat of that.
The amazing thing about people failing to learn from history is that everybody thinks they're too smart to (a) learn history or (b) follow rules enacted to prevent the disasters of yesteryear.
Learning from history is important but it’s much more important to do so in an inclusive manner. In fact, inclusive language is more important than anything else.
Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it a lot lately. We've already asked you a whole bunch of times not to do this. Eventually we ban accounts that won't stop.
Sure, but I think you should strive to run your community in a way where you’re policing the “I don’t endorse X, but I don’t understand why more people don’t do X” that this comment espouses https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47773488
You’re busy policing this while people are out there saying “Destroy their things and firebomb their houses”. So is it just that I made a mistake in my phrasing? Should I just frame the same comments in the style “I would never endorse X, but I don’t understand why others don’t do X”?
I can do that easily without LLM assistance if you like. But if you want your community to be exclusively endorsers of violence against enemies of a chosen tribe, then you should ban me so you can keep your little tribe of Ted Kaczynski fanboys.
This is one of those cases where the word "but" negates everything that precedes it.
If you think we haven't been moderating the type of posts you're talking about, you haven't been tracking HN moderation lately*—which is fine, why should/would you? But in that case you shouldn't be taking snarky swipes at the mods based on galactically mistaken assumptions.
More importantly, you shouldn't be pointing fingers at others instead of taking responsibility for your own bad behavior. Even if you were right in what you said, it wouldn't justify your breaking the rules. Moreover you have a longstanding pattern of doing this and we've been cutting you slack for years.
Okay, admittedly when I read these things I lose my mind and become a viral host for the nonsense because I feel the need to retaliate against what is clearly some kind of Blue Tribe mobbery. Clearly it’s a mistaken belief that you allow targeted mob-forming on your platform. Actually you’re just drowning under the load. Fine. What I can edit out I shall and I’ll try to keep in mind that you’re trying and failing, and doing this is just participating in the crap.
I’ll follow your comments for a mod log to see and I’ll refrain.
I do think it would justify breaking any rules that allow targeted mob-forming but since that’s not happening I’m happy to stand off.
RFK Jr. " “Right now we have about 842 cases, Chris. And Canada, they have about the same number. They have one-eighth of our population. Europe has ten times that number. Our numbers have plateaued.”
He noted that for years, the CDC has insisted the only way to manage measles is through universal vaccination. But Kennedy challenged that approach.
He argued that people who have concerns about the MMR vaccine—whether it’s due to aborted fetal debris or DNA particles—deserve access to treatment options.
“And that’s what we’re developing at CDC right now,” Kennedy said, “protocols for treating measles.”
-----
"Terrain theory" holds that "you are what you eat." Well, uh...yeah, that's true.
"Terrain theory" also holds that ingesting pollution and poisons...poisons a living creature. Well, uh...yeah, that's true.
mRNA is dangerous, very dangerous. It was abandoned as such during animal trials. The large drug companies have been facing "patentagedon", the expiring of patents on which their profits are based. Traditional drugs are somewhat analogous to salves. What do drug companies want? Does it benefit them to prevent/solve disease or is it more economically advantageous for them to always be "needed?"
There is no substitute for healthy food, a clean environment, and exercise. No amount of synthesized chemicals artificially introduced to a human body will/can replace that.
Some drugs are highly useful, some are barely marginal. What's a multi-billion dollar company to do if/when it "solves" the majority of major problems?
The answer is "perverse incentive." Factory food, factory pharma, big tech, political parties, etc., etc., etc....any entity which becomes too large AND whose major reason for existance disappears...fights to survive, including creating false need. It's the story of human existence through all societies.
So...maybe, just maybe, both terrain and germ theory, like all theories, are an attempt to reduce totality into a useful modeling tool.
WRT that article, it's a desperate shill hack job, not structured well at all, and full of logical fallacies and lies.
reply