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

After I watched Forks Over Knives on Netflix it took me about 2 years to become 100% plant based, but I've been doing it now for over a year and I can guarantee you I'll never go back.

I work in an industry where I see the side effects of the Standard American Diet, and if you saw the health effects I see you'd switch too.

Here in Austin we have several monthly potlucks based upon the Plant Pure Nation pods idea, which makes it easier to find like minded people and new recipes. Also, Facebook groups like McDougall Friends is great for support, if you need it.


If emergency room doctors made laws, motorcycles would be illegal.

We're all susceptible to being deluded by our naive realism. Like how I think anyone driving faster than me is a maniac and anyone driving slower is a moron. The objective reality is that everybody thinks that.


This study found that 70% of drivers think they're "above average": http://www.theaa.ie/blog/70-of-drivers-rate-themselves-as-ab...


So 71% of the predictors are actually correct.


Or perhaps they'd be subsidized as it brings them business :P


I wish. The insurance on my R1 outweighs my other bikes and cars, combined. And I honestly can't blame them. That thing is breathtakingly fast.


That actually seems like a pretty good metaphor, because the motorcycle is probably only legal due to historical inertia, not modern analysis.

If the motorcycle were invented today, do you think it would ever be legal? In America, perhaps, but probably not in countries that are more heavy-handed with regulation and bear the costs of public healthcare. It's an insane and dangerous vehicle.

I have several friends who have survived nasty car crashes and fully recovered. The only one who had a nasty motorcycle accident... well, his heart's still beating, but I'd hardly call it life.


Cars are the dangerous thing on road. Banning them would eliminate half of all motorcycle accidents, cite below. Idiots riding without helmets and being intoxicated greatly skew the fatality statistics.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorcycle_safety

Findings from motorcycle safety study.

75% of accidents were found to involve a motorcycle and a passenger vehicle.

Almost half of the fatal accidents show alcohol involvement.

In the multiple vehicle accidents, the driver of the other vehicle violated the motorcycle right-of-way and caused the accident in two-thirds of those accidents.

The report's additional findings show that the wearing of appropriate gear, specifically, helmets and durable garment, mitigates crash injuries substantially

The failure of motorists to detect and recognize motorcycles in traffic is the predominating cause of motorcycle accidents.


> Per vehicle mile traveled, motorcyclists' risk of a fatal crash is 35 times greater than a passenger car.

Wow, that's even worse than I expected, relative to a baseline that isn't very safe to begin with. It's unconscionable to keep these on the road.


You meant cars of course, as they cause 75% of those accidents?

(And others, often involving pedestrians.)

I'd expect most of the accidents caused by motorcyclists to involve excessive speed.


I'm open-minded, but I'll always go with the data. As Dr. Kim Williams the president of the American College of Cardiology said "There are two kinds of cardiologists: vegans and those who haven’t read the data."


>If emergency room doctors made laws, motorcycles would be illegal.

From a completely callous perspective, we'd miss all the healthy young organs that enter the donor pool. They don't call them "donorcycles" for nothing.


Austin is also home to two of the most delicious vegetarian burgers: Arlo's and Hopdoddy. Haven't found any that compare and I try one every time I see it on the menu.


> I can guarantee you I'll never go back [...] if you saw the health effects I see you'd switch too

TFA has this:

> health can be an effective “foot in the door” approach to increasing the number of vegetarians and vegans, but often not enough to keep people animal-free for the long-term.

I'm pretty sure most of the people who switched back felt like you do now. "Ever" is a long time.


I'm actually leaning towards the fact that all the starchy carbs vegans/vegetarians typically consume are far more harmful to health than meat. Just look at all of the amazing results coming out regarding a low carb diet and the positive health effects (consuming meat or not).


The amazing results coming out of a low carb diet? Just look at the recent news of The Biggest Loser trainer Bob Harper's heart attack. That's what low-carb will get you. Watch Forks Over Knives. Read The Starch Solution by Dr. McDougall. Look at any data not funded by the meat, dairy, and egg industries. It all points to the opposite of the popularized myth that starches are bad. I wish you the best of health!


I've been considering going vegan after seeing "Raw":

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4954522/


What stops you from trying?


Me and my friends also go to McDonald's Friends, where we regularly enjoy Big Mac eating contests. Maybe we'll meet there someday.


Less


More


Good thing the Google founders have grown up and don't need adult supervision anymore.


I really like this.

The data on sunshine seems off to me. Surely San Antonio, TX has more sunshine than Lexington, KY.


Yes... something is wrong with sunshine data. Go to comparison tool and look at Miami and Key West. They're only 100 miles away and Miami shows significantly less sunshine... and shows very low overall sunshine which is clearly wrong.


Though I should point out there are definitely weird things with the raw NSA data. For instance, their precipitation data at one and 6 hour increments do not match at all.


Had to check that: it is NOAA data (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/isd/), not NSA data. The NSA tries hard to be a one way street; it reads a lot, but does not publish much.


Ha - sorry - it was a phone typo!

yes - NOAA.


It's definitely possible I messed up something- I'll take a look. It's one of the challenges of doing everything by yourself!


The people you mention came before the theory of evolution. I doubt any of them would be believers if they had that info.


I followed the steps in the article and it has messed up my YouTube to where it is delayed by about 15 seconds in loading videos.


His biography titled Escape from Camp 14 is well worth a listen to get more details.

http://www.audible.com/pd/ref=sr_1_1?asin=B007MHIXJY&qid...


I am currently reading this due to another post about this same guy a couple of weeks back. I would highly recommend it, though it is truly upsetting, I have to keep reminding myself that what this man went through was/is real.

OP link does seem to gloss over some of the finer details explained in the book.


Check out Errol Morris' documentary The Thin Blue Line. It really makes evident the "career" climbers in the justice system and how they can spoil freedom for those who they target.

http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/The_Thin_Blue_Line/6003493...


Just to put these numbers into perspective, something the infographic fails to do even though it slaps on the label "Big Money", Americans spend 15x more on pet food than both political candidates and parties combined spend on political speech.

http://www.petfoodinstitute.org/Index.cfm?Page=USPetFoodSale...


I don't know why comparing political donations to food puts these numbers in perspective. A better comparison is other nations fundraising.

Canadians spend less on campaigns than the "biggest spenders" on that chart combined, with 37 million citizens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_political_financing_in_...

During the 2010 presidential election Brazilians spent $2 billion on campaigns and have ~200 million citizens.

http://articles.cnn.com/2012-01-24/world/world_global-campai...


Because pets are a luxury, but political participation is a necessity for the country to work properly.


Political donations are not a necessity for the country to work properly.

Pets may be a luxury, but once you have them feeding them is arguably a necessity. What's missing is whether they are buying more luxurious food than necessary.

Anyway, in the end it's a completely arbitrary comparison.


Point taken about having to feed them once you have them.

And I agree that political donations are not a necessity, but only if donations are banned, which is not the case. If your opponents are getting donations, then you are at a net loss if you don't. In that sense, being idealistic does not get you supporters, and donations really are necessary.


Feeding pets isn't a luxury. Without food, they die.


From this tiny sample, it appears that the US is fairly average.

Has anyone compiled a fuller list of per capita campaign costs by country? I could find none.


Americans spend about 2x more on Halloween candy ($2.2B)


That money will be spread rather evenly over the population such that everyone spends some small amount. What's scary about the political donations is that small groups of people with particular interests spend vast amounts of money; it's this part of the comparison that matters, not the total sum.


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

Search: