Beware of the ol' "I have a job so I can afford a car to go to work..." or "I'm working out so I can feel good about myself so I can feel worthy of women/love" or any self-unfulfilling prophecy. A comment above about the guy's friends working out in order to get chicks... It's another thing I find quite strange. Sure, there are like 2% of girls who are only attracted to very muscular men (and they're rarely the most attractive) - but 98% of girls want a "real man". What is a real man? Well, I'm not going to say because I don't want to get my comment killed again :D However, spending so much time and concern on how you physically look is feminine, not masculine. Just inquire with some girls sometime; they'll tell you they're sick of it! Unless you're trying to cultivate beyond the body & mind, then 15m of strenuous exercise 3 times per week is all you need. Spending hours curling in front of gym mirrors is a beauty contest in fetishized insecurity.

And since you brought it up - in a manor so truncated - that post of mine that got me banned was 90% about how biological gender does exist. This emphasizes my point about how narrow the range of acceptable opinions are here on HN. None of the words composing the portion that you've quoted are even mean or offensive - and yes, I was implying that propaganda must be used to make someone argue so confidently without evidence against what even establishment biologists overwhelmingly believe (that biological gender exists). And furthermore, since you bring it up, another post of mine on a similarly "political" topic was met with with this supportive reply: "Speaking as a gay minority, I totally agree with your comment."

So within the code of conduct, I assume you are referring to, "Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say face-to-face. Don't be snarky. Comments should get more civil and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."

I started off sarcastically, but you ignore the rest of my post which is substantive. The comment I replied to began with the words, "race does not exist." If you search on scholar.google.com for the terms 'race' and 'biological' you get 2,640,000 results. And is it really so radical that I met a comment dismissive of the discussion within 2,640,000 peer-reviewed search results with sarcasm?

But admins decided to cherry pick support or lack thereof for my comments, and then censored me. I don't know if this will be seen either since I am shadow banned - and the commenter who alerted me to the fact that I was shadow banned was then banned as well (for making that comment). After being banned I Googled for other people banned from HN from posting outside of the acceptable range of opinions and I found a load of them - and I don't think HN audience would appreciate that you're deciding to follow this censorship tread that we're seeing on YouTube, Twitter, Reddit, and many more. HN is framed as a more open community, but my experience here reveals a safe-space of increasing proportions.

Even in tech companies, you silence opposing opinions about how a technology should work and you potentially ruin the company. I've seen this in startups many times - the problems that we read about after a startup has failed were raised early on by certain members, often who were ignored, fired, and ridiculed for having such opinions.

By the way, I highly support your previously downvoted comment, "The only science you're allowed to be skeptical of (on HN) is science other people are also skeptical of..."

I missed Amazon when I lived in Sweden. The issue is not the value Amazon brought us from their excessive competition. It is the relationship with government that should be illegal. Americans pay taxes and those tax dollars go to support Amazon's workers with food stamps, welfare, etc - this is not capitalism, but the socialistic policies that have been growing for nearly a century now. Also, if the government cannot defend the people against The Washington Post's propaganda, then it is not doing its job. It is treason to support other governments and foreign entities above one's own government - which the Post and others very often do. If the US was a free market for the people, then the government would have raided Bezos' home & business a long time ago... But I don't blame him - this is the type of behavior we are promoting without enforcing separation between government & private entities.

Hyperloop: See all of the problems here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNFesa01llk

Boring company: summary of issues here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBtL3qDvdZc

SpaceX: How will we fund the amount of rocket fuel required to get the stuff to Mars that can produce an atmosphere? If producing an atmosphere isn't required, then how will indoor atmosphere be maintained sustainably (financially)? Matt Damon's math didn't seem to work out in that movie...

Tesla: So far so good, but what about battery recycling? “We are at the very beginning in energy storage in general,” says Phil Hermann, chief energy engineer at Panasonic Eco Solutions. “Most of the projects currently going on are either demo projects or learning experiences for the utilities. There is very little direct commercial stuff going on. “Elon Musk is out there saying you can do things now that the rest of us are hearing and going, ‘really?’ We wish we could but it’s not really possible yet.” https://www.theguardian.com/vital-signs/2015/jun/10/tesla-ba...

SolarCity: Just look at the customer reviews so far: https://news.energysage.com/solarcity-complaints-what-homeow...

I would urge Mr Musk to focus on Batteries & long-term Tesla ownership. It would be a shame for that not to work out!

I hope this comment lasts for 5 years :)