Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44314333

Points: 11

# Comments: 3

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43907006

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

This happened in West Virginia as well: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain

It’s a great goal to eventually learn everything, but knowing the correct tools and techniques and how and when to use them most effectively are very different skillsets from discovering new vulnerabilities or writing new exploit code and you can start at any of them.

Compare for instance a physiologist, a gymnastics coach, and an Olympic gymnast. They all “know how the human body works” but in very different ways and who you’d go to for expertise depends on the context.

Similarly just start with whatever part you are most interested in. If you want to know the techniques and tools you can web search and find lots of details.

If you want to know how best to use them you should set up vulnerable machines (or find a relevant CTF) and practice. If you want to understand how they were discovered and how people find new ones you should read writeups from places like Project Zero that do that kind of research. If you’re interested in writing your own then yes you probably need to learn some system programming. If you enjoy the field you can expand your knowledge base.

The Chevy Bolt MSRP is $26,500[1] (not sure where you saw 28.5) but it qualifies for the $7500 rebate. In the past that was a tax write-off and you still had to pay sticker up front but it changed this year to be a credit the IRS gives the dealer at time of purchase so the price gets immediately knocked down to $19k.[2] Requires the purchaser be under the new income cap to qualify but that includes over 90% of people.

Theres only two new cars available in 2024 under $19k, the Nissan Versa and Mitsubishi Mirage. If we look at 2023 theres also the Kia Rio. All three are out of date cars with anemic engines (the Mirage literally makes 78hp) and 0-60 times of 10 seconds or more compared to 200hp and 6.8 seconds for the Bolt. None of the base models have Apple CarPlay or Android Auto unlike the Bolt. Same for safety features/creature comforts like lane assist and adaptive cruise control.

Otherwise the next cheapest new car available is the '23 Kia Forte which is a pretty fun car (and can reach highway speed before the heat death of the universe) which is actually in a similar tier to the Bolt and similarly priced at $19.5k.[3]

Theres definitely a lot of people who EVs don't work for logistically (myself included until only very recently), and yes you could buy one of three horrifying cars I would not force on my worst enemy for less, but manufacturers know they won't sell overpriced cars so the upfront cost of an EV aligns quite well nowadays with comparable ICE vehicles.

1. https://www.chevrolet.com/electric/bolt-ev

2. https://www.kbb.com/car-news/with-tax-credit-as-down-payment...

3. https://www.carfax.com/blog/cheapest-cars

While I agree the technology will be better and cheaper 5 years from now that will always be the case and it seems like we are past the point of exponential improvements in short periods of time. Current EVs meet or exceed my needs regarding range, reliability, and performance so I don't have a quantitative goalpost that needs to be reached anymore.

What is really pushing me over the line though is changes to the relevant financial incentives. The new income caps mean I still qualify for the $7,500 tax rebate because I took a bunch of time off work in 2023 but will no longer be eligible after this year. I can't see the technology improving so much in the next few years it outweighs that discount combined with not having to wait.

It never made sense before because I didn't have anywhere to plug an EV in nor did I want the hassle of street parking two vehicles. I have a 4x4 for offroading, mountain biking, and other weekend trips but getting around town on bike/foot/transit was faster day to day.

Now that I have a house and land getting an EV as a daily driver for the 20 to 100 mile round trips I take into town/the city actually makes sense since I have plenty of space to keep multiple cars, can install the necessary charging (and solar) equipment, and don't want to die riding my bicycle on unlit country roads.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38608763

Points: 48

# Comments: 19

Please learn what the fallacies actually mean and maybe read actual organized debate rules. I promise you, in one of those "the researcher has years of experience in the field and you're a programmer, they are more likely to be correct" is valid support for an argument and not some how negated by "I cast 'appeal to authority' fallacy" without an actual argument that indicates why the authority does not have weight.

Despite other ridiculous beliefs Kellogg was a big fan of vegetables which were a big part of his diets. The only study semi-related to food and Germany in the 30s/40s I can think of is the Warsaw Ghetto Hunger Study, but that was on the physical and psychological effects of starvation not how calories are calculated and was done by Jewish doctors in Poland not Germany.

The use of calorie to refer to energy in food and the first method for measuring the amount came from Atwater in the late 1890s and the first studies on the amount of calories people burned were done in the 1910s resulting in the Harris-Benedict equation, a modified version of which is still in use today for calculating metabolic rates.

Like yes theres still a lot of challenges in how calories in food and calories burned are calculated and a lot of values can end up being wrong on both sides, but thats only a problem of the equation having incorrect numbers and doesn't disprove CICO itself.

I'm seriously confused where you got the ideas you're putting forward here.

Yes, there are other variables like hormone levels (thyroid adjacent ones particularly), genetics (defines base metabolic rate), drugs/chemicals (some effect metabolism), and dietary macros (too much sugar causing diabetes) which factor in to weight loss or gain, but its pretty clear at the end of the day all they are doing is modifying the numbers each individual needs to use in the same old calorie calculations, and very often not to a high degree.

I get its fun to play with theories and edge cases, but I don't understand why so many people find this simple, well established explanation unsatisfying and hard to accept.