This canard again [0]? You're comparing one piece of beef with a massive bag of Doritos. The banana's irrelevant, but last time you compared it to an enormous block of chocolate [1].
From experience a microwave meal should take about 3 minutes to cook so I don't know how you're taking more than 10 minutes unless, like your food item comparisons, you're cooking enough of them to feed an entire town.
This is possibly the craziest goddamn conversation I've ever seen on HN. Michalena's swedish meatballs are like $1.50 for 350 calories[0].
It's been a while since college, but I would guess they are delicious when compared to Walter's shoe-leather brand steak. Mac-n-cheese of various offbrands also cheap, and potato flakes ridiculously cheap.
Marie Callender and Stouffer's are not cheap, they are convenient.
Steak takes me like 45 minutes, gotta season, let it sit. On stovetop need a cast-iron skillet, 5 minutes to heat it, etc.
Also cooking time doesn't really matter a lot, I'd use a toaster oven because the meatballs tasted better, and would be studying or whatever waiting for the timer.
A pound of fresh ground pork is ~$1.25 and it's 1100 calories.
Throw in all the other stuff to make the swedish meatballs and you are coming out way ahead.
The "poor tax" in processed food is that they are paying double to triple the underlying food cost to have someone else make the food for them.
I'm confident that if you meal prepped Swedish meatballs, you would be able to make something 10x healthier for 1/3 the cost. Even at a "rock bottom" $1.50 per meatball package.
You didn't specify frozen - I'm looking at a meal taken out of the fridge, which still has a shelf time of ~a week. You're not comparing to a frozen steak either, which will also need an extended cooking time.
If you're concerned about cooking time then don't buy frozen, or let them defrost, and they take less time to cook. Since you're comparing to preparing a whole piece of steak and a potato, that shouldn't be too hard to do.
Also, your example is $3.34 [0] i.e. less than your $5 steak and 50 cent potato.
A quick search has Walmart selling a 14.5 oz (411g) bag of Doritos for $5 [0], which according to the back of the packet is 15 servings. Obviously that's comparable to a single piece of beef and a potato (/s)
While we're at it, on the $5 Hershey's bar - Walmart has a 7.56 oz (214g) one for $4.52 [1] which claims to be eight servings so again obviously just like a single banana.
It didn't help that there was a sense that it was a non-job compared to direct flying duties - "what do you mean PTSD, you spend all day playing DCS!" etc.
> Essilor Luxottica has messed up an iconic name and brand.
One can only hope that part of fixing this is the observation that EssilorLuxottica is a monopoly in the markets around eyewear (sunglasses, prescription glasses, lenses) and should be forcibly broken up.
> 7. give every device its own public IP by default.
Both of these are optional. Don’t want them? Don’t use them - if you don’t configure them, it won’t happen.
> 6. make routers accept inbound connections by default
That’s not a new feature with v6.
> Like I own 8.8.8.8. You want to add more bits, fine, I'm 8.8.8.8.0.0.0.0 now. If anyone switches to the new thing, they know where to find me.
Now you (and everything in between) have to be able to handle packets addressed to 8.8.8.8 and 8.8.8.8.0.0.0.0, so you’ve done point 4 without knowing it.
Oh I mixed it up with 3. Yes you don't need #4. I could still have 8.8.8.8 routed to me in v-next, and then later do something with 8.8.8.8.1, so it's 1:1 but not onto. Instead v6 did completely new /64s with random addrs inside, no association with the v4 addrs.
About the others being optional, no they aren't really, because most devices will implement the minimum. Android doesn't support dhcp6. My router is like most and has no option to enable dhcp6 or nat6 anyway.
Ipv6 spec also says that a router could either default allow in or not via its firewall. In reality it's usually default deny, but not always, hence the freakouts people have about security in v6. V4 spec doesn't know about NAT, but in real life the answer is no you don't get inbound connections or even a publicly routable address unless you deliberately configured that.
> I could still have 8.8.8.8 routed to me in v-next, and then later do something with 8.8.8.8.1
"v-next" 8.8.8.8 isn't the same thing as IPv4 8.8.8.8, so you now have two "interfaces" running different versions of IP with identical addresses.
> because most devices will implement the minimum. Android doesn't support dhcp6. My router is like most and has no option to enable dhcp6 or nat6 anyway.
Sucks to be you but irrelevant to the protocol.
> Ipv6 spec also says that a router could either default allow in or not via its firewall.
Just like in IPv4 - in the pre-NAT world (or if your ISP assigned you a block of v4 addresses), if you were connecting a device to the public internet it would have be assigned a routable v4 address and it would be up to the administrator what traffic they accepted.
> "v-next" 8.8.8.8 isn't the same thing as IPv4 8.8.8.8, so you now have two "interfaces" running different versions of IP with identical addresses.
Yes that's what I wanted. You don't do #4 that way. But that doesn't mean entirely separate networks, as they share the same DHCP, DNS, NAT, and so on. Maybe separate ifaces on the host.
> Sucks to be you but irrelevant to the protocol.
The protocol defined SLAAC as the default. If everyone's holding it wrong, maybe the protocol sucks.
> Just like in IPv4 - in the pre-NAT world
We're not in the pre-NAT world of ipv4. That was decades ago.
> The author could not find the elusive videos of maniacal Whites stabbing, beheading, assaulting, machete-ing or raping non-White strangers in the streets because they do not exist
> This is nothing compared to the original "magic" roundabout of Swindon, Wiltshire.
There should be a law (I'd suggest Dougal's Law) describing how any discussion of road design will inevitably lead to a mention of the Magic Roundabout :D
> You also have to remember that in the UK you only serve on a jury once in your life.
Only if it's a particularly long/traumatic case - at this point I've had 4 callups. Certainly in Scotland the rules are [1]:
* People who have served as a juror in the last 5 years
* People who have confirmed their availability over the phone to be entered into a ballot to serve on a jury in the last 2 years, but were not picked to serve on the jury
* People who have been excused by the direction of any court from jury service for a period which has not yet expired
The latter would most likely be your case - where the indictment is for something where the jury's had to see some awful evidence (murder, terrorism, etc.), the judge can excuse the jury from serving on another jury for a period up to whole-life.
Well, since we're doing random anecdotal evidence ... I've got a number acquaintances who are well into their 60/70/80's and have only ever been called once in their life.
I would suggest more than once is the exception rather than the rule.
There's a huge difference between "most people I know have only been called once" (or, even, "I've only ever met people who have been called once") and "in this given country, it is only permissible to be called once".
Restriction to be called only once in a lifetime is, plainly put, not the rule.
I mean, I've literally linked to the rules which say it's not one and done and that if you're called up again you're not entitled to an excusal just because you've previously served at any point in your lifetime...
But yes, I do also know people who have been called up at most once. That is the nature of random selection.
From experience a microwave meal should take about 3 minutes to cook so I don't know how you're taking more than 10 minutes unless, like your food item comparisons, you're cooking enough of them to feed an entire town.
0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49312807
1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49314864