On the other hand, last time I took my family to Chipotle, my kid had liquid poo for 2 weeks with onset a couple hours after eating there. We have never been back since. That place scares the you know what out of me.
You're in a lot more danger of GI infection from fresh produce as in the Chipotle condiments than you are from highly processed, standardized, frozen & reheated fast food.
I don't get this joke. I eat Taco Bell occasionally and it's fine on my gut. I don't order the meat, though. Usually I'm getting a black bean crunch wrap with guac instead of nacho cheese.
I'm with you but it's a common enough sentiment that there's probably something to it, and I recall friends having issues over the years. For these people at best it's painful gas and at worst is [worse], so there is a large group of people who can't digest a particular common Taco Bell ingredient well.
I've seen speculation about undiagnosed lactose intolerance but frankly Taco Bell doesn't use that much cheese on their cheesiest items compared to say, a pizza, which is another very common food in the US and has way more cheese.
I haven't had taco bell in a couple of decades, but I used to have issues with the beef shortly after eating there (so probably not bacteria) but no issues with chicken. I suspect my body was not used to the grease, and that taco bell had particularly greasy beef.
Sometimes my 5 year old wants to build her block tower just the way she wants, and she says no thank you if someone offers to help. Other times she accepts help and then the tower takes a different form. Both ways are OK.
What case is there to refuse a vaccine that is likely to add significantly more protection to the individual and community while remaining extremely unlikely to cause “other problems “?
It’s important to distinguish events that are likely from those which are unlikely. Otherwise you may mislead someone.
I think most HN readers are intelligent enough to be able to consider the quality of advice as something separate from its source. That is, a source need not be perfect to be worth listening to.
Riot's obviously far from perfect, but this advice seems reasonable to me. Do you think following it is likely to lead to problems similar to Riot's? If there's some sort of causal link between empowering teams and failing to build an inclusive culture, I'd really find that interesting.
Good point, and to penalise companies practicing transparency also means boosting those that work to hide problems and fake the context in these kinds of interviews.
> If there's some sort of causal link between empowering teams and failing to build an inclusive culture...
I don't know. Listen to yourself. There are a lot of companies out there that manage people well, and also didn't have such pervasive sexism problems. Let's talk about those instead.
And before you say no such company exists, listen, I personally just don't say and do obviously sexist shit. It's really easy! A lot of people go their whole lives without farting on someone's face, unlike that Riot exec. So of course if you can't get these basic things right - if you don't know you can't fart on people's faces - why are we elevating your opinion on "self managed teams"?
The bigger takeaway here is that their sexism problem was so much more devastating than their executives could have ever anticipated. It has miscolored every single aspect of what they do, a complete trashing of years of hard work by thousands of people. Why in the world would you ever want to work for these people? There are a lot of shitty MOBAs out there, truly, there is nothing they have besides a player count, that will someday be zero that no one else has or ever will have.
How do you determine quality of advice separate from the source without research? "seeming reasonable to me" is not science; In a vacuum, all you have is one case study that links this set of advice to a toxic culture.
The way you replied to a comment that mentioned people being "able to consider the quality of advice as something separate from its source" as if it had instead said "Ignoring context" breaks the guidelines in several places, e.g. Be kind...Please don't sneer...Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize etc.
Advice always depends on the context, which includes the circumstances and history of the provider. The comment was a bit too mean (I'd have objected to "not a sign of intelligence"), but it's definitely not bad for the "ignoring context."
I've already given a reason in a sibling comment why I thought the phrase "ignoring context" was bad—it's a straw man: it acts like it's refuting a particular argument, but it's actually refuting something else.
> Advice always depends on the context
It's not clear to me whether that's true, or what it means exactly. It seems to mix at least two senses together, one (A) where it's self-evidently true, one (B) where it's not true. (I believe that's called equivocation, and it's a very common way of going astray, in philosophy, informal arguments etc)
(A) Yes, when someone tells you something, you should take into consideration who is telling you, like when you assess the credibility/reliability of what an unfamiliar website says. Not doing that would be very foolish.
(B) The sense of the original "quality of advice" quote: You can read a quote somewhere, not knowing where it came from, or it's some author you know nothing about, or anonymous etc, and think it's good advice, and follow it. Where it came from doesn't really matter, i.e. the quality of the advice is separate from its source. Good advice can come from a "bad" source, or bad from a "good" source.
Yes, it's good to be mindful of Chesterson's Fence [0]. We should understand the reasons for policies before changing them. In many cases, we understand the reasons for exclusionary zoning; they're repulsive, and they should be changed.
