Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | BJones12's commentslogin

IME this allows the BAs who are writing ticket requirements to also write tests. It works. The dev may have to tweak the tests to get them to compile, but it an org that is willing to spend quite a bit of money on testing (e.g. public sector) this is a format that devs and BAs can read.

IME? BA?

In My Experience, Business Analyst

Thanks for the clarification.

If Mentored Excessively, Bachelor of Arts

Most likely "In my experience" and "business analyst"


Comments moved thither. Thanks!

Being Christian does not mean one is not feminist. This person seems to advocate for a multitude of things including ones that are historically feminist (of at least one commonly accepted variety of feminism). Those advocations make it reasonable to call her a feminist.

I didn't mean that one cannot be a Christian and a feminist.

I meant that this person chooses Christian venues to voice her opinions, and shares with them non-feminist values such as being "pro life", etc.

Hers is not a feminist organization, and Collective Shout is perceived by some as a right-wing group seeking to also ban LGTB+ depictions in videogames (which is not standard feminist agenda). Like another commenter mentioned, Collective Shout receives funding from evangelical organizations. And really, you have to ask yourself: since when exactly payment processors paid any attention to what genuine feminist organizations had to say about anything?

At some point you cannot ignore the evidence anymore. At best you can point the non-empty intersection of conservative Christian groups and some sex-negative feminists who both seek to ban pornography, but this doesn't make them the same thing.

TL;DR this is a variation of "will somebody think of the children!?" pearl-clutching, and everyone should know by now it doesn't lead to anything good.


Banana Ball does a lot of rules experimentation toward the aim of making baseball more fun for the fans.

> That's why you can have competitive eaters that can eat a weeks worth of food and not be overweight.

Nope, they do gain weight, or avoid gaining weight by counting calories [0]

[0] https://youtu.be/SVS0ioOdfuE?t=225


That's exactly the point the grandparent comment was making though. Because they aren't chronically eating at competition levels is the reason they aren't overweight. They have a high calorie moment, followed by low calorie stretches.

That wasn't my takeaway from that comment.

> Your body adjusts its metabolism based on the amount of food you eat as long as it's not chronic.

Suggests that your metabolism is changing, as though your body becomes more or less efficient at burning calories because you're eating more or less. Instead, these guys eat a huge surplus of calories and then go into a deficit to get back to their standard weight.


Sure he cuts back his calories, but 70 hotdogs is about 21k calories. I don't think he goes into a 21k calorie deficit over the next few weeks. That's an insane deficit. That would be the equivalent of not eating for 8.5 days, which is not possible since it would mess with his training. He probably cuts it back some fraction of that, say 10k and his body's increased metabolism adjusts for the rest.

It would be interesting to know what amount of the calories from the 70 hot dogs is actually absorbed, versus how much is excreted without being absorbed.

Your body is not converting all 21k calories to fat in an event like that. There are many physiological limits to caloric conversion to fat.

I'm not exactly sure what their bodies are doing, but I guarantee you my body would get rid of that food extremely quickly before it was fully digested.


A 21K deficit over 3 weeks would be 1000 Cal/day of deficit. For comparison, this is the amount of deficit required to lose 2 pounds per week, which many people do.

Isn't there a limit to how many calories your body can store in a certain period of time? After a certain point wont there be a lot of waste?

Doesn't that beg the question of why anyone gets fat if your metabolism can just... increase to cover some arbitrary amount of calories?

It's because our bodies want to get fat, because storing calories is evolutionarily advantageous (or at least was).

What an idiotic article.

> Someone posted the footage online. A pile-up ensued. And their lives were turned upside down.

No, they created a situation where their lives would inevitably be turned upside down, and one of many possible triggers was hit.

> any of us might, for any particular reason, become... flawed people in the wrong place at the wrong time

No, they are people who chose to break their word to their spouses, and to break the social contract.

> the viral potential of these kinds of stories is a warning sign that our culture is obsessed with shame, surveillance, and control.

Shame is how a society polices its members without violence. Shame is good because it leaves the parties healthier than the alternative. They deserved to be shamed.

> An obsession with other people’s private lives is a sickness.

No, it has been the normal state of humans for probably as long as humans have existed. Humans survive in groups.


I usually hear "they went to emerg(e?)"


It's inevitable that future LLMs will provide therapy services for many people for the simple reason that therapists are expensive and LLM output is very, very cheap.


If I had 8 billion in cash in my bank account and put in a transfer order, they'd block it, call me, make me come into a branch, make sure there weren't any burly guys with wrenches escorting me in, and maybe call the FBI if anything seemed off.

And if it was still legit after that, there would be days or weeks of waiting for the transfer to actually happen, during which time I could call and cancel.


Also, for the rest of your life, you'd be able to get the people arrested who stole the money.

So they'd either to kill you after, and it would be obvious why, and there'd be an easy lead on who.

Your odds of getting away with stealing that kind of money conventionally are essentially zero.


Alright, so I can see it as a matter of scale.

Recently there was a local case of someone extorting people by leaving threats in the mailboxes to not burn people’s houses down in exchange for $1k in bitcoin.

But who would keep $8B in bitcoin without some protections in place to ensure that it can’t be easily transferred away, given the associated upside/downside? That’s... roughly as foolish as keeping $8B in actual cash/gold/gems (notwithstanding the logistical problems with the size/weight) under your mattress.


> And if it was still legit after that, there would be days or weeks of waiting for the transfer to actually happen

or you get a better bank to begin with

most banks that call their slow processes "security purposes" are actually just putting up barriers to maintain liquidity. the banks that go bust are the ones that got clientele based on making it convenient to transfer


But the criminal's stolen BTC are tainted. Exchanges will not accept them. procession of them is a crime


Mixers will though.


and then those bitcoin are tainted too due to association with the mixer


How fortunate that exchanges are centralized institutions that can be held accountable by law.


Yes. Or to rephrase, debt/interest is a way of moving money through time.


Consider applying for YC's Fall 2025 batch! Applications are open till Aug 4

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

Search: