Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | 0cf8612b2e1e's commentslogin

I think author is saying that you ingest compound A, microbe 1 eats A and secretes B, microbe 2 eats B and releases C. C happens to do <positive thing>. You could imagine parallel pathways where maybe microbe 2 only works if it is in the presence of microbe 3.

Meaning everything is a mess to try and disentangle.


One thing I have idly wondered is how much do the ultra rich protect themselves from theft or kidnapping. Is it just not a real concern?

If Taylor Swift owns a dozen homes, does she have full time security guards at each one? Or just accept some amount of burglary may occur? Do they go everywhere with a guard? Only to public events?


It varies and they don't talk about it (obviously) but you can glean things from various sources. The more "public" the ultra rich are, the more they'll have security, especially noticeable security.

The silent or unknown ones will often still have something (usually a requirement of their or their company's insurance).

Once you graduate from "2, 3, 5 houses" to "mansions" you will have staff at each one, even if relatively bare-bones.


Yeah but theyre useless if a large organised group shows up.

No they’re not.

The Bling Ring were successful in their crimes for a little while and obviously Mr Security Team didn't stop them. They got caught via the oldest tale in time; a rat on the ship.

Yes they are. they always have been. The Praetorian guard killed the Emperor and auctioned Rome off, the winner was killed 66 days later due to one of the 3 army's marching on Rome due to the auction. The bidding was just 2 guys one of which (the emperor to be) had to yell their bids from outside the wall of the praetorian guard camp. The army didn't even have to fight, just their presence was enough to get the Senate to execute the new Emperor.

The pattern is always the same rich people destabilize countries due to their greed and fear, but they cope that it won't affect them. Like they can somehow hedge against the collapse of society by hiring a few guards and building a bunker. Money that could stabilize society instead gets spent on bunkers, guards and art galleries.


tyrants and crooks can survive in the moment but can rarely hold a general rebellion. they can either flee or get pulled apart by the mob.

boots eventually tread the marble floors and empty halls. the new reich chancellery, the people's palace of syria, al faw, to name a few.

"You may hand us over to the executioner, but in three months time, the disgusted and harried people will bring you to book and drag you alive through the dirt in the streets." - General Erwin von Witzleben

it applies less to the oligarchy, all the same the good times probably do not roll on forever for regime cronies


hell they will probably join the mob instantly.

I once knew a guy that used to be head of physical security for Bill Gates. He has body guards with him all the time and a sizable security team at his home in Medina. You wouldn't believe the amount of lunatics that show up at his home unannounced and claim he promised them money (or are a relative of him somehow).

Well look they forwarded his email ten times as requested so it seems pretty clear that he does owe them money.

i once did a little project for the home in medina, i never went on site but i did visit the office of his property management company. Dozens of people for managing the properties and on-site staff for each as well as, i think, bgc3 but not the b&mgf.

To hear tell from my coworkers that did go on site the security was insane, the media apparatus was insane (like a dvr for every channel running 24x7 so the family could call up whatever, wherever they were at any time). This is back in like 2010ish, before the marriage blew up.


Once in a while we get to see concrete numbers for some of them, e.g. Meta spent $27M+ in one year on Zuck's security, which is way more than the other CEOs: https://fortune.com/2025/08/16/mark-zuckerberg-meta-security...

For a start, they have bodyguards and rarely go into public without the right protection. They also went through a huge amount putting up security and cybersecurity (like I know one who sets up so many hops between endpoints that Microsoft banned his account). Even most of their employees don't know where they are and where they plan to be, unless they choose to do so. Ofc I guess there is always a way to probe, but people who do random killing rarely has the skills/mental to do that.

> accept some amount of burglary may occur?

From https://edition.cnn.com/2025/05/13/entertainment/kim-kardash...

> Kim Kardashian, testifying in the trial of the burglars accused of tying her up and robbing her at gunpoint nearly nine years ago, told a Paris court on Tuesday that she “absolutely thought” her assailants would kill her.

> “I have babies, I have to make it home, I have babies,” Kardashian recalled pleading with the armed men, who had broken into her hotel room while she slept during Paris Fashion Week in 2016.

> Facing her alleged attackers for the first time since the heist, the billionaire reality TV star detailed how she was robbed of nearly $10 million in cash and jewelry, including a $4 million engagement ring – gifted to her by her then-husband Kanye West – that was never recovered.


  Some ministers had opposed the amendment and suggested the new ban would have been difficult to implement because, under the law in England and Wales, it is not illegal for adults who are step-related to engage in a sexual relationship.
This is amusing to me. Legal to do, but not legal to film.

There are several edge cases like this in the UK.

It's obviously not legal for say, me, a middle aged man, to possess a photograph of some 17 year old girl with her tits out. Right? Except well... wait no, because what if I have a photo of my middle aged wife shortly after we first met, so the photo shows a 17 year old girl with her tits out, but the person is my wife, who is like "Yeah, remember when I had long hair? Also, I wish my tits still looked like that". So clearly that is OK after all, it's legal.

And then we have a huge row, she divorces me, now that photo is illegal after all, because I'm definitely not allowed to have photos of under-age girls with their tits out, and now the photo isn't of my wife... not any more.

Knife laws similarly have weird edge cases. 12" long sharp blade? Crime. In a Kebab shop to make delicious kebabs? Legal. I took it with me to the pub after work? Crime; Walking down the street with an ordinary Swiss Army Knife (oversize)? Crime. Tiny version of that knife? Legal. Sword, like an actual medieval sword? Crime. But I need it for this mock battle we're staging? Still a crime. No swords. Use a fake sword which can't hurt anybody or go to jail.

Edited: The "original" Swiss Army Knife is barely short enough that it's always legal, but some oversize variants are not. Like that Kebab knife you can have a lawful reason you needed to carry the knife regardless of size but I hope your reason make sense ("Self defence" is never a lawful reason to carry weapons in the UK)


I believe nudity is generally not illegal at all, as in in itself. Like... Come on, _of course_ it's the UK, not Europe or US....

Are we there yet?

Nude children are or were in the recent past displayed in Britain's museums (National Gallery, Tate Britain and Tate Modern (afair paintings and sculptures, infamous pictures of Brooke Shields), British Museum (antiques))

For example if you were to photograph your own kids frolicking in the garden to immortalise the moments of joy and fun, that'd be also okay BUT of course I'm certain Google/Apple would immediately report you, lock your account and then you'd have to get a lawyer to point the sheer absurdity of it.

And that's at the same time it's perfectly fine for such children to play on the public beaches for example.

...but of course I'm aware we're supposed to police ourselves.

Brits love being gravely offended and prude and the new law further reinforces this notion -- at the moment when the possession of the fake video or fake story of incest relationship is a criminal offence, having a sexual relationship with, say, first cousin is perfectly fine in the UK.

I mean: you can legally and lawfully have a child with your cousin, but if you wrote a story about that INSTEAD that's 2 years in prison.

I can't help myself but I think too many MPs and Lords have affairs with cousins; perhaps worse.


The double edge of the UK version of Roman Law is that Man on the Clapham omnibus - all these edge cases fall to a judge .. who may or may not be as reasonable as your first cousin on the back seat of the omnibus.

The greater irony to me is how this relates to the sometimes interwoven family tree of British royalty.

Royaly screwed: Prince Andrew starring in "stiff upper habsburg lip" - the movie

In the infamous words of George Carlin:

"Selling is legal, and fucking is legal; but selling fucking is not legal."


Moving your finger is legal, holding and aiming a gun is legal, pulling your finger to fire a gun is sometimes not legal.

Framing the gun debate as a restriction on finger movement would also not be productive.


A politician voting for a bill is legal. Giving money to a politician is legal. But giving money to a politician so he'll vote for a bill is not legal.

What are you talking about? This is how laws are passed in the US 8-/

The private money delivering entity often writes the bill!

Which the politician often doesn't even read, just sends to the house from committee for vote...


"Driving is legal. Drinking is legal. But drinking and driving is not legal."

One kills people the other makes people, they're not the same.

You know what really makes people? Polygamy. And I want my f*king human rights, now! Just like President Jimmi Carta says.

Or, to be true to the original:“Driving is legal, and drinking is legal; but driving an alcoholic beverage is not legal.”

Maybe it’s just not street legal but you could do it on a race track?


> driving an alcoholic beverage is not legal

Not sure, probably isn't street legal. But for the curious, it has been done before: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Fqpp-IAXF0&t=25s


People forget Carlin was a comedian.

"It's a big club and you ain't in it". Obviously the problem is the club is too small, that's why for most of the people it is true that they are not part of it.

"Half the population is stupider than how stupid the average person is". As if somehow there's not a single person exactly on the median. In fact there is probably a huge number of people there, and within a margin of error of it.


> People forget Carlin was a comedian.

That would seem to include you?


How do you figure? I don't have a problem with Carlin, but with people who quote him as a source of wisdom.

The commenter who quoted him here in the thread meant to make a joke and I didn't get it? I thought he quoted him as a point against the law we are discussing.


You're semantically quibbling with a clear joke and using those quibbles to avoid engaging with the point it's making.

> "Selling is legal, and fucking is legal; but selling fucking is not legal."

I don't get it. The literal interpretation is a clear joke, as you say. So what's the point that it is making?

To be clear, I think the law discussed is stupid. I also think the argument that if both parts are legal they should also be legal together is wrong. What am I avoiding?


I'm referring to the two other jokes you quoted.

I am quite acquainted with Carlin. If there's anyone that can have their absurd logic repeated back to them, it would be a comedian. And That Right Soon.

> This is amusing to me. Legal to do, but not legal to film.

I don't know if it's amusing but the comparison is incorrect. Doing it in public is not legal. These laws are about the public part, not about the doing part.

Carlin's quote in this thread suffers from the same problem, he was eager to say something amusing, instead of correct, and did it prematurely.


That's not that unusual though. Many countries' age of consent is ~15 so you can legally do it sooner than you can film it.

Depends on what you are buying. I saw a report that higher quality goods saw minimal price adjustment -the more expensive goods have enough margin they could eat the difference. Cheaper products were already fighting to stay above water, so they had to increase prices to immediately offset the tariff pricing.

To be fair, for decades, electricity consumption has been mostly flat. There has not been a need to massively ramp up new generation or distribution. It is only in the last few years that such mega consumers have come online that is requiring new development at a frantic pace.

Not true. Electric vehicles have been threatening to collapse residential grids for quite a few years now. The US hasn't been making the necessary infrastructure investments for a long time. See PG&E for example.

For something the size of the electrical grid, you can find regional variations, but the national trend is quite clear. One report from a quick search[0]

  Consumption Growth Acceleration: After 14 years of near-stagnant growth (0.1% annually from 2008-2021), US electricity consumption surged 3.0% in 2024, driven by data centers, electric vehicles, and economic recovery, signaling a new era of demand growth.
[0] https://solartechonline.com/blog/how-much-electricity-does-u...

TBF multiple things can be true. A period of stagnation, a failure to perform sufficient upkeep, and a failure to keep up with new demand.

Meanwhile, I go to ZenniOptical, find a functional pair for $10, and buy eight copies. Never worry about glasses again. Keep a pair in the car, at work, in my luggage, and let them diffuse around the house.

Wife and I have been using Zenni for years. She loves being able to swap out glasses every year or so without breaking the bank. Also my glasses at a normal place are 800-1200 while at Zenni they are barely 120.

> 800 - 1200

What the fuck? Is this normal in the U.S.A.?


No, not really. I bought an $800 pair of designer sunglasses a couple of times, but usually, good frames are only a few hundred bucks.

"only" a few hundred bucks for just frames? That seems ridiculous for what you are getting.

I did that for my reading glasses, but for shortsightedness, especially as an astigmatic, I find it hard to buy glasses or frames without actually wearing them. Curious what your strategy is.

They're cheap enough on Zenni that you can just try a pair. I have astigmatism and got lucky after a couple pairs on Zenni -- now I just reorder the same frames with a new prescription knowing I'll get something that works well.

Thankyou, this is the comment I came here for - advice on alternatives!

Another good option in Europe is Firmoo. They have very similar pricing.

Also don’t film yourself committing the crime.

Yes, what an idiot. Oh, wait, I already said that ;). Seriously, this guy has mental issues, there is no way this is a proportional response.

This is the world capitalists are building.

I am continually baffled at how seemingly calm the markets are during all of this. From my reading, there are going to be massive energy shortages. Oil/gas infrastructure is continually being damaged and wells cannot easily restart when stopped. If all hostilities ended today, it would still be months to return to normalcy. I have my doubts that peace is on the horizon.

What am I missing? Or is there just unbridled optimism that things work out in the end?


I think the most likely outcome is that Iran's $2 million per ship Hormuz toll becomes the new normal for several years and the US gives up freedom of navigation and control of Hormuz.

After Trump is gone, it's time for real negotiations.


Just for the cache, could have rounded it up to a cool mil.

Australia has the world’s largest uranium reserves. Many European countries have their own supply and could produce it if they desired to be self sufficient.

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

Search: