For what it's worth, caste has fortunately ceased to have meaning in a tiny number of social and geographic circles.
But upper castes are in denial about how caste plays out in the rest of India.
They will claim it was something in the past. Wrong. Upper castes still often whisper about so and so being a *** (impolite way of referring to someone of a lower caste), or about such and such work (e.g. cleaning dishes) being the work of a *** and not a Brahmin like themselves.
Some now claim that caste was created by the British.
Wrong. Al Biruni (traveler from Persia) in 1020 wrote in Tarikh Al-Hind (History of India) about how when there was a communal meal in the village, a barrier needed to be put up between people of lower castes and people of upper castes.
I've always thought it interesting that Brahmins are still considered to be the "upper" caste, considering that their caste position historically owed entirely to their caste devoting itself purely to religious worship, forswearing material possessions and comforts.
A rich Brahmin is, therefore by definition, not a Brahmin...and should be regarded as an outcaste and shunned.
And that's exactly what I tell them when they judge me for not having a caste.
A typical Brahmin, like anyone else is recommended to go through the usual stages of life including that of a Grihastha. And as a Grihastha, one is expected to pursue wealth and material wellbeing.
I'm all for telling off casteist scum but it probably helps to be accurate.
If you want to be technical about it, the status of the Brahmin caste as the "uppermost" or "holiest" caste was that they were the priestly caste, and skipped the Grihastha stage, surviving by begging, through payment for religious services performed, or royal succor. (https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/manusmriti-with-the-...)
A wealthy Brahmin was therefore, by definition not a Brahmin.
> the status of the Brahmin caste as the "uppermost" or "holiest" caste was that they were the priestly caste, and skipped the Grihastha stage,
You linked to the section that specifically prescribes conduct during the Grihastha stage. That contradicts your assertion that Brahmins are supposed to skip the Grihastha stage.
> A wealthy Brahmin was therefore, by definition not a Brahmin.
The very section you linked to says He shall be either one possessing a granary full of grains. Accumulation of wealth is explicitly allowed.
I can see that reading comprehension is hard for you. The full page notes:
"‘Four kinds of livelihood for householders have been described by the wise—the first is the possessing of a granary-full of grains; then the possessing of a jar-full of grains; then the possessing of not enough for the morrow; and the last is the method of the pigeon (having nothing beyond the present meal); among these the following is superior to the preceding.’
If you define this stage to mean materialistic wealth, then the Brahmins skip this stage. If you define this to mean the stage of one's life where material wealth is accumluated, then you would be correct that Brahmins pass through this stage, but only by shirking the accumulation of material wealth for religious pursuit.
Therefore, by definition, a Brahmin as historically defined cannot be wealthy, anymore than a Catholic priest can bear children and still call themselves a priest.
The entire section is describing the conduct of householders. You are confusing the four permissible means of livelihood for householders with the four stages of life.
> If you define this stage to mean materialistic wealth, then the Brahmins skip this stage.
Again, where the does the text imply that Brahmins skip a stage? This is something you've just made up.
> but only by shirking the accumulation of material wealth for religious pursuit
Again, not implied anywhere in the text and something you made up.
It will take many generations to culturally "forget" about it. Similar to race in the USA. The movements/laws/wokeness to help move things in the right direction are all good and needed (don't get me wrong) but the cultural part of growing up hearing how your parents/grandparents talk about other people and whatnot in a private setting means that the issues will persist for some time.
I know a reasonable amount about vitamin D to say the least and I dont agree with all the experts. For example when discussing food cravings related to vitamin D, a PhD expert and studying vit d suggested it was folates due to the solar irradiance exposure.
UV destroys folates in the body.
I wasnt so sure then and I'm still not so sure this is the sole answer. I think what I told them was correct and I've since seen studies from the 1950's which would back up my assertion.
In fact when considering folates create formaldehyde which is cancerous, is the reduction in cancer seen with higher levels of Vit D due to obtaining Vit D from sunshine?
Most of vitamin D in your body is synthesized from cholesterol and the extra boost you get from sun exposure is by UVB breaking cholesterol into D3. This mechanism occurs naturally with or without sun’s help.
Okay, but then what causes depression? It seems more likely that a range of environmental, lifestyle, and genetic factors cause both depression and mitochondrial damage.
Off the top of my head, I think it's a few things:
* Neutral/textbook-like personality
* Lack of first-person pronouns
* Lack of any indication of relevant experience/credentials
* Lack of any tangents, stories, or any other attempt to relate with the reader
* High confidence/authoritativeness/matter-of-factness
* Lack of external sources or URLs
* Lack of any deep connection to the context of the conversation (such as a tie-in to other aspects of the thread, a reference to some aspect of HN, a reference to current events / pop culture, etc.)
* At least in this case, an overly literal interpretation of the question (despite being phrased as such, most humans wouldn't have interpreted reactspa's comment as a yes-or-no question)
Overall, it's not bad at answering questions, but the fact that it doesn't attempt to impersonate humans by default can give its output a bit of an uncanny valley feeling.
Mitochondria need Manganese Super Oxide Dismutase (MnSOD) to mitigate the harmful effects of free radicals/reactive oxygen species (ROS).
Manganese (Mn) and Iron (Fe) share the same gut transporters and other transporters in the body (Divalent Metal Transporter). Fe based ROS generate the most heat in our bodies, which is why we tend not to feel the cold when young, but do when we age.
When looking at the risks of too much manganese like Parkinson's, I wonder if, when we are born, are our Mn levels so high our baby/toddler/child like lack of coordination is due to excess amounts of Mn in the body?
Main risks of excess Mn is from non ingested routes into the body, like inhalation and injection including perinatal (food) drips in hospitals of all places!!!
Mn also does alot more in the body besides becoming MnSOD, so is this study actually witnessing the effects of not enough Manganese in the diet? The Mediterranean diet is high in seafood. Coastal waters have the highest concentration of Manganese which is why I would use mussels for my source of Omega-3 over deep sea fish, because the mussels will have a higher concentration of Manganese than the deep sea fish.
Some studies suggest glycine can increase the lifespan/duration of mitochondria, so are these immune system responses like the one mentioned here an indication of an incomplete or unbalanced diet?
I like these sorts of comments on HN, just when they're substantiated with citations I can verify independently. Otherwise it's not much more useful than noise.
I seem to remember, after ChatGPT gave me a result (a list of only 103 words/phrases), I searched for the Spanish "Zipf's list" (highest frequency words) on Google Search (to compare it with what ChatGPT gave me).
I’d suppose the onus of proving citizenship would be on the party requesting the information, to prove they have a legal right to it in their country? But I really don’t know.
The West is butthurt that China produced an app that their kids love more than homegrown ones.
Companies like TWTR, FB, IG are probably secretly pushing this ban.
Some years ago, France tried to enforce some law that at least 75% of the content available on the internet in France had to be in the French language.
The day Tiktok is banned in the USA, that's the day the American decline starts.
Huwaei first and now tiktok. It is an indication that american tech is starting to be outpaced by chinese tech. Which shouldn't be too shocking considering china recently has overtaken the US as the top producer of scientific research ( both in quality and quantity ). And this trend is only going to accelerate in the coming years/decades.
Banning huwaei and tiktok shows a lack of confidence in our ability to compete. The same thing happened with japanese car manufacturers in the 70s and 80s. In the 50s and 60s, we laughed at them but once they started making better cars, there were calls to ban japanese cars. The exact same rhetoric used against china today was used against japan back then. But since japan was an "ally", we forced them to transfer/share technology ( especially management/production techniques/technology ) with US manufacturers and move their car production to the US.
I don't think we are going to be able to strong-arm and bully the chinese like we did the japanese. But ultimately, I think banning tiktok is a good thing because every nation should control their own media ( traditional or social ).
The Huawei ban, as I recall, was mostly about 5G equipment for which the primary competitor is Ericsson (based in Sweden). There wasn’t really a viable US alternative and the ban wasn’t protecting some US-based company.
Some of us agree with the bans of American weapons of mass destruction as well as their equivalents promulgated by another world power. They should all be banned.
> on the other hand China has banned Twitter, Google, Amazon, Facebook, Twitch etc
They weren't "banned". They simply refused to comply with chinese laws and chose not to operate in china. Tiktok is complying with american laws and yet still are facing a ban. Apples and oranges.
But considering twitter, google, amazon, facebook, twitch, etc are part of US intelligence, it should be banned in china and most of the world. And I think we should ban tiktok because it's part of the chinese intelligence apparatus.
I hope this is the beginning of a fracturing of the tech world which will lead to a burgeoning of tech in europe, japan, china, russia, india, etc. Can you think of a single good reason why europe, japan, china, russia, india, etc shouldn't have their own apple, netflix, facebook, google, amazon, etc?
I hope the "inter"net will truly be a network of networks. Where each major nation/region has their own protect technology ecosystem, networks, programming languages, social media, etc.
I still believe in "inter"networking, but not where a single country "owns" the entire network/stack. I even hope this leads to tech fracturing in the US. We are too silicon valley centric. The northeast by itself is large, wealthy, talented and populous enough to host 2 or more "silicon valleys". Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon should have been east coast companies.
We have a serious lack of competence amongst politicians worldwide when it comes to tech.
Yes. The actions of chinese, russian and american governments.
All major corporations are state corporations. Especially media companies. It's why china, russia, etc are keen to "protect and control" social media. It's why we are so keen to "protect and control" social media.
Why do you think we are so keen on taking down tiktok? Why do you think the chinese, russians, etc do?
Can you cite any "credible" source that tiktok is part of chinese intelligence? Other than "credible" sources like US intelligence/think tanks/propaganda outlets? It's self-evident that tiktok is, just like every major US tech company.
Do you really need "credible sources" to tell you that major tech/media companies are part of the state apparatus? After what we went through during covid, ukraine war and the anti-china propaganda campaign of the past few years, are you unsure of the role tech companies ( especially social media companies ) play?
I will need to see specific, concrete evidence from a credible source before I start believing conspiracies and "dark world" theories, because I understand how easy it is to fall into a pit of cynicism, presuming everyone is out to get you or that everything is "rigged" or proactively manipulated by a small, covert group of people.
If you don't have any credible evidence to support the specifics of your claim, you should probably just say so. No shame in speculation, but lots of shame in misidentifying speculation as absolute truth.
As for a credible source that TikTok is a threat, I believe FBI Director Chris Wray when he, "asserted that China could use the app to collect data on its users that could be used for traditional espionage operations."[0]
I also believe Aynne Kokas, professor of media studies and the director of the East Asia Center at the University of Virginia, when she says, "...it's part of a larger Chinese government effort to expand extraterritorial control over digital platforms. So the Chinese government has allowed for and has encouraged Chinese firms to actually engage in national security data audits of any data that's being gathered by a Chinese firm."[1]
Do you have a similarly credible source confirming your claims?
I believe the FBI and UVA and NPR and AP, and do not believe a hypothetical Chinese report when it comes to protecting US interests and reporting credibly.
If you could produce a statement from a Chinese official about Google however, I would be interested in reading it. I suspect you will not find one that says what you claim.
When it's in alignment with many other credible institutions, even mistrust of the US government is hard to justify without specific evidence of collusion.
I personally couldn't care less if TikTok is banned or not, but you have to be naive to think those big tech companies are not involved in the same activities, especially after PRISM.
PRISM was done under warrants or on non-citizens, and never with the consent of the companies involved, so no they're not involved in anything resembling the same way, as far as we know (unless you have specific new information to share from a credible source).
Are you sending those emails while on the job as an elected state representative chairing the house Intelligence committee? If you were, that would be an example of a government trying to censor it's citizens by abusing their power and a few of us object to that behavior. You may too one day when it's your voice they are trying to silence.
What's acceptable here as an individual is different from what's acceptable as an elected official with power over the entity you're asking for favors from.
I don't have a strong opinion about TikTok one way or the other, but as an European I find this discussion interesting. I always found China's decision to ban foreign applications backwards and a setback to an open internet. And now USA is trying to do the same for largely the same reasons (to fight against foreign influence, basically). I'm not saying the countries are remotely comparable, but I just hope it won't become a new normal.
In a front-end project, being "headless" means that all functions can work without dependence on any user interface elements/components. With Refine, you can use features such as data management, authentication, real-time functionality, audit-logging, internationalization, and access control with any user interface element/component of your choice. This means that Refine does not restrict you in terms of styling and customization.
In this context, "server side" and "headless" refer to different things. "Server side rendering" (SSR) or "client side rendering" (CSR) refer to a method of rendering a website or application, while "headless" refers to the architecture of the application's business logic.
But upper castes are in denial about how caste plays out in the rest of India.
They will claim it was something in the past. Wrong. Upper castes still often whisper about so and so being a *** (impolite way of referring to someone of a lower caste), or about such and such work (e.g. cleaning dishes) being the work of a *** and not a Brahmin like themselves.
Some now claim that caste was created by the British.
Wrong. Al Biruni (traveler from Persia) in 1020 wrote in Tarikh Al-Hind (History of India) about how when there was a communal meal in the village, a barrier needed to be put up between people of lower castes and people of upper castes.
My own personal experiences with caste (as someone exposed to it very late in life) were described here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31035615