Why was it necessary to bring in pronouns to this discussion? It seems like a truly irrelevant dog whistle specifically in order to offend the identity of those that are non-binary. It has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand at all.
I thought hacker news strived to at least have some decorum in regards to discussion.
> Why was it necessary to bring in pronouns to this discussion? It seems like a truly irrelevant dog whistle specifically in order to offend the identity of those that are non-binary.
...your response to which is to liken me to a dog while crying bully, ascribing malicious intent and bemoaning lack of decorum on my part? As a wolf, I am deeply offended.
What I was responding to was the arbitrary nature of content moderation on Reddit. Substance doesn't matter, posturing does. I said nothing about the non-binary demographic-- you did that in trying to spin my comment into HR Thunderdome. This is literally the problem that makes Reddit so toxic!
> ...your response to which is to liken me to a dog while crying bully
Dog whistles are blown by humans. Arguably it implies the people you're trying to reach are dogs, but I don't think the analogy is intended to be taken that far.
> I said nothing about the non-binary demographic-- you did that in trying to spin my comment into HR Thunderdome.
Following up "you used the wrong pronoun. Reddit posts identify as "they,"" with "As a wolf, I am deeply offended" doesn't exactly reassure me of honest intentions.
I 100% agree with this, and it’s why we see a lot of lucky billionaires looking to give back to society. What do you do when you’ve reached the pinnacle of achievement? How can you make yourself happier when you no longer have unmet needs?
You start looking for ways to improve life for everyone else, and focusing on what kind of impact you want to have on the world. What’s something that has caused you or someone you care about a lot of pain? Could you help prevent someone else from going through that, or make it easier somehow? Maybe you can’t achieve something grand like world peace, but you can use your skills to improve education in war torn areas to provide new options, etc.
Start to think of the world as an extension of yourself. After you’ve honed yourself, hone the world.
Did they? I’d argue that the next highest competitor that is competing legitimately would bring just as many eyeballs to the games. People are attracted by watching the best of the best compete — I don’t think the exact score is as important.
Unless you’re talking scandals, and then I guess so? There’s temporarily more eyes on the drama but it quickly drops off.
They did. Feel free to make that argument. Just keep in mind, at one point, people thought Barry Bonds and Lance Armstrong were the best competitors competing legitimately, and people came to these sports in droves, so it's not an easy line in the sand to draw. Hell, can you even name the next highest competitor competing legitimately in the Tour de France 1999-2005? It's like those races never happened because so many people were cheating, but people were watching!
Of course I'm not talking about scandals, because anyone who who has lived through this or even looked into this a little bit knows the scandals were devastating for the sports.
Given the prevalence of cheating in cycling, it's still remarkable that Lance won as much as he did. I guess maybe Team USPS had a significantly better cheating regimen. Unlike Sosa/Maguire/Bonds, juiced performance isn't obvious to cycling casuals.
Yup same here. So many for Shoppers Drug Mart or other silliness. They’re very clearly fake and have all the tell-tale signs of spam that Google used to properly filter for me. I’m very surprised at the recent drop in quality and it’s had me looking at other providers.
Exactly. Most of my family and I cut ties with a family member as she went batshit insane and started thinking the secret police were after her. Started yelling and screaming at all of the family members that eventually cut contact, usually calling them at odd hours in the night. Nothing we did could convince her to get help, and there's no way to force her into care even though she's called the police constantly to report false crimes. (Such as the janitor breaking into her house and rearranging her furniture).
However, she's very cyclical and can act normal ~30% of the time. She's told everyone that we're all drug addicts, or child abusers. Lots of people believe her, and think we all abandoned her. I've had family members call me and reduce me to tears with insults, because of the things she's told them.
From what I've seen anecdotally in every single family where the child has cut contact: there's ALWAYS a (good) reason. It almost always boils down to a failure in respecting their children, and treating them with kindness and understanding.
Younger generations are growing up with better mental health care and social awareness (due to the pervasive nature of it these days with social networks) than previous generations. We grew up in an era of public PSAs and school videos on bullying and acceptable behaviour. We know what's "right", can recognize abuse, and prefer to associate with those that treat us well.
Yeah it's a brilliant game, and quickly became one of my all-time favourites. I've never felt so invested in my player character's personality. I loved it.
However, I'm also confused as to why it's on HN right now. The final edition was released a while ago now, and it doesn't look like there's any recent news.
There's a lot of great arguments presented in the article for why we shouldn't go "balls to the wall on experimentation". The drug costs $56k a year, can cause some severe brain bleeding and swelling, and requires regular MRIs which can put quite a strain (and cost) on the system. These are some significant negatives for a drug that hasn't been proven to be effective at all.
I think that makes the case for balls to the wall experimentation. Let whoever is interested and can afford it try this drug. If they have good results, lets cover it with medicaid. If not, try something else.
If we cut out regulations and trials and requirements and so on for what medical treatments people can try, then a bunch of stuff will be tried. Most of it will be bad, but some may show effect and we can iterate on that and get better medicines.
I don't advocate this style for every possible treatment. If we already have good treatments or if the illness isn't too bad, then we definitely should not risk things on trials. However, in this case, it is a disease that kills old people and we don't have any good treatments for it. Why not let people who want to experiment aggressively.
One problem is that it’s actually extremely difficult to derive meaningful information from data collected outside of the context of a clinical trial.
So you’d be giving greenlight to tons of fraudsters, exposing people to potentially way more suffering than their baseline disease causes, AND not learning anything from doing so.
On top of that, we currently have a grossly overburdened healthcare system that in no way could support this. This presents so many clear problems that I wonder if the people are thinking critically about the long term effects of an unregulated drug market.
1. Knowledge -> How will doctors possibly keep track of the knowledge of all of these new drugs? If they don't need to be verified beyond a claim, they could be getting thousands of options. How do they pick between one drug with no proof, and another drug with no proof -- especially if they all have negative side effects?
2. Data -> All of the data for these drugs will be extremely if not impossible to derive. This will probably result in it taking even longer for evidence of the drug's efficacy to be built.
3. Resources -> Hospitals across North America are understaffed and overworked. How could they possibly find time to not only learn the entire treatment path for new drugs and all the necessary information, but to do this countless times across all their patients? MRI machines are already backlogged quite a bit, do we really think they could weather the storm of an unregulated drug market?
4. Liability -> Whether we like it or not, this adds quite a bit of liability to a hospital. Insurance will absolutely be against this, and would likely greatly increase the number of people trying to sue the hospital.
5. Fallout/Complications -> Can you imagine the strain of the additional complications that arise out of allowing free use of untested drugs? Imagine how much more expensive a patient would be if they got a brain bleed from a medication that they would never have had previously. This isn't just like "I tried a drug and it did nothing", it's more like "I tried a drug that had the potential to kill me. I had severe complications that required me to be in the hospital for 2 months but the drug still did nothing to help my problem."
Effectively, we'd be breaking our own healthcare system by breaking down our regulations. Regulations are written in blood. They're there for a reason.
Yeah, the level of thought behind proposals like this leaves something to be desired. Benefit of living a life downstream of a mostly functional drug safety regime...
The drug only costs $56k because medicare can't negotiate. The parent was saying the bar for medicare paying for it should be decoupled from the bar for banning it. I agree.
Pretty sure tons of eyelids were batted very heavily at FB when that happened. They got fined, there was lots of news articles that you can still find now.
I don't know why you're trying to create a false narrative here. Collecting biometric data for a social media website is concerning regardless of which specific company it is. I'm not sure why you're trying to bring racism into this topic, when it's not involved.
What's even stranger, is that your position is that no one complained about Facebook. If anything, that's a globally shared activity.
I thought hacker news strived to at least have some decorum in regards to discussion.