Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | nosianu's comments login

Article where I found the link to this study (link is in the first paragraph of the article):

"Do tampons contain ‘alarming’ quantities of lead and arsenic?"


I did not vote, but I can understand it - because of your first sentence already:

> So the diagram should not be used because of an education problem with some audiences?

You dismiss the problem of education as if that is free - but information is physical and spreading it takes significant amounts of time and energy, brains are what they are and hard to change, so this is so obviously a very significant problem that I don't see a basis for discussion given the context here. A forum such as this is a bad place to talk about very basic assumptions, to be able to have a useful discussion about topics such as this some minimum common understanding needs to be there.

Accepting the reality of how people think and behave is rational. To answer your rhetorical question: Yes! That reason is valid.

We usually only have less than a hundred comments that are useful, many more and most won't ever even see them. If we had to discuss such basics, it would be a huge waste of time, and it would be detrimental to the overall value of the discussion. That includes explaining it to the commenter.

I think it is okay to make such comments less visible. In my view it's less about "punishment" or about annoying the writer, but about letting the other people concentrate on other comments that don't force one into side-tracked discussions about very basic things.

I would suggest that you don't take it personal, we all occasionally are in that same boat.

Fair enough, it is irritating, especially as although I am not the expert the author is, I am advance qualified in this field and passionate about the "best tool for the job" depending on what you want to convey Vs data clarity for a general audience (which from what I now believe, is the author's point of view)

There is some comedy in speeches of the head of state of the GDR - former East Germany - who often read his speeches from paper, and used some veeeery long sentences, spoken slowly and with many pauses. I remember listening and breathlessly waiting for the verb, to finally find out what he actually wanted to say :) Not that it was interesting, it was boring propaganda, I just found this effect so interesting. He used a "sentence melody where every single section ended high, and only at the very end, after a looong sentence, he finally lowered his voice.

Example: https://youtu.be/a5zRik-6eVI

Even without understanding the language, you can recognize the structure. Every sentence is split into short sections, and the end of the sentence is clearly recognizable by the voice finally lowering. You do need some knowledge of German to see that the very important verb is only revealed in this very last part, only then do you know what that entire looong sentence was actually about.

As the other commenter said, I'd like to add an example because I think it's worth it adding this to the discussion given that you are angry about a death in your family.

Just imagine, there are - to pick an example - new cancer cases (or anything really) every single day. Therefore, the vaccination will coincide with the diagnosis perfectly for a pretty large number of people.

But as should be obvious, that is not because of the vaccine. For there to be no diseases exactly following vaccinations there would have to be a stop of all disease for a week or two for anyone getting vaccinated. Now that would be an outlier.

If you want to see if a disease cold be because of vaccination you would at the very least have to show that among those getting vaccinated statistically significantly more people get the disease than normal.

Just remember, normal life and normal things - including all kinds of diseases - go on all the time. Vaccinations take place in this context, not "outside the environment" (to use a quote from a famous sketch).


What are you saying? It has nothing to do with what I wrote. Please remain constructive - and respond to what I actually wrote, not to imagined slights. Thank you. And the "hand wave" is what you are doing - read what I wrote, it is normal to have many such things coincide in timing. Timing alone is not proof of anything, since it is completely normal and expected with a constant stream of new disease. You have to show a (statistically) significant rise in numbers - as a first step, that alone still would not be proof either. Others have pointed that out too.

Given the scale of both normal disease occurrence and of the vaccination campaign, it is expected and normal for a very large number of people to get sick after vaccination - simply due to chance.

If you read into that purely statistical statement a claim of vaccinations not having any side effects than you need to read what I wrote, not what you think I wrote. One has nothing to do with the other, and I'm only addressing the one thing. Of course you can have problems due to vaccination, but you can not "hand-wave" any single random event into that category, especially when it's obvious you fail to even consider the large amount of "normally sick" cases that are bound to happen simply by random chance of them occurring all the time either way.

This would make me suspicious, and my first assumption would be that the ads are hidden as fake content. On reddit it's quite obvious, when there's yet another /r/funny post about some (for example) "funny" Coke bottle thing or some other brand. Lots of those kinds of posts, actually. Also a lot of quite obvious fake engagement-encouraging posts, such as the many question reddits with thread-creating questions (/r/AskReddit comes to mind, a large subreddit also shown on the frontpage when I'm not logged in) that even look and sound like they were planned and designed (and they all have a similar vibe, as if coming from the same source).

Modern ads are not the obvious type that are marked as such. It's more like product placement and a bunch of other less obvious methods.

They're either hidden extremely well, I'm oblivious to them or they're not there as much I'd say.

Most of the things I get on TikTok are, I would argue, genuine content that someone made because they wanted to or is following along a trend that is ongoing. I don't get a lot of people showing off a product, and often when they do it's for stuff I'm interested in and I'm already following them for.

Perhaps its a matter of diversity. Instagram feels very monotone in its ads: bottom barrel mobile games or brands trying to sell me their garbage I don't need nor would be interested in. TikTok on the other hand feels less monotonous in what I get shown.

Those are two wildly different things.

I’m almost positive that Instagram also has those sort of embedded promotions/ads, which are generally done outside of the official platform. But they also have a metric shitton of actual ads, within their own platform, that they queued up.

Lawsuits are not as scary as they should be.

There are many similar ones, but I like this one from The British Museum the most, because of the teacher:

"Irving Finkel teaches how to write cuneiform I Curator's Corner Season 4 Episode 8 #CuratorsCorner"

Who is he:

> Irving Leonard Finkel is a British philologist and Assyriologist. He is the Assistant Keeper of Ancient Mesopotamian script, languages and cultures in the Department of the Middle East in the British Museum, where he specialises in cuneiform inscriptions on tablets of clay from ancient Mesopotamia.

It's short enough for an introduction, funny and entertaining, and broad enough, with some sprinkling of information that gives an idea of the complexities of the language too, not just the cuneiform itself. An Assyrian name like "Ashurbanipal" is really complex, apparently, with three parts, one part written in Sumerian but not using their word and pronunciation and ignoring that one could have written it using syllables from Assyrian... it's quite messy. That can be ignored for the purpose behind the submitted website, but I think anyone who wants to know a bit more about cuneiform probably wants it to be in the context of when and how that writing system was used, together with the language.


Irving Finkel made a video with Tom Scott, playing the game of Ur. I enjoyed the interaction.


I'm sure he has many other even better videos, but I will have to yet get to them.

he has written and more importantly narrated two brilliant books: the ark before noah, and the first ghosts.

It is critical that you listen to him reading them, because he has a certain infectious enthusiasm for what he is saying.

We do sacrifice our own. Death penalty for one, and sending soldiers into battle, two different examples.

The next step when thinking along those lines should be to remember that linearity plays only a temporary role in nature, until some threshold is reached of one or many developments, and things change.

A look at the historic human population numbers on this planet, which exploded to unseen heights only very recently (200 years or so), coupled with looking at the also vastly increased impact of every single person compared to far more spartan living ancient humans, might give one some ideas that extending past trends might be an especially bad idea in our times. Sure, we as a species lived through a lot for hundreds of thousands of years - but none of that past is of much use to predict our future.

Here's a Physics-Stackexchange answer with a little more detail i support:

You can go higher but it won't help you because you won't see more.


> ...

> So for violet light λ=405nm, and good lens with oil immersion (NA=1.25), you can have resolution 197nm.

> So, in conclusion, optical microscopes are limited to ~x1500 because going any further does not resolve smaller details.

The comments below the answer add additional details.

Related Wikipedia article (Diffraction-limited system): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction-limited_system

There are various "tricks" to achieve more -- "Super-resolution microscopy" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-resolution_microscopy

> Super-resolution microscopy is a series of techniques in optical microscopy that allow such images to have resolutions higher than those imposed by the diffraction limit.

> If I'm wrong, prove it: point me to the prison website where they offer convicts for sale.

But they do - in the modern version. Just like we have - here in my native Germany in a very big way over the last two decades - made actually employing people, as too inflexible and too expensive, a thing of the past for hundreds of thousands, and instead lend them out to companies, you don't need to deal with the hassle of actually owning someone. After all, what does any slave owner actually want? Not the slave, that's just "costs" and a lot of effort (infrastructure, overseers, security etc.). No, all they want is their labor. And that is exactly what those prisons sell, no? All the benefits without the disadvantages in one convenient cheap package.

I have no idea why you focus on the unimportant part of slavery, the one that was always inconvenient for the slave owners, the one that only contributed to the "cost" side of their business.

I would also like to take the liberty of pointing to this page about "Disputing Definitions" when trying to dissect some non-existent god-given very exact and always valid no matter the changing context meaning of some word: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7X2j8HAkWdmMoS8PE/disputing-...

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