Earlier quoted context omitted.
Block all ads and (try to) burn the whole fetid industry to the ground.
Not an ad-lover or marketer here, but even in the pre-internet days, ads were how you found out about things you might be interested in buying, an information source, sure, to be taken with a grain of salt. But still I bet if you really trace a purchase, even if a friend told you, he most likely saw an ad or a product-based article for selling. In some cases the ads have been put into the articles themselves, like al…
Journalists confused an opinion piece for an alcohol-cancer study
71–80 of 96 posts
Re: Journalists confused an opinion piece for an alcohol-cancer study
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
Block all ads and (try to) burn the whole fetid industry to the ground.
I specifically block ads on clickbait news sites. It would be great if somebody maintained a blocklist that awarded good reporting.
Re: Journalists confused an opinion piece for an alcohol-cancer study
#73I think modern journalism is like application development at a startup, except with even less QA. "Get it out!!! Get it out!!!" And since people will forget about the article in a few days anyway, as long as nobody who knows better and knows how to make the right noise about it and has enough energy, time, and incentive to actually do so reads it and starts the correction ball rolling, it's just, kinda... there. Arch…
Newspapers used to have a robust QA mechanism: the profession of copy editing. Wasn't perfect, but they knew generally what they were doing. (My dad used to be one). Guess who goes first in the layoffs. Any discussion of the state of modern journalism has to acknowledge that newspapers are hemorrhaging cash and lashing out with desperate, short-term plays to try to keep breathing until next quarter. In your software…
Re: Journalists confused an opinion piece for an alcohol-cancer study
#74I'd like to know how my drinking behaviour affects my mortality. And how that effect is compared to the consumption of tobacco, marijuana, participating in road traffic, jogging and overwight. While it's clear that alcohol is not particular healthy, I feel the risk is negligible compared to other common behaviours. I like alcohol very much and I'd like to make a informed decision about it. But i dearly miss the curia…
I'm more or less lifelong teetotal, but about 4 years ago, I started considering light drinking based off of widely popular reports of health benefits of the occasional glass of wine and some all-cause mortality reduction studies. Given that I wasn't sure how well the media had reported these and if I was either motivated enough of or enough of a scientist to evaluate research directly, I decided to ask doctors if I…
Re: Journalists confused an opinion piece for an alcohol-cancer study
#75Was anyone able to parse this paragraph? I keep getting stuck on the contradiction. Which is mildly hilarious in an article about articles being misinterpreted. > She goes on, however, to knock back links suggesting that drinking may lower a person's risks of cardiovascular disease (CVD), noting that people who drink moderately also tend to have other lifestyle factors that lower their disease risk. Or, put another w…
Re: Journalists confused an opinion piece for an alcohol-cancer study
#76Re: Journalists confused an opinion piece for an alcohol-cancer study
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I can read real-time thoughts/opinions from actual scientists and economists now instead of having to rely on professional writers and media. Who do you read, and have you seen this? https://github.com/j2kun/blogs-by-experts
Too many to list easily, but I've found over time that I read fewer and fewer professional pundits, opiners, and journalists.
Re: Journalists confused an opinion piece for an alcohol-cancer study
#78I'd like to know how my drinking behaviour affects my mortality. And how that effect is compared to the consumption of tobacco, marijuana, participating in road traffic, jogging and overwight. While it's clear that alcohol is not particular healthy, I feel the risk is negligible compared to other common behaviours. I like alcohol very much and I'd like to make a informed decision about it. But i dearly miss the curia…
Could I ask what you actually like about it? I used to be a moderate drinker but a few years ago I just thought "what's the point?". The only reason why I drank was because my friends drank, and nearly all the times I met my friends was to drink.
Since then I've moved to a different city for work, and I've made new friends with mostly people who don't drink. Yesterday we went to a lake to swim and chill out, which I couldn't even dream about doing with my old friends.
A lot of people who I've spoken to who like to drink say it helps their stress levels. In my case I've always been quite a stressful person, and I haven't noticed it get worse since I've stopped. Not having woken up hung over for over 2 years is good though :D
As for the supposed health benefits of drinking, I think in my case I'm better off not drinking. A few times I got blind drunk, but even being tipsy I would be concerned about accidentally walking in front of a car or slipping onto a railway track.
Re: Journalists confused an opinion piece for an alcohol-cancer study
#79Here's one correlating ethanol usage with a lower risk of kidney cancer: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3049576/
Here's a study linking ethanol consumption with a reduced risk of ALS: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22791740
And it's not just one study linking ethanol to a lower risk of CVD-- it's several. The story is the same for all cause mortality. Acetaldehyde doesn't fully explain elevated risks of throat and mouth cancer, in my opinion... Acetaldehyde is a downstream metabolite, whereas the epithelium of the mouth and throat are tissues that ethanol is clearly coming in direct contact with. Again, this is just a crude hypothesis.
Sure ethanol is a toxin, but attempting to avoid it in an attempt to avoid toxins or carcinogens is a fantasy. Carcinogens are everywhere -- you breath them, eat them, ingest them, absorb them constantly. This is why low/moderate exposure to sunlight, alcohol, certain phytochemicals might actually be 'hormetic'.
I'm not saying that in an era of biotechnology and whole genome sequencing, ethanol consumption will be optimal. When we reach that point, we will most likely be consuming some kind of nutrient gel that contains everything the body needs. We will likely inhabit carcinogen free environments. Until that point, and I say this to all my fellow autistic nerds and hacker news readers, it's probably better to go have a drink or two with that cute girl who sits a few cubes down. If you want to extend life, invest/educate yourself on emerging biotechnologies. Otherwise you'll need to start worrying about the carcinogenic materials your electronics occasionally off-gas. Or the PCBs in your wild caught salmon. Or the benzaldehyde. Or the arsenic in your brown rice. Or the pesticide residues in your clothing. Or the ... nevermind.
Re: Journalists confused an opinion piece for an alcohol-cancer study
#80I think modern journalism is like application development at a startup, except with even less QA. "Get it out!!! Get it out!!!" And since people will forget about the article in a few days anyway, as long as nobody who knows better and knows how to make the right noise about it and has enough energy, time, and incentive to actually do so reads it and starts the correction ball rolling, it's just, kinda... there. Arch…
Newspapers used to have a robust QA mechanism: the profession of copy editing. Wasn't perfect, but they knew generally what they were doing. (My dad used to be one). Guess who goes first in the layoffs. Any discussion of the state of modern journalism has to acknowledge that newspapers are hemorrhaging cash and lashing out with desperate, short-term plays to try to keep breathing until next quarter. In your software…