I fail to see how I'm not being civil, and am happy to receive feedback on a better way to have expressed frustration at what I see as excessive jargon.
I believe you that you didn't mean to be uncivil, but I think maybe some calibration is needed to adjust to how this site is intended. Previous comments of yours have also crossed into sharp-elbow territory. If you could make that adjustment and fix this, we'd be genuinely grateful. (Btw, I had to make such an adjustment myself. Many of us have.) Pejorative phrases like "Come on, whoever you are", "You're seriously g…
Thank you.
EDIT: You are correct, an adjustment is needed. I am jaded from 12 years of internet sparring.
There is a stereotype that "black people can't swim". May be local to the US.
It's not, it's a cultural thing, even in Africa. There are probably socio-economic reasons on top of that (swimming is kind of a luxury for many people). A colleague from Senegal (who didn't know how to swim himself) told me there were biological reasons as well (bone structure or something) but I'm highly dubious of that. I can believe that genetics can play a role in swimming proficiency but I doubt that it would p…
> If and only if the arguer's credibility has no logical connection to their argument, then attacking the arguer is fallacious. The arguer's credibility does not affect the truth value of any statements, so it's always more useful to argue over why someone is wrong. You cannot guarantee that any segment of the population agrees with your credibility assessments. And these assessments should be established via appeals…
> The arguer's credibility does not affect the truth value of any statements It is evidence which you should weigh in deciding how much credence to give their statements. > so it's always more useful to argue over why someone is wrong. It's a tradeoff, so there's no obvious bright line with which everyone will agree. But certainly there are some people for which some arguments or claims can be reasonably dismissed ou…
If it's evidence, then it must have an effect on the truth or falsity of the statements. So if X says "the sky is blue" then X's credibility must be causally related to whether or not the sky is blue. As there's no such mechanism, this is pointless.
You essentially point out that it's an easy shortcut. And it is, but there's no good reason to take it. One's feelings of credibility do not change the truth value of any statements and so arguments over it are not useful. You will end up arguing over whose feelings are superior and not over observable facts.
No, not really. You're making a hyperbolic statement. I've been watching Star Trek for 40 years. We're definitely still in the Dark Ages: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMaGnpVaSGQ
I believe you that you didn't mean to be uncivil, but I think maybe some calibration is needed to adjust to how this site is intended. Previous comments of yours have also crossed into sharp-elbow territory. If you could make that adjustment and fix this, we'd be genuinely grateful. (Btw, I had to make such an adjustment myself. Many of us have.) Pejorative phrases like "Come on, whoever you are", "You're seriously g…
Thank you. EDIT: You are correct, an adjustment is needed. I am jaded from 12 years of internet sparring.
Believe me, I understand completely. Part of the motivation for HN was to learn from previous attempts and create an internet forum that wouldn't degrade as rapidly as most tend to. It is a learning process for all of us (and some of what we've learned is a bit counterintuitive, so it takes a certain effort). Anyone willing to do that is welcome here.
What frustrates me is that in the United States, most insurance companies won't pay for hyperbaric oxygen treatment for traumatic brain injuries. My son, 26, was injured in a car accident last November. I would love to be able to get Oxygen therapy for him, but cannot.
> Disclaimer: I am a neurologist > {informed comments} A little off-topic but I see this so often I feel like I should mention this at some point: I think you mean "disclosure" and not "disclaimer" (and most likely it's best if both are omitted and you just mention you're a neurologist). "Disclaimer" means refusing to accept responsibility, which doesn't make sense when it's a preface to what looks like a comment bas…
I was worried this would be a case of neural plasticity, where the brain just rewires itself around the damage (which is a thing, and it's super cool). But then I read this part: > An MRI scan a month after the 40th HBOT session showed almost complete reversal of the brain damage initially recorded. Researchers believe the oxygen therapy, coupled with Eden having the developing brain of a child, had activated genes t…
> We can reverse brain damage. Wow I'm going to tell you that I have never been more glad to read Hacker News first thing in the morning. I am sleeping in my mother's ICU room @ UIUC after she's suffered a subarachnoid hemorrhage causing substantial brain damage. This is coming with me to the ICU team huddle this morning. Side note: if you're in neurological field or specialize in neurogenesis, please get in touch wi…
I obviously don't know anything regarding your mom's condition, but SAH (a form of hemorrhagic stroke) by itself can have very complete recovery. The real question is how much ischemic stroke there was with it. If the answer is "none", then, if she survives (scary caveat, obviously), then her recovery could be very very good. Having said that, ischemic injury is common (as is herniation, which is similarly permanent and very very dangerous). I hope she comes through it ok.
> Disclaimer: I am a neurologist > {informed comments} A little off-topic but I see this so often I feel like I should mention this at some point: I think you mean "disclosure" and not "disclaimer" (and most likely it's best if both are omitted and you just mention you're a neurologist). "Disclaimer" means refusing to accept responsibility, which doesn't make sense when it's a preface to what looks like a comment bas…
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14813211 and marked it off-topic.
What does it mean when you say you marked it as off topic? I don't see any such notes even in incognito, I'm not sure what it means.