Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Katie's New Face

nationalgeographic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 337 posts

Re: Katie's New Face

#51

Post by philipodonnell »

Content aside, the usability of this layout needs some work. Its very "page-focused" with each image having a small bit of overlaid text content, but the breaks between pages are impossible to tell because the actual content only scrolls a tiny vertical amount and then suddenly changes pages before fading in the next bit of text. Using page up/down jumps to random spots instead of to a natural break with the next page/text centered. It takes more then one entire scroll on my mouse to move less than one page and I found myself furiously scrolling the wheel just to move through the article at an appropriate reading pace.

NYT does these kind of scrolling picture stories but at least in those its long-form content interspersed with images and it scrolls at a "normal" pace for most of the article.

Re: Katie's New Face

#52

Post by adventured »

Markoff wrote: post #30
jbob2000 wrote: post #27

> While the two were outside talking about how upset Katie was, she went into the bathroom, put the barrel of Robert’s .308-caliber hunting rifle below her chin, and pulled the trigger. Why did she have access to that gun? I bet Robert considers himself a "safe" gun owner too. Keep your guns locked and separate from your ammunition. Gun culture takes another victim.

better solution would be not having guns at all, you don't see these suicides in Europe or very rarely due to limited access

Countries in Europe with higher suicide rates than the US:

Sweden, Switzerland, Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Russia, Belarus, Poland, Latvia, Hungary, Slovenia, Ukraine, Estonia, Croatia, Serbia, Bulgaria.

Countries with nearly as high of a suicide rate:

Germany, Czech, Portugal, Iceland

Countries in Europe with high suicide rates, but solidly below the US:

Slovakia, Denmark, Netherlands, Ireland, Romania, Norway

All of these nations have higher suicide rates today than the US did in the late 1990s.

So is the premise that the US would have a far lower rate of suicide than European nations if guns were more tightly controlled, or would people in the US commit suicide in other ways as they do in European nations?

Re: Katie's New Face

#53

Post by jbob2000 »

CaptSpify wrote: post #46
jbob2000 wrote: post #27

> While the two were outside talking about how upset Katie was, she went into the bathroom, put the barrel of Robert’s .308-caliber hunting rifle below her chin, and pulled the trigger. Why did she have access to that gun? I bet Robert considers himself a "safe" gun owner too. Keep your guns locked and separate from your ammunition. Gun culture takes another victim.

Why do you think that she wouldn't have tried to commit suicide via another means if she didn't have access to a gun?

She totally could have. But other means of suicide give family and bystanders a chance to intervene. Pills and alcohol can be pumped out of the stomach. You can be pulled down from the edge of a bridge. You can rescue yourself from a hanging if you find you have last minute regrets.

A gun is brutally efficient at killing you; Load and pull the trigger. If the gun is lying around loaded, all you have to do is pick it up and pull. A gentle flick of the finger and it's over.

Re: Katie's New Face

#54

Post by ansible »

maxxxxx wrote: post #8
RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #6

> Much of Katie’s care is being paid for by the Department of Defense, because her youth and ballistic trauma make her a stand-in for wounded warriors. For the rest of her life, she’ll take powerful antirejection drugs with risks of their own, becoming a lifelong subject in the study of this still experimental surgery. Kudos to the DoD for doing this. The military historically has been the driver for advances in surg…

There are a ton of pictures of WW1 soldiers who had similar injuries. This type of surgery is definitely very important for military.

The Great War channel covered this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYPtmFZqKC0

Just like the article, it isn't an easy video to watch.

Re: Katie's New Face

#55

Post by manigandham »

jonah wrote: post #12
RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #6

> Much of Katie’s care is being paid for by the Department of Defense, because her youth and ballistic trauma make her a stand-in for wounded warriors. For the rest of her life, she’ll take powerful antirejection drugs with risks of their own, becoming a lifelong subject in the study of this still experimental surgery. Kudos to the DoD for doing this. The military historically has been the driver for advances in surg…

Or, you know, we could just stop sending our young people out to get blown up... Kudos to the DoD for funding these experiments but they're solving a problem of their own creation...

Wouldn't it be great if it was just so simple? A single organization can just stop it all? Who would oppose that?

Humans create war. It is in our nature. Every tiny effort to improve lives and perform these miracles should be cherished and encouraged, regardless of military background. It is perhaps one of the few ways we have to overcome conflict and look towards a better future.

Re: Katie's New Face

#56

Post by wild_preference »

jbob2000 wrote: post #53
CaptSpify wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think that she wouldn't have tried to commit suicide via another means if she didn't have access to a gun?

She totally could have. But other means of suicide give family and bystanders a chance to intervene. Pills and alcohol can be pumped out of the stomach. You can be pulled down from the edge of a bridge. You can rescue yourself from a hanging if you find you have last minute regrets. A gun is brutally efficient at killing you; Load and pull the trigger. If the gun is lying around loaded, all you have to do is pick it…

Well, maybe we should have a right to die.

Re: Katie's New Face

#57

Post by NeedMoreTea »

jdoliner wrote: post #10
RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #6

> Much of Katie’s care is being paid for by the Department of Defense, because her youth and ballistic trauma make her a stand-in for wounded warriors. For the rest of her life, she’ll take powerful antirejection drugs with risks of their own, becoming a lifelong subject in the study of this still experimental surgery. Kudos to the DoD for doing this. The military historically has been the driver for advances in surg…

I think I remember reading that the DoD deserves credit for the entire field of plastic surgery, it was originally pioneered to help soldiers who had suffered disfigurement in combat. Only later did it become something for civilian augmentation.

Close - an Ally. It was Gilles at the Royal Army Medical Corps in WW1 who pioneered skin grafts and plastic surgery. He'd done thousands of facial reconstructions by war's end.

He set up a plastic surgery clinic between the wars.

A relative of his, McIndoe, became famous (the better known of the two today) for his work in WW2 for pioneering and inventing many treatments for burn victims. Burns had become a common injury for pilots and aircrew. He formed the Guinea Pig Club for patients and effectively pioneered rehabilitation. He convinced the locals to visit the hospital in Sussex regularly and befriend patients. They organised trips out to the town so they could feel "normal" again (that became so common locals no longer stared), allowing a bar in the hospital, regular clothes or uniforms not PJs and countless other touches. The hospital still specialises in burns and reconstruction.

McIndoe ended up with honours from most of the Allied nations if I remember right.

Edit: More detail

Re: Katie's New Face

#58

Post by dwheeler »

jonah wrote: post #12
RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #6

> Much of Katie’s care is being paid for by the Department of Defense, because her youth and ballistic trauma make her a stand-in for wounded warriors. For the rest of her life, she’ll take powerful antirejection drugs with risks of their own, becoming a lifelong subject in the study of this still experimental surgery. Kudos to the DoD for doing this. The military historically has been the driver for advances in surg…

Or, you know, we could just stop sending our young people out to get blown up... Kudos to the DoD for funding these experiments but they're solving a problem of their own creation...

A country without a military (or a dependable ally with one) is very quickly not a country. The US could stop funding the military, but the world would be a worse place for it.

Re: Katie's New Face

#59

Post by maxxxxx »

ansible wrote: post #54
maxxxxx wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a ton of pictures of WW1 soldiers who had similar injuries. This type of surgery is definitely very important for military.

The Great War channel covered this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYPtmFZqKC0 Just like the article, it isn't an easy video to watch.

When I was at German military we saw similar videos for our first aid training. The video opened my eyes. In my view this should be required viewing for everyone to make sure they understand what war really is. With all the cool smart bombs, jet fighters and night vision goggles it's being portrayed as way too clean and fun.

Re: Katie's New Face

#60

Post by bsder »

sDlEzAtyoNAz wrote: post #49
Markoff wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

better solution would be not having guns at all, you don't see these suicides in Europe or very rarely due to limited access

You also have a substantially reduced ability to defend your families against violent criminals that live in your country, so there's kind of a trade off there. And no, violent criminals don't need guns to hurt you. People have been hurting each other a lot longer than gunpowder has been around.

> You also have a substantially reduced ability to defend your families against violent criminals that live in your country, so there's kind of a trade off there.

You don't wish to go here as the statistics are against you.

Gun owners are far more likely to have their gun fired in an accident or in a suicide than as genuine defense against a criminal.

> And no, violent criminals don't need guns to hurt you. People have been hurting each other a lot longer than gunpowder has been around.

As the victim, you are far more likely to survive an encounter if a gun isn't involved.

Post reply on HN