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

271–280 of 337 posts

Re: Katie's New Face

#271

Post by danso »

Hextinium wrote: post #233
Markoff wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why anyone need to hunt animals again? killing animals for fun seem like odd hobby in country so focused on no harm done during shooting movie or other times to any animals, seem animals there get better treatment than many citizens with exception of hunting

I was also confused at one point why someone would go hunting until i had it explained to me: it's a challege at its core. People go hunting because even with rifles it is still hard to identify a target and without alerting it, fire. And not miss. You can be out for hours and spend counrless hours at the range and lose all that time in 5 seconds if you mess up. Its a rush and as for everything its not for everyone b…

I’ve gone out hunting and yes, it is absolutely work even with a gun. It’s a lot of waiting and preparation to be in range for a shot. As paradoxical as it may seem, I’ve found hunters to be generally more appreciative of nature than the average person. Also, hunting license fees fund a huge part of conservation. The decline of active and paying hunters is a significant threat to the preservation of nature reserves: https://www.npr.org/2018/03/20/593001800/decline-in-hunters-...

Re: Katie's New Face

#272

Post by mmirate »

bdowling wrote: post #210
mmirate wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looks like she aimed almost completely parallel to her skull, causing the bullet to expend most of its energy on bone. It barely had any energy left by the time it reached her brain. Her choice of aim was likely just the first thing to come to mind, given her short stature compared to the length of a Remington rifle. Had she thought on this one iota more, tilted her neck down and placed the muzzle onto her forehead .…

The linked article says nothing about the rifle in question being a bolt-action, Remington or other make, and nothing about how the rifle or ammunition was stored. Do you have some other source for your information or are you speculating?

1) Would a civilian-converted Galil battle-rifle be so readily described as a "hunting rifle"?

That said, the make is irrelevant. What is relevant is that getting all the muzzle energy and accuracy out of a .308 cartridge so as to make it useful for hunting, means a rather long barrel, and specifically one about as long as the M700's barrel.

Also, I'll admit that the rate-of-fire is not actually relevant because you still don't want to use any kind of .308 cartridge for home defense, because of overpenetration.

However, Remington's M700 is the most popular civilian-available weapon in the US, by far, which meets the description of ".308 hunting rifle".

2. Someone other than the owner, obtained it without authorization. That means that it was not securely stored.

Re: Katie's New Face

#273

Post by philjohn »

labbyz wrote: post #137
philjohn wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The UK is soon to be moving to an opt out for organ donation (with the usual caveat that family members can still refuse to allow it), I was saddened to see some people spinning it as "the government wants control over my body" when all it takes is a simple checkbox to say you don't want to be a part of it.

Make it opt-in. Then you give control away to the government deliberately. All it takes is a simple checkbox to say you want to be a part of it. It should be easier to receive mailing list spam, than it is to sign over your body, but opt-out makes it the other way around. Forgetting (or being unwilling to be forced) to sign a checkbox does not make one a willing participant, but an unwitting one. I understand this sa…

It's opt-in now, and easy to opt in, yet despite many people saying they support it, few opt in.

Hence changing it to opt out - don't want to donate organs? Fine - opt out.

Re: Katie's New Face

#274

Post by DanielGee »

IshKebab wrote: post #257
xeromal wrote: post #5

It takes a brave soul to wake up every day and face the world after sustaining facial damage like that. I start feeling insecure after getting some acne on my face. May she be blessed for remaining strong.

Yeah especially because it was a result of a suicide attempt in the first place. If you try to kill yourself after your boyfriend cheats on you, how do you not after this? Also, yet another reason why America's gun laws are stupid. She wouldn't have shot herself in England.

> Also, yet another reason why America's gun laws are stupid. She wouldn't have shot herself in England.

The highest suicide rates exist in countries without gun rights.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_r...

Why is it people need to attack the US at every turn? Also, if she was in england, she wouldn't have had this opportunity because we lead the world in medical care.

Re: Katie's New Face

#275

Post by lambdadmitry »

int_handler wrote: post #162
TomMckenny wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps if there are no instruments at hand that allow the young to act on such a disastrous suicidal impulse, at least some of these incidents could be prevented.

If you want to go that route, then you'll need to also remove the following instruments: * Ropes or any kind of cords that can be used for hanging * Blades of any kind (kitchen knives, scissors, box cutters, utility knives, etc.) * Anything that can be sharpened into a point that can puncture flesh * Any kind of chemical substance that can be deadly in sufficient quantities. * Any bodies of water where one can drown…

That's a fallacy. If you have both of you sneakers untied, I bet you don't refuse to tie the first one (whatever it is) because the second would still be untied.

Re: Katie's New Face

#276

Post by lambdadmitry »

tempestn wrote: post #203
ctrlc-root wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're arguing for proper storage of guns, I completely agree with you. If you're arguing that we should reduce gun ownership to save lives, you're ignoring how many lives are saved by private ownership of guns. Unfortunately, no one keeps track of this statistic, but the CDC estimates between 500,000 and 3,000,000 lives are saved in any given year [0]. This study only provides an estimate, but still, compare that…

> the CDC estimates between 500,000 and 3,000,000 lives are saved in any given year [0] From that link: > Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 20…

Moreover, "firearms used in self defense" practically mean more dead people even if the defense was "successful". The mindset of dehumanizing perpetrators is disgusting, they are still people and we should strive to minimize their injuries, too, if possible (there are plenty of nonlethal means like tazers and pepperspray).

Re: Katie's New Face

#277

Post by danso »

eafkuor wrote: post #248
philipodonnell wrote: post #51

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 pag…

> Content aside, the usability of this layout Come on, do we really need this comment on every post? Especially this one?

I actually expected more of those type of comments. It is a "heavy" kind of interactive experience, and I'm generally not a fan of them, especially the throttling of the mouse scroll, but this is one of the few cases (and maybe the only one I can think of not done by the NYT) in which the extra animation and load times enhanced the storytelling and visual effect.

Re: Katie's New Face

#278

Post by pferde »

brianyu8 wrote: post #17

Non-interactive version of the article can be found here: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/09/face-tra...

It's still a crappy version - since when do browsers need javascript in order to display images?

I know that it is off-topic, and the topic of the article is much more serious than web technology, but I feel it is always worth pointing out that if a high-profile website like www.nationalgeographic.com can't provide elementary functionality without javascript, what hope is there for the smaller websites?

In this case, though, I am glad the images are not shown, the text description was gruesome enough.

Re: Katie's New Face

#279

Post by pferde »

eafkuor wrote: post #248
philipodonnell wrote: post #51

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 pag…

> Content aside, the usability of this layout Come on, do we really need this comment on every post? Especially this one?

Yes, we do. You are free to skip any subthread you are not interested in, even to collapse/minimize it if you have javascript enabled for this site.

Re: Katie's New Face

#280

Post by danso »

brianyu8 wrote: post #17

Non-interactive version of the article can be found here: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/09/face-tra...

Thanks for finding this. I would've posted that if I had known about, since I think most HN readers (like me) dislike interaction-heavy stories that can go screwy on various computer/browser setups. I know the NatGeo front page has links to both versions (technically, they are entirely separate stories, with different content/angles), but maybe I'm missing it, but I don't see a link to the text version in the multimedia piece, and vice-versa. Or if the crosslinks do exist, they aren't prominent at all. That's a huge oversight, I hope it's not because of some internal office politics -- e.g. the multimedia team not wanting readers to bounce to the text version, and the print team not wanting to lose readers to the multimedia version.
Post reply on HN