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

281–290 of 337 posts

Re: Katie's New Face

#281

Post by grosjona »

extralego wrote: post #184
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…

Even better would be not losing her face to begin with. This was preventable. Am I the only one to notice the events that led up to this? 1. Young girl moves multiple times due to her parent’s jobs, causing for stress and anxiety. 2. Girl finds stability and passion when she is granted an encouraging educational experience/environment at a private school where her parents both found contract jobs. 3. Parents both los…

I do think that our current social system rewards the wrong things and drives human evolution in the wrong direction. Traits like lying, cheating and hypocrisy are rewarded evolutionarily because they help people to accumulate more resources and produce more offspring; this works at both the genetic and environmental level. The good news is that predators cannot exist without the prey to sustain them so there should always be more prey than predators. The solution to the problem is decentralization of wealth; otherwise power becomes too concentrated in the hands of predators and it decreases their reliance on prey.

Re: Katie's New Face

#282

Post by monkeynotes »

WC3w6pXxgGd wrote: post #122
monkeynotes wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems to me she wants to live. I am not sure anyone would go through with that surgery if they did not want to live. Edit: Reading more about the story. Her suicide attempt was entirely impulsive and not premeditated at all. > "I never thought of doing that ever before, and so on hearing about it, I just didn't know how to handle it," she told National Geographic. "I felt so guilty that I had put my family through su…

If you want to talk about inappropriate, talking about gun control in relation to this story is COMPLETELY inappropriate here. This 100% is a story about suicide, hence my comment about assisted suicide.

BS dude, and you know it. If the gun hadn't been to hand (and locking it up with ammo separate is a form of control) it is more than reasonable to suggest she would have had time to be less destructively impulsive. Even slitting wrists or downing pills is more survivable than a gun to the head.

To be clear, I own a rifle and I want to be able to continue to own that rifle. However, I keep it locked up in the basement with the ammunition far away from it. It's a lethal weapon, I treat it with respect.

Re: Katie's New Face

#283

Post by danso »

pferde wrote: post #278
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,…

I'm generally averse to JS-heavy presentations but I wouldn't consider this "crappy" -- in fact, I think this might be the best usecase/justification of such a format that I've yet seen, and this includes the NYT's Pulitzer-winning Snow Fall [0].

The JS in the NatGeo story is used for certain important and dramatic effects, such as the transition from a full page photo of the patient's original face, to the x-ray after her suicide attempt, to what her face looked like after the 22 reconstruction surgeries. The JS allows for as graceful a transition as possible while forcing the user to see the entirety of each of the faces. Scrolling through the photos with a standard vertical scroll would not have the same effect. Nor would a static layout of the 3 photos side by side (since they'd have to be drastically scaled down in size).

As you said, the subject matter is gruesome. The photos are best seen each all at once, as they would on a magazine print page. The JS for the feature works as a pretty good digital replacement for a physical page turn, IMO.

[0] http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2012/snow-fall/index.html

Re: Katie's New Face

#284

Post by zaarn »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #256
PhasmaFelis wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Production appears to have stopped for almost 17 years, now.

Has the US ever not been involved in a war in the last 100 or so years? They went to Korea and Vietnam and Iraq pretty much back-to-back after WW2.

Years in which the US was not at war:

- 1796 and 1797

- 1807, 1808 and 1809

- 1826

- 1828, 1829 and 1830

- 1897

- 1935, 1936, 1937, 1938, 1939 and 1940

- 1976, 1977 and 1978

- 1997

- 2000

This list counts major wars until 2016. Some of the wars led in this time were of defensive nature. This list does not account for covert operations and other, similar acts that might be considered war.

Re: Katie's New Face

#285

Post by sDlEzAtyoNAz »

dbbk wrote: post #269
sDlEzAtyoNAz wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's hugely dependent on who you are and where you live and so on, but there are estimated to be around 6 million violent crimes per year, or about 55 people per violent crime. Of course many people are victimized more than once, so you can't easily extrapolate to how likely a random person is to be victimized. Either way, over a lifespan, that is a significant risk. >And it doesn't seem logical to me that a crimin…

> What you're missing is that I don't want someone to rob me. Of course. > I don't want my family to ever be at the mercy of a violent thug. No one does. > They ultimately depend upon me for their safety, and I am going to do what I can to guarantee it. Buy a pepper spray? What do you need a weapon of killing for?

>What do you need a weapon of killing for?

Are you denying that there are situations in which a gun will incapacitate a deadly threat but pepper spray will not?

Re: Katie's New Face

#286

Post by sDlEzAtyoNAz »

ebbv wrote: post #193
sDlEzAtyoNAz wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Against what? In the US, that would be against the individuals who collectively commit millions of violent crimes per year (surveys indicate this number easily exceeds 5 million per year).

What the hell do you mean "surveys"? You don't need "surveys" to tell you how many violent crimes there are in a year. We have actual statistics. And the numbers are not in the millions. Stop pushing lies.

Crime victimization surveys. The 'actual statistics' you refer to are reported crimes, i.e. crimes which were reported to the police and which the police took the time to record. They vastly underrepresent the actual number of crimes. That's why people who are interested in getting a more accurate estimate of the actual number of crimes do crime victimization surveys. This is all pretty well known and obvious. That you aren't aware of it is telling.

Unless these guys are liars too? Who knows, maybe 'ebbv knows better than them? https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=6166

Re: Katie's New Face

#287

Post by sDlEzAtyoNAz »

Markoff wrote: post #190
sDlEzAtyoNAz wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

i don't have gun in my place and feel perfectly safe about violent criminals, i am more afraid i will be hit by bad driver or about building fire than violent criminals, violent crimes are very rare here in Europe where i live, especially during burglary

>i don't have gun in my place and feel perfectly safe about violent criminals

Perhaps you are. I don't know where you live.

>violent crimes are very rare here in Europe where i live, especially during burglary

I hope it stays that way. That's not how it is in many parts of the USA. And no, it's not that way because we have guns. It's because we have more people who are inclined toward violence. I'll leave you to guess why that might be.

Re: Katie's New Face

#288

Post by animal531 »

allannienhuis wrote: post #87
throwaway987909 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate the glamorization of the military. I don't understand how anyone would actually join. Sacrifice yourself mentally, and physically to fight political wars for the rich and powerful. No thank you. But the propaganda is soooo strong it preys on people who can't think for themselves.

Just on the topic of why people sign up: I think many people join because they really think they're doing something good - defending those that need protection or help from the 'real' bad guys. Obviously that's not 100% what's really going on all the time but it has enough truth in it to be attractive. And I think it's true that some real good is done by (most?) military organisations - ie disaster relief, some major…

It also helps a lot of poorer kids with opportunities for study and/or travel that they might not otherwise have had.

Re: Katie's New Face

#289

Post by Markoff »

gambiting wrote: post #270
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

Especially in the US, deer are extremely destructive to any environment they appear in, with herds numbering hundreds of thousands and eating every crop they happen upon. They were allowed to grow that much, partially because we have killed their natural predators, but also because hunting them has been aggressively frowned upon for decades now. So any suggestion of culling the herds is immediately and fiercely met w…

don't you have professional huntsmen/forester/whatever name over there? i don't see reason why general public should be taking care of this with guns

Re: Katie's New Face

#290

Post by alex_young »

zaarn wrote: post #284
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has the US ever not been involved in a war in the last 100 or so years? They went to Korea and Vietnam and Iraq pretty much back-to-back after WW2.

Years in which the US was not at war: - 1796 and 1797 - 1807, 1808 and 1809 - 1826 - 1828, 1829 and 1830 - 1897 - 1935, 1936, 1937, 1938, 1939 and 1940 - 1976, 1977 and 1978 - 1997 - 2000 This list counts major wars until 2016. Some of the wars led in this time were of defensive nature. This list does not account for covert operations and other, similar acts that might be considered war.

Since 1955: The Korean war was never ended, and there was an active and continued military engagement with daily exchanges in Iraq from 1991 through 2003.

The mainland United States has not been attacked as a part of a military operation in the modern era, so the defensive claim is questionable.

Post reply on HN