241–250 of 314 posts
Apparently we should add "in mice", "single study", "small study" and about 14 other disclaimers to every HN title about science. If you care desperately about "in mice" find a less "general interest" news source.
The underlying study that this PR hype piece is advertising does not, and correctly includes "in mice".
No offense to everybody upvoting this type of thing, but claims like this seem to outweigh any actual tangible result by 100 or 1000 to 1. I think it's a better use of everybody time to say "Well, let's just wait until it's replicated in humans until we share articles"
(I don't do that, and I don't know anyone else's HN voting habits, but it seems at least plausible.)
>Normal aging reduces the amount of nitric oxide in the body. That in turn reduces nitrosylation which decreases memory and learning ability, the study said. Has viagra shown affects at reducing normal aging in the brain? It seems to do so in the heart. https://news.vcu.edu/article/Nitric_Oxide_release_triggered_...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6705107/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-53136-y
And Viagra has been identified as a potential tool against Alzhimers:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43587-021-00138-z
https://content.iospress.com/articles/journal-of-alzheimers-...
Ideally, we'd identify the key mechanisms at play and be able to develop lifestyle modifications that would support them, but it's pretty cool that these drugs have benefits beyond just better bedroom performance.
No offense to everybody upvoting this type of thing, but claims like this seem to outweigh any actual tangible result by 100 or 1000 to 1. I think it's a better use of everybody time to say "Well, let's just wait until it's replicated in humans until we share articles"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Realistically, with the title you suggest nobody would have read the post. A title is not "the most informative and complete sentence summarizing the article", it also has the goal to stimulate curiosity. I understand that we don't want misleading titles but this obsession on titles is not very helpful. I am participating in this useless conversation but I couldn't help myself. Now every single HN post has a comment…
> A title is not "the most informative and complete sentence summarizing the article", it also has the goal to stimulate curiosity. It shouldn't have to do the latter. That's clickbait. People are either organically curious about what actually happened or they are not. If they are not, they shouldn't be "stimulated" with BS. That "media/advetising" attitude is the cause behind many issues with science in society toda…
It’s not about clickbaiting. The whole reason the research is getting funded in the first place is to try to find the link.
No offense to everybody upvoting this type of thing, but claims like this seem to outweigh any actual tangible result by 100 or 1000 to 1. I think it's a better use of everybody time to say "Well, let's just wait until it's replicated in humans until we share articles"
I'm more interested to hear what discoveries have lead to meaningful results. There are a lot of news articles on potential medical breakthroughs but I have no idea how medicine is actually advancing.
The necessary hoops to jump when writing a scientific study seem to be very different from the hoops to advance a field.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A title is not "the most informative and complete sentence summarizing the article", it also has the goal to stimulate curiosity. It shouldn't have to do the latter. That's clickbait. People are either organically curious about what actually happened or they are not. If they are not, they shouldn't be "stimulated" with BS. That "media/advetising" attitude is the cause behind many issues with science in society toda…
Ehh. We’ve been here long enough to both know that there’s a balance. $10 says the mods won’t change the title to the suggested one, precisely because of this balance. It’s not about clickbaiting. The whole reason the research is getting funded in the first place is to try to find the link.
Tieing grants to mass media popularity of research papers is an even bigger problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought the fraud did not invalidate the results and that plaque was still considered the primary cause. In fact, wasn't there a drug recently released that demonstrated that?
No. There was a drug released that targeted that pathway, but the approval in and of itself was a scandal - I spoke with a pharmacist last night who said people at her hospital were disgusted by the FDA’s decision. It was removed from the market two weeks later. There was basically no evidence of efficacy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is unfairly aggressive and they did this twice just in this thread. The other was here: > There's a large amount of precedence, that's why. Rather than asking the room, one would think the first step would be to obtain information and inform yourself. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36930036 I don't know why this person feels the need to roam around the conversation policing how people are engaging in it. It'…
I clearly made a point of inquiring why the behaviour was performed, it was an honest inquiry, I am genuinely curious. For what it is worth, my context is that I have seen the behavior of asking the room, or even just throwing out conjecture to the room, without properly doing research beforehand, to be a common flaw within computer scientists and within "tech workers" as a demographic. I had to put up for a whole ye…
If what you consider “polite”, several people call out as aggressive, then maybe you should re-evaluate your definition of the word.
Your comment does not read polite. At best, passive aggressive.
Asking questions fosters discussion. For a site centered around discussion, that seems warranted. Telling people to just look it up is pretty much the antithesis of discussion.
> Researchers using mouse models found that altering the CaMKII brain protein caused similar cognitive effects as those that happen through normal aging. This should be the title of the article. Honestly these supposedly dissemination articles do not offer much more than reading the abstract or skimming a bit through the article itself. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/scisignal.ade5892
>Please don't complain about tangential annoyances—e.g. article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button breakage. They're too common to be interesting.
You're complaining that the title of TFA is not what you expect. This is certainly a tangential annoyance, and certainly not an interesting comment on the article. If you don't like the submission just flag it and move on. Do better.