Apparatus for facilitating the birth of a child by centrifugal force (1963) • Hacker News Board

Re: Apparatus for facilitating the birth of a child by centrifugal force (1963)

#181

Post by watwut » Thu, Aug 24, 2023, 2:58 PM UTC

lloeki wrote: post #49

watwut wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not think it is appropriate to imply non western people are "less civilized" or call them "primitive". Also, the part about "civilized Women who often do not have the opportunity to develop the muscles needed in confinement" is simply untrue today. We all have tons of opportunities to develop whatever muscles we desire to develop. We just need to take those opportunities. Note that western people, including wome…

Running 10k a day is definitely not the norm, most people don't even walk 10k a day. Even then, sitting 8h a day in front of a computer is a quite modern plague and the root cause of most "back pain" issues (an insanely prevalent issue, even just counting medically reported cases) because of core atrophy.

For people who do run, which is quite frequent hobby, 10km is not all that much. My point is, quite a lot of educated people or middle class people do sport frequently and regularly. The back pain you mention is sometimes the trigger for it.

Whether it is running, going to the gym, calisthenics, yoga, or swimming, the richer "mollycoddled" and supposed "Karens" op mockingly referenced as spoiled are specifically the people who do sport the most.

Re: Apparatus for facilitating the birth of a child by centrifugal force (1963)

#182

Post by watwut » Thu, Aug 24, 2023, 3:05 PM UTC

sokoloff wrote: post #87

watwut wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not think it is appropriate to imply non western people are "less civilized" or call them "primitive". Also, the part about "civilized Women who often do not have the opportunity to develop the muscles needed in confinement" is simply untrue today. We all have tons of opportunities to develop whatever muscles we desire to develop. We just need to take those opportunities. Note that western people, including wome…

I don't read "primitive" to mean "modern-day people who live in other countries", but rather "people who lived thousands to tens of thousands of years before us", which is both much closer to the definition of the word and something which would be relevant to understanding why the author fancies that we might need this contraption now and not previously in our evolutionary journey. (And therefore I find it a complete…

The article is using present tense: "as is common with all more primitive peoples" rather then past tense "as used to be common tens of thousands of years ago". The patent is from 1965, primitive was not reserved for thousands years ago back then afaik.

> If you take that reading of the word, I think it's fair to say that the 90th percentile in fitness modern human aged 20-40 is less physically fit than the median human aged 20-40 of 10K to 100K years ago likely was.

I do not think so. I would be pretty sure that 90th percentile in fitness modern human will be much better fit then median human aged 20-40. We have better food which does a lot. We have better healthcare. The more fit people exercise a lot and focus on raising their fitness specifically.

It is pretty sure that top 10% men can lift more heavier weights (have better raw strength) then median back then. Median men back then might have better endurance when it comes to long walks.

Re: Apparatus for facilitating the birth of a child by centrifugal force (1963)

#183

Post by PartiallyTyped » Thu, Aug 24, 2023, 3:07 PM UTC

resolutebat wrote: post #82

PartiallyTyped wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[[citation needed]] To my knowledge Caesarean Section is a last resort.

Depends very much on the country. In eg Brazil, 55% (!) of all births are by C-section. https://www.bellybelly.com.au/birth/highest-c-section-rates-...

That is some of the most depressing data I have seen / read. :(

Re: Apparatus for facilitating the birth of a child by centrifugal force (1963)

#184

Post by elzbardico » Thu, Aug 24, 2023, 3:11 PM UTC

h2odragon wrote: post #163

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The equipment already exists in the form of the fairground ride called The Wall of Gravity (UK). The only change needed would be to lie legs radially outwards instead of standing axially aligned at the rim. You might want to scrub it first too!

Don't forget the spectator market. We can sell tickets to seats outside the device. The first 3 rows are the "splash zone"; for $5 extra you can have a souvenir poncho with the printed logo.

what about the opportunities of ga-mi-fi-ca-tion? Can we think of a freemium model? ad-supported births? subscriptions?

Re: Apparatus for facilitating the birth of a child by centrifugal force (1963)

#185

Post by salad-tycoon » Thu, Aug 24, 2023, 3:20 PM UTC

adamsb6 wrote: post #123

forgetfreeman wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The term "run interference" is so much more accurate than I think folks who've never done this realize. My wife submitted a birth plan that explicitly stated no drugs except in the case of emergency. After the fourth time one of the floor nurses asked my wife if she was ready for her epidural I ended up gently insisting she not step foot in our room again. On three occasions I physically barred entry to the room to a…

Same here. Prior to birth my wife and I were told by the medical professionals that baby will be waking up frequently for feedings, and we need sleep too, so we should sleep when baby sleeps. After a C-section once my wife were back in our postpartum room, no one seemed concerned at all with her sleep. Every 15-20 minutes there was another visitor. At this point she had been awake more than a day, had a few hours of…

Next time chat with nurse and doc. Nurse facilitates discussion, gets order from doctor to relax the rules (maybe no meal delivery, no room cleaning, decreased vital signs, bundled care, etc) and ask for a sign placed on door asking for “no entry-see RN first”.

Re: Apparatus for facilitating the birth of a child by centrifugal force (1963)

#186

Post by javier123454321 » Thu, Aug 24, 2023, 3:25 PM UTC

soudiere wrote: post #177

javier123454321 wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://blogs.loc.gov/headlinesandheroes/2022/04/10-strange-... You seem to be denying the scientifically proven facts that science gets things wrong... constantly... to the detriments of people suffering the catastrophic effects of those errors.

Humor me, what did science actually get wrong in this article? The milk transfusions were shitty solution for lack of blood during a cholera epidemic, but the articles claims are false "In the late 19th century, milk was believed to be the perfect substitute for blood" Soothing syrup did it's job (pain), we now shy from it because of perception of risks, but no one's ever run clinical trials on small amounts of alcoh…

I don't know those exact cases, I'll grant you that. It was fairly lazy googling in my part.

However, the cases that I do know of are the food pyramid recommending the vast majority of your caloric intake to be processed carbohydrates, lobotomy as a treatment for mental illness, and the case of David Reimer, who was raised as a girl following a botched circumsicion. Then there's thing like the missaligned incentives between sales reps and doctors leading to hundreds of thousands becoming addicted to OxyContin.

We act as though doctors and scientists are above some standard, and some even believe they follow a falsifiability principle, but there are cases - childbirth being one of them - where a common sense approach that tells you not to follow recommendations might actually be the right thing. It's a fine line, but we should have open conversations about the fallibility of science. Often, and in the comment that I was responding to, the implication is: science says it so it is correct. That's simply not the case.

Re: Apparatus for facilitating the birth of a child by centrifugal force (1963)

#187

Post by causi » Thu, Aug 24, 2023, 3:40 PM UTC

howenterprisey wrote: post #132

causi wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ignoring the depressingly-predictable classist/colonialist tone Isn't it an anti-classist tone if anything? It's associating "civilization" with weakness, confinement, and a lack of opportunity, and associating primitive living with fully developed muscles and says it provides for a normal and quick delivery. How is that not an endorsement of primitive living? I don't see how you can call that paragraph colonialist u…

1) It divides people into "primitive" and "civilized", which delineates an ingroup and outgroup; 2) The document is written for civilized people, because surely the document wouldn't call its readers primitive; 3) The flip side of "developed muscles" is "barbaric lifestyle" - the "proper" thing for women at the time was NOT to develop said muscles, but rather to maintain a "trim figure" ("one of the best exercises fo…

I think you're making a lot of assumptions about someone you've never met and know nothing about.

It divides people into "primitive" and "civilized", which delineates an ingroup and outgroup;

Right, in the context of "look at us poor pathetic civilized people whose broken bodies need this apparatus to reproduce unlike those strong primitives who can do it in the normal way.

Re: Apparatus for facilitating the birth of a child by centrifugal force (1963)

#188

Post by pc86 » Thu, Aug 24, 2023, 3:48 PM UTC

pfannkuchen wrote: post #105

drekipus wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for sharing this. It's so crucial to know that we have actually lost this information and we're getting worse. > Do you know what is the most uncomfortable position for labour is? Yeah, layin on your back. My wife and I were shocked when we had our first. We were recommended a "natural birth" course that taught us this, and everyone gave us crap about being "woo-woo" and "denying science". Everyone. We also ha…

Does anyone know how the phrase "denying science" crept into people’s vocabulary? I find it incredibly creepy since it sort of treats science as a religion, and usually people who say it seem to know basically nothing about actual science. If I think back before about 10 years ago I don’t think I had ever heard it before. In the past, non-technically minded people didn’t really cite “science” as a concrete reason to…

Many of the things in the GP comment are idiotic or wrong at very basic levels, so it's possible the "denying science" comments have a root in truth.

It's one thing if you've studied a given field, are aware of the limitations in current research, and have a well-informed opinion. It's something completely different if you don't seem to understand the blood is transmitted through the UC and the concern around it being wrapped around the neck has nothing to do with the respiratory system, or that asking if a pregnant patient is safe at home is completely routine and happens in 100% of cases.

Re: Apparatus for facilitating the birth of a child by centrifugal force (1963)

#189

Post by pfannkuchen » Thu, Aug 24, 2023, 4:16 PM UTC

hsjqllzlfkf wrote: post #171

TeMPOraL wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There isn't a set one. "Antynaukowy" (lit. "anti-science") is the most common I've seen, perhaps because it's close to a well-established term "antyszczepionkowiec" ("anti-vaxxer") - but most often, it's just any of the expression that contains the core term of "anti science" or "denying science", such as "antynaukowe poglądy" ("anti-scientific beliefs"), "zaprzeczasz nauce" ("you're denying science"), etc.

Lol that last word has a z, a prz, a cz, and a sz.

They should really switch to Cyrillic!

Re: Apparatus for facilitating the birth of a child by centrifugal force (1963)

#190

Post by lotsofpulp » Thu, Aug 24, 2023, 4:17 PM UTC

pfannkuchen wrote: post #154

throw0101a wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I find it incredibly creepy since it sort of treats science as a religion […] This has been a thing for a while: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

This is different from what I observe though. One can believe that the scientific method is the best way we know of to understand reality, without assigning dogma status to any particular artifact that comes out of this process. Doing so is, ironically, actually anti science (in the scientific method sense), which is probably what makes it so creepy.

The difference is that people denying science are not doing it because they have supporting data that conflicts mainstream scientific beliefs, they are denying science because it allows them to claim superiority or display allegiance to a tribe.

For example, drekipus provides no data and no specifications about their claims, and even if their experience was true, it is 1 datapoint. Contrast that with the conclusions someone who has a systems level view of outcomes from numerous births.

Go ahead and contradict the norms, but provide supporting reasoning and evidence. Note that even the medical “establishment” constantly updates their guidelines as new information is evaluated.