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

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

patents.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 230 posts

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

#221

Post by kgabis »

pfannkuchen wrote: post #189
hsjqllzlfkf wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

They should really switch to Cyrillic!

I see this argument raised quite often and it's a bit like saying English should have it's own alphabet because latin alphabet wasn't made for whatever amalgamate of languages modern English is. There are cultural factors at play as well, Poland was historically a Catholic country and that came with latin included. Basically: digraphs are prevalent in many languages and Z is as good a letter as any.

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

#222

Post by jermaustin1 »

soudiere wrote: post #220
jermaustin1 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not who you are replying to. Anecdata, but my sister-in-law had 3 children, her first was at the same hospital I was born (in the Texas Medical Center), and he was a standard birth, the last 3 were at our small region hospital. With her second child after only an hour of labor they told her they HAD to do a C-Section, and to top it off, they only gave her 2 nights to recover from what is major surgery (first night be…

> The reason for the remaining C-Section was that she "needed" a C-Section before. Yeah she probably had a vertical incision c-section, which clinically indicates a c-section for the next birth. You can read about it, the fibers heal better from a transverse incision.

That's all fine and good, but many patients can only have so many C-Sections without complications. It isn't universal, and maybe it comes down to the doctor that did the C-Section in the first place, but its an invasive procedure to optimize the time it takes to deliver and not (usually) to optimize the health of the baby and mother.

I'm all for medically necessary procedures, but here in America, so many procedures are not medically necessary, they are there for optimizing the bottom line of the for-profit medicine-industrial-complex.

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

#223

Post by woleium »

permo-w wrote: post #138
woleium wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"science denier" sounds like it's language the flat earth folk et al use, coined (I'd imagine) to speak to them in their language, or by themselves as a positive trait?

my eccentric high school English teacher once pointed out that the original connotation of "x denier" is of the holocaust

Good point!

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

#224

Post by undecisive »

causi wrote: post #88
undecisive wrote: post #13

> In the case of a woman who has a fully developed muscular system and has had ample physical exertion all through the pregnancy, as is common with all more primitive peoples, nature provides all the necessary equipment and power to have a normal and quick delivery. This is not the case, however, with more civilized Women who often do not have the opportunity to develop the muscles needed in confinement. Ignoring the…

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…

Colonialist: To my mind, it was the 's' on the phrase "primitive peoples". In other words, it is implying that people in our "civilized" society suffer from this, but those more primitive peoples outside of our society may be exempt - simply because they do uncivilized things that our civilized ladies wouldn't dream of.

Classist: Because of course, that's bunkum. Because even in 1960's "civilized" american society, maybe the upper class lady would keep herself "in confinement" but that doesn't mean that the majority of women would or could.

So no, I wouldn't say it's anti-classist.

(Note: I had presumed that George Blonsky was a doctor - but no, apparently he was a "mining engineer". I suspect he would have been reasonably well educated, but maybe not if he thought spinning pregnant women around to expel their babies was a good idea. So I don't know - maybe the classism was accidental. But it's definitely there.)

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

#225

Post by TeMPOraL »

kgabis wrote: post #221
pfannkuchen wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They should really switch to Cyrillic!

I see this argument raised quite often and it's a bit like saying English should have it's own alphabet because latin alphabet wasn't made for whatever amalgamate of languages modern English is. There are cultural factors at play as well, Poland was historically a Catholic country and that came with latin included. Basically: digraphs are prevalent in many languages and Z is as good a letter as any.

Wrt. English, it still technically has stuff like Æ, so it too may just as well switch to Cyrillic.

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

#226

Post by pfannkuchen »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #225
kgabis wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see this argument raised quite often and it's a bit like saying English should have it's own alphabet because latin alphabet wasn't made for whatever amalgamate of languages modern English is. There are cultural factors at play as well, Poland was historically a Catholic country and that came with latin included. Basically: digraphs are prevalent in many languages and Z is as good a letter as any.

Wrt. English, it still technically has stuff like Æ, so it too may just as well switch to Cyrillic.

I’m confused by both of these replies. Wasn’t Cyrillic created expressly for Slavic languages? And isn’t Polish a Slavic language?

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

#227

Post by kgabis »

pfannkuchen wrote: post #226
TeMPOraL wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wrt. English, it still technically has stuff like Æ, so it too may just as well switch to Cyrillic.

I’m confused by both of these replies. Wasn’t Cyrillic created expressly for Slavic languages? And isn’t Polish a Slavic language?

Other than not having to use diacritics, what benefits does it present for modern Polish users to switch to an alphabet designed for Old Church Slavonic?

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

#228

Post by jabradoodle »

btilly wrote: post #213
jabradoodle wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Did you consider that I might actually have looked into this reasonably seriously at one point Pretty much the question I was asking. While I don't appreciate OPs mockery around CI/CD, what they said about the unbilical cord was accurate. I don't see where the supposed lecture on dangers you mentioned came from. The post that started this thread was mocking doctors without a proper understanding of the mechanics inv…

The supposed lecture was: > This is just wildly ignorant, they're concerned about occlusion of bloodflow through the cord and/or the carotid artery. And no, this is not an accurate lecture. Most of the time that particular lecture is delivered by doctors who actually know it is not an issue, but want to scare patients into being in hospital for other reasons. As for the post that started this thread, I have a context…

Thread started with OP claiming that doctors were worrying over something which is completely safe.

OP was then corrected as to the mechanics of the situation.

Yes, it might be relatively rare for the complications to occur.

Yes it is your choice if you have issues with medical care and choose to stay away.

None of this changes the reality that OP was talking nonsense and your response is pure speculation and anecdote.

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

#229

Post by javier123454321 »

soudiere wrote: post #217
javier123454321 wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Dude, what common sense approaches about pregnancy do you think go against the scientific recommendations? Please take a look at the CDC data over the last century. In 1915 infant mortality was _10_ percent. Maternal mortality was around 0.8% in 1900. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4838a2.htm Are you seriously claiming that these things dropping an order of magnitude has anything to do with common sense,…

Western science is extremely useful in mechanical type of interventions such as emergency c-sections. It is well known that the intervention first approach is not the ideal, and we have been in a 50 year journey away from it. The term 'cascade of interventions' is extremely descriptive of this phenomenon, and I've seen it first hand. Yes, it's getting better now since the last 50 years, yes, it's great that science can come in with extremely precise machinery, and yes there is a tendency to over rely on the machinery by people in the field. I'm not a science denier or anything, just saying that doing more natural approaches to childbirth shouldn't be as vilified as it is now, given that we do have millenia of practice with that practice.

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

#230

Post by permo-w »

kgabis wrote: post #227
pfannkuchen wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m confused by both of these replies. Wasn’t Cyrillic created expressly for Slavic languages? And isn’t Polish a Slavic language?

Other than not having to use diacritics, what benefits does it present for modern Polish users to switch to an alphabet designed for Old Church Slavonic?

also how would it look politically
Post reply on HN