The island where people forget to die

Post by lostlogin » Wed, Oct 24, 2012, 10:21 PM UTC

squidsoup wrote: post #88

Alex3917 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Arguing anything other than differences in levels of exercise/activity and calorie intake has a large mountain of evidence to overcome." Not accurate. Smoking takes about 10 years off life expectancy, which is thought to be the reason why hispanics have a longer life expectancy than non-hispanic whites in the US. Mental illness takes another 10 - 15 years off life expectancy. Being religious adds a couple years to l…

> Mental illness takes another 10 - 15 years off life expectancy "Mental illness" is a pretty broad category. Can you offer a source for this?

Post by nacker » Wed, Oct 24, 2012, 10:26 PM UTC

Florin_Andrei wrote: post #78

reasonattlm wrote: post #6

Arguing anything other than differences in levels of exercise/activity and calorie intake has a large mountain of evidence to overcome. The effects of those two are very large, the effects of everything else comparatively small per decades of animal and longitudinal human studies. Nonsense about antioxidants in the diet is exactly that: nonsense. The weight of evidence suggests that, if anything, ingested antioxidant…

> Nonsense about antioxidants in the diet is exactly that: nonsense. Well, it is nonsense if you look at it as the sole source of longevity. But get a diet rich in antioxidants. Add low saturated fat intake. Continuous, low level, healthy exercise. Plenty of fresh vegetables. Low-stress lifestyle. Sense of belonging. All that stuff. Then you reach a tipping point and things start to improve suddenly. The secret of lo…

Post by Terretta » Wed, Oct 24, 2012, 10:32 PM UTC

TimPC wrote: post #100

Terretta wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Arguing anything other than differences in levels of exercise/activity and calorie intake has a large mountain of evidence to overcome. The effects of those two are very large, the effects of everything else comparatively small per decades of animal and longitudinal human studies. You may have read a different article. As this article noted before even the first of so many page breaks: "And in Loma Linda, Calif., w…

So does it apply to all SDA's or just in Loma Linda. This reminds me of the best schools being small schools example, where governments tried to make schools smaller, ignoring the fact that the worst schools were small schools. How do you separate the data from the variance with such small groups? Admittedly lack of smoking and reduced stressed are well studied factors: avoiding red meat can help, although entirely n…

Post by waterlesscloud » Wed, Oct 24, 2012, 10:42 PM UTC

gjm11 wrote: post #110

pg wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there's one thing I wish I could do to improve HN, it would be to detect this sort of middlebrow dismissal algorithmically. Unsophisticated people read an article like this and think: Gosh, I better eat honey for breakfast! People a little more sophisticated think: Hey, this is anecdotal evidence! Yeah, we know that. But is that the most interesting thing one can say about this article? Is it not at least a source…

I'm not commenting on this article specifically (not least because I haven't read it), but there are plenty of articles that deserve little more than "middlebrow dismissal". Very likely one could find plenty of more interesting things to say about those articles. One can find interesting things to say about anything. But if an article is about an attention-grabbing subject, is superficially plausible, but is just pla…

Post by dennisgorelik » Wed, Oct 24, 2012, 10:51 PM UTC

pg wrote: post #60

reasonattlm wrote: post #6

Arguing anything other than differences in levels of exercise/activity and calorie intake has a large mountain of evidence to overcome. The effects of those two are very large, the effects of everything else comparatively small per decades of animal and longitudinal human studies. Nonsense about antioxidants in the diet is exactly that: nonsense. The weight of evidence suggests that, if anything, ingested antioxidant…

If there's one thing I wish I could do to improve HN, it would be to detect this sort of middlebrow dismissal algorithmically. Unsophisticated people read an article like this and think: Gosh, I better eat honey for breakfast! People a little more sophisticated think: Hey, this is anecdotal evidence! Yeah, we know that. But is that the most interesting thing one can say about this article? Is it not at least a source…

  declare @userId int;
  select @userId = UserId
  from users
  where Username = 'pg';

  /* Let's calculate expert table first. We will use it to rate comments later. */
  select
	v2.UserId,
	sum(v1.Score * v2.Score) as VotingCorrelation
  into #expert
  from CommentVotingLog v1
  inner join CommentVotingLog v2
	on v2.CommentId = v1.CommentId
  where v1.UserId = @userId
  group by v2.UserId;

  /* Now we can rate comments against #expert table: */
  select
	c.CommentText,
	(select sum(v.Score * e.VotingCorrelation)
	from CommentVotingLog v
	inner join #expert e
		on e.UserId = v.UserId
	where v.CommentId = c.CommentId
	) as Rating
  from Comment c
  where c.ArticleId = 4692598 -- or another article that's discussed
  order by Rating desc;