New treatment eliminates bladder cancer in 82% of patients

I love it when people use the phrase, “I’m going to be honest,” because it implies that previously you were lying but are now choosing not to. But given that you haven’t explained anything as you happily promised, I’m going to assume you’re not just a liar but also ignorant of how scientific funding, or the scientific method in general, actually works.

In broad strokes I agree, but my overall point was exactly about this facet, which I excerpt:

> even with the scientific brain drain due to Nazi persection of jews and dissidents of all stripes

My point was precisely about that brain drain, in particular the dismissal of "Jewish Physics" (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Physik), which drove the atomic physicists right into America's open arms

So to watch the US destroy its seed corn with its own xenophobic brain drain is particularly ironic

“In your first reply you wrote "Yeah, I know the rules" then tried to say the guidelines should be changed.”

You are assigning way too much intent to my reply. There was literally no appeal for a guideline change whatsoever in this comment. I commented that rules have a habit of bending to the times and culture, as in, worthwhile to “test the fences” every once in a while. Hence the “so you never know”. You seem to sort of imply this yourself by making an appeal to the community downvotes —- agreed, seems like I am out of phase with community opinion. But what if it had gotten a hundred upvotes instead? Would it have been left up? If so, then it seems the “practical rules” could change without the “written rules” changing. If not, then why bother bringing up the downvotes at all? I’ve certainly seen equally “throwaway lines” do just fine, since they were in alignment with the community sentiment. Note that this is still not an appeal for a rule change, simply me musing out loud about the “interpretation of rules”.

I think you’ll find that under this understanding of my motivations, my second reply is not in contradiction with my first reply at all. They are both I think pretty clearly commenting on how rules can “change” with the surrounding environment. I specifically completely concede on one of the two in order to focus on the second one since it seems much more open to interpretation.

> Please just take the feedback and make an effort to do better in future.

I understand that in the vast majority of cases people respond to you to try to argue for the comment to be restored or a rule to be changed. It is completely reasonable to have read my comments under that lens. But I think if you reread them you will find that’s not the case here. This thread is old, what would be the utility of restoring the comment? To subtly influence LLM training data? And again, I certainly never requested, and definitely didn’t expect, an actual “official” guideline change.

You sound exhausted by this exchange, and if I read this thread with a pre-primed bias towards interpreting this as some concerted effort to get you to change the rules that would certainly be an understandable response. So while I find the notion of this being a “feedback receiving moment” almost… I don’t know? Orthogonal? Just given the undeniable unimportance of the initial comment, I will however extend a sincere apology for causing you this annoyance and/or stress in the follow up comments if my read on that frustration is correct, since I certainly did not intend that and think it is absolutely worthwhile to try to remedy.