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

A woman who is allergic to water (2016)

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 64 posts

Re: A woman who is allergic to water (2016)

#31

Post by jjbinx007 »

hvdfhbj wrote: post #11
thaumasiotes wrote: post #5

> For Rachel, diving into this pool would be like swimming in potent bleach I find this choice of analogy really interesting, since diving into the pool is like swimming in bleach for everyone else too.

I like the fact that the BBC felt compelled to add pictures to this story at all, for the benefit of readers who might be unfamiliar with what a swimming pool or glass of water would look like.

The worst example of this, in my experience, is any newspaper article about arachnophobia. They always seem compelled to add a photo of a nasty looking spider.

As an arachnophobe, I find this actually quite abusive as it seems to be deliberate triggering.

Re: A woman who is allergic to water (2016)

#32

Post by easytiger »

jahewson wrote: post #16
whatshisface wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Too bad there aren't any NHS competitors.

There are. Private medical care is available in the UK.

If you pay cash; yes. But private health insurance is pretty cheap in the UK because most policies don't have to cover exceptional diseases because they cite that you will be provided care under the NHS.

Re: A woman who is allergic to water (2016)

#33

Post by howlgarnish »

michaelmrose wrote: post #21

Why can't the maker donate the drug? What is the maximum outlay for something that effects 32 people anywhere? Failing that why can't we just collect the money to pay for it?

Liability. If they knowingly give the drug for an unapproved use, and something (anything) bad happens, they're on the hook.

Re: A woman who is allergic to water (2016)

#34

Post by tsimionescu »

saagarjha wrote: post #13
hvdfhbj wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like the fact that the BBC felt compelled to add pictures to this story at all, for the benefit of readers who might be unfamiliar with what a swimming pool or glass of water would look like.

For some reason, lots of writers seem to feel that useless pictures are better than no pictures. I see this all the time with programming blog posts too; they’ll stick some stock art of HTML or a computer on a desk or something like that. With news it’s not just burning through my data plan but sometimes it can be actively misleading, like when they pick a picture to represent something but it’s not the actual thing…

I think this is mostly an aesthetic choice - the page just looks nicer with text broken up by a few images.

Re: A woman who is allergic to water (2016)

#35

Post by tsimionescu »

Freak_NL wrote: post #27
BeniBoy wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could just put the image in the relevant meta tag, there is no need to actually display it in the article.

This is a lost battle. Every news website does this now. Even reputable newspapers who would never consider adding a pointless photograph in print have it as a requirement for every online version of the same articles. I find it insulting to me as reader. Perhaps they should offer a toggle for it in the user settings.

Newspaper usually need to be printed as cheap as possible, so printing images probably damages that requirement.

Media where printing costs are not a major problem (such as magazines) have always included pictures, mostly as an aesthetic choice - to most (if not all) people, graphical elements here and there make the pages simply look more appealing.

Re: A woman who is allergic to water (2016)

#37

Post by wodenokoto »

hvdfhbj wrote: post #11
thaumasiotes wrote: post #5

> For Rachel, diving into this pool would be like swimming in potent bleach I find this choice of analogy really interesting, since diving into the pool is like swimming in bleach for everyone else too.

I like the fact that the BBC felt compelled to add pictures to this story at all, for the benefit of readers who might be unfamiliar with what a swimming pool or glass of water would look like.

I felt like it helped put things into perspective, and ground her experience in my own.

Yes, I know what a glass of water looks like, but seeing it together with the caption really enforces the absurdity of her condition.

Re: A woman who is allergic to water (2016)

#38

Post by aitchnyu »

Freak_NL wrote: post #27
BeniBoy wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could just put the image in the relevant meta tag, there is no need to actually display it in the article.

This is a lost battle. Every news website does this now. Even reputable newspapers who would never consider adding a pointless photograph in print have it as a requirement for every online version of the same articles. I find it insulting to me as reader. Perhaps they should offer a toggle for it in the user settings.

They should use Unsplash. Many a blog post which would have shown a pic of a hoodied hacker starting at minified JS code instead shows a beautiful landscape for our pleasure.

Re: A woman who is allergic to water (2016)

#39

Post by Liquid_Fire »

dfcowell wrote: post #30
lostlogin wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But then you are paying for both private and public healthcare, so it isn’t really competition.

In Australia at least you can claim a tax rebate if you have private health insurance. I imagine the UK would have a similar system.

In the UK, private insurance usually requires you to use the public health system as a first stage, and only fall back to the private one for things not covered by the NHS. So you don't get a tax rebate because you are still relying on the public system.

Re: A woman who is allergic to water (2016)

#40

Post by lol768 »

dfcowell wrote: post #30
lostlogin wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But then you are paying for both private and public healthcare, so it isn’t really competition.

In Australia at least you can claim a tax rebate if you have private health insurance. I imagine the UK would have a similar system.

Having private medical insurance does not affect your liability to pay NI like everyone else.

In fact it increases your tax costs, because private insurance provided by e.g. an employer is treated as a BIK.

Post reply on HN