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

Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 361 posts

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#331

Post by owenversteeg »

xnorswap wrote: post #329
owenversteeg wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps you are just a simple software developer, but there are plenty of people here who are genuine experts in every field imaginable: I have had intelligent discussions here with everyone from neuroscientists to microbiologists to carpenters to machinists. More to your point, I think the modern idea that people must stay confined to their specialty is ridiculous. Not long ago it was common to have intelligent disc…

I note that you picked two hard sciences as markers of respect, "neuroscientists and microbiologists", not social sciences. Secondly my point I'm trying to make, is that these aren't "intelligent discussions" nor "serious discussion". Shunning swathes of social science, often treating their conclusions as either illegitimate ( if they go counter to their preferred narrative ), or as obvious ( if they aren't ). It's d…

I apologize for the rudeness, but did you even read my comment? I did not say a word about the social sciences. My comment was purely in reply to your accusation of ignorance.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#332

Post by blueflow »

dinfinity wrote: post #324
blueflow wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cool. I didn't know the effect of the vaccine is so poor, that you now need to account for statistical biases to see its effect at all. That's less than what i was told, and I'm not happy. Honestly what a shit vaccine. Measles and Tetanus vax did better.

Cool, so your question was in bad faith, you were not at all prepared to learn, have wasted our time, and you still don't understand anything about the base rate fallacy. Honestly, what a shit comment.

You did educate me, just not in the way you intended. I thought vaccinated people don't end up at the hospital. Zero. Apparently i was lied to.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#333

Post by dinfinity »

blueflow wrote: post #332
dinfinity wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cool, so your question was in bad faith, you were not at all prepared to learn, have wasted our time, and you still don't understand anything about the base rate fallacy. Honestly, what a shit comment.

You did educate me, just not in the way you intended. I thought vaccinated people don't end up at the hospital. Zero. Apparently i was lied to.

You must be a liar or willfully ignorant to say that after the entirety of 2019-2021 happened. The efficacy of vaccines in general and specifically of the various Covid-19 vaccines have been talked about ad nauseam. No even merely scientifically literate person has said that the Covid-19 vaccines (or any vaccine for that matter) are 100% effective.

It's so weird how people will close their eyes for basic science to virtue signal to their group. I sincerely hope you open your mind and prevent your virtue signaling from killing you (or anyone you know) in the next pandemic.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#334

Post by uzj100 »

jajko wrote: post #234
RajT88 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get it. My wife drives a big SUV. She is a small lady, and says the car let's her see the road better and overall feel more safe. Back when SUV's started to get popular, this was a trend they noticed as well. Back then, it was met with a lot of guffaws about yuppie housewives and all that. (This was before the term Karen had been coined)

I don't think you get it. And also this is an universal response from all women I ever talked about exactly this topic (and several guys too who had no idea about cars in general but knew about those famous football players or other celebrities who had suvs so they also needed one). The root cause is plain and simple - your wife just needs to learn to drive better, then she wouldn't be scared regardless of her seatin…

One thing I noticed as soon as I bought my large, offroady SUV (never having driven an SUV before) is that other traffic treated me much more respectfully. When I was in a compact sedan, traffic would swerve in front of me much more often, people would refuse to let me merge, drivers would ride my bumper, and so on. All of those things still happen, but much, much less frequently. For inattentive drivers, it's more difficult to ignore an SUV, and for angry drivers, it's more difficult to bully me around. And yeah, many of these bad drivers are in SUVs themselves, where it's easier to miss a nearby sedan.

Am I fixing the problem by driving an SUV myself? No, but I totally understand why people feel safer in them.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#335

Post by uzj100 »

QuercusMax wrote: post #319
RajT88 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly what I was getting at. There are several ways to view the story. Another commenter mentioned failing to design cars for women (totally fair! Volvo famously had a botched attempt at this) What I have come to appreciate is how vulnerable women feel in the world. It is hard to appreciate how that plays into car choice if you are a man. Most men will never be able to understand, imo.

Why does designing cars for women mean we need to turn them into main battle tanks? That's a false dichotomy. Women in cars are just as vulnerable as men in cars, just as female pedestrians are just as vulnerable as male pedestrians.

For a while, women in cars were more vulnerable than men in cars, in part because crash test dummies were sized to typical male proportions, and cars are built to pass crash tests rather than be as safe as possible for all occupants while still passing crash tests. This sometimes led to things like airbags being placed in locations that worked great for average height men but not as well for average height women.

I don't know if it's fair to say that women in cars are just as vulnerable as men in cars, the same goes for the pedestrian argument.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#336

Post by uzj100 »

QuercusMax wrote: post #29
doubled112 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We really like our station wagon. Well, in principle at least. We won't get into the details of keeping a 12 year old German car going. It's fuel efficient. It's not big. It's a decent people mover. It has more cargo space than many SUVs that are larger. Is low enough the roof racks are easily accessible. Added a hitch, mostly for more cargo space. I'm starting to wonder if I've done more "truck things" than many of…

When I had a Honda Fit I hauled a TON of cargo in it. A friend borrowed it to pick up a full-sized pinball machine from the next state over. I moved half of a 5-bedroom house (except for big furniture) across town in my Fit. You don't need a gigantic beast. A kei truck is more than adequate for the vast majority of what people use pickup trucks for.

I love when people bring up the kei truck argument. If all you do is haul mulch around town from Home Depot, by yourself, and you already have another car, sure, go for it. But pretty much nobody owns a key truck as their only car. There's little crash safety, your knees are the crumple zone, they're not designed to go on 70 mile interstate highways, you usually can't transport many people. I would feel uncomfortable transporting friends/relatives more than a few miles on low speed roads in a kei truck, because they're 25+ year old designs focused on size rather than safety.

A kei truck is a supplementary vehicle at best... so you'd still want a car, and then you have two vehicles. Lots of people don't want two vehicles when a single vehicle that covers both use cases exists.

Sure, nobody needs a gigantic beast, but for people in lots of parts of the country, the downsides to owning a larger vehicle aren't that big. Why buy a smaller pickup truck when a full size truck is just a few thousand dollars more (in a country where the average new vehicle sells for $50k), gets similar fuel economy figures, and has more room in general?

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#337

Post by uzj100 »

potato3732842 wrote: post #34
jmclnx wrote: post #3

Not being a scientist of any kind, I fully believe it is fossil fuel emissions, mainly from autos. When I was very young, where I lived, a city of 100000, I would say less than 50% of the people there drove plus most worked in the city they lived in. Now, almost every household has at least 2 autos and most drive at least 10+ (16km) miles to work. But , I also wonder if this is tied to the general increase in cancers…

I think you grossly underestimate the degree to which cars (and industry that we had yet to kick out to China) were dirtier decades ago than they are today. We're talking like literal orders, plural, of magnitude when comparing between the generally no cats automotive fleet of the 70s with anything since the advent of both cats and computerized fuel injection. Any old timer can tell you of the smog that used to be fr…

You emit less driving a new Ford F-150 Raptor from Texas to Alaska than using an old school gas lawnmower for two hours.

It's crazy how efficient and low emissions our engines today are, compared to 50 years ago.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#338

Post by uzj100 »

0points wrote: post #6
jmclnx wrote: post #3

Not being a scientist of any kind, I fully believe it is fossil fuel emissions, mainly from autos. When I was very young, where I lived, a city of 100000, I would say less than 50% of the people there drove plus most worked in the city they lived in. Now, almost every household has at least 2 autos and most drive at least 10+ (16km) miles to work. But , I also wonder if this is tied to the general increase in cancers…

Modern cars should be equipped with a catalysator, making the majority of pollution to be Co2, worsening the global warming. To some extent heavy metals are being distributed in the air by the wheels in heavily populated areas. This can be greatly improved by limiting traffic in heavily populated areas. Trump removed such a rule from New York City recently for reasons I can not comprehend. Many european cities have i…

European cities were especially bad because the EU pushed diesels while having significantly less emissions controls than gas vehicles until the mid 2000s. Most of the vehicles impacted by ULEZ are those same diesels.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#340

Post by blueflow »

dinfinity wrote: post #333
blueflow wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You did educate me, just not in the way you intended. I thought vaccinated people don't end up at the hospital. Zero. Apparently i was lied to.

You must be a liar or willfully ignorant to say that after the entirety of 2019-2021 happened. The efficacy of vaccines in general and specifically of the various Covid-19 vaccines have been talked about ad nauseam . No even merely scientifically literate person has said that the Covid-19 vaccines (or any vaccine for that matter) are 100% effective. It's so weird how people will close their eyes for basic science to…

> No even merely scientifically literate person has said that the Covid-19 vaccines (or any vaccine for that matter) are 100% effective.

I can't argue that. I think its a "true scotsman" situation. If i quote the WHO[1] on this, you might just say they are not literate enough.

Take note that they say "Immunity" instead of "Efficacy", that is because it was the knowledge in 2020.

[1] https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/her...

The rest of your post are personal attacks that do not add to your point.

Post reply on HN