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

The mites in the skin of our faces

phys.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 76 posts

Re: The mites in the skin of our faces

#41

Post by thaumasiotes »

wil421 wrote: post #39
sverhagen wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a totally unrelated aside, would one be able to express that distinction using "of" versus "off"?

Off, as in take off your clothes or turn a light switch off. It’s means separation or disconnection. Of shows a relationship. The Queen of the UK. Get rid of the mites on my face!

Though note that etymologically "of" is a derivative of "off". There was no need for a preposition "of" historically because the idea was expressed by declining a noun into the genitive case. But as the Romance languages developed from Latin, the case system largely died out and the Latin preposition de radically shifted its meaning to the current meaning of "of".

Romance de was translated into English as off because that is the appropriate translation of Latin (but not Romance) de.[1] And, the senses being unrelated, of diverged from off.

[1] Actually, the conventional translation my Latin instruction used for de as a verbal prefix was "down from". (As in "descend".) As a preposition it has a few different uses, including "off", "down from", and "about" (as in "what's that book about?"). "From" more generally would be e or ex, but "down from" gets its own preposition.

Re: The mites in the skin of our faces

#42

Post by feet »

sloan wrote: post #4

Huh, so if they have a beneficial effect I wonder what happens if you disrupt their lifecycle. Are they, for instance, sensitive to certain cleansing compounds, etc.

We need to stop lathering ourselves up with soap all the time. Like mites, we have a community living on our skin, our microbiome and soap decimates that community that helps us

Re: The mites in the skin of our faces

#44

Post by thaumasiotes »

smilespray wrote: post #29
pmontra wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're probably mostly harmless or there won't be 8 billion humans on the planet.

This is the kind of perspective that actually works for me. Thanks!

Even parasites that are definitely detrimental are generally not especially bad for hosts that have coevolved with them. Hookworm in the American South was completely debilitating for the impoverished whites it infected, but basically a nuisance for the blacks. This is generally how parasites work.

So there would be much more cause for alarm if you believed that your face mites were a variety you weren't already adapted to.

Re: The mites in the skin of our faces

#46

Post by bwat48 »

nullifidian wrote: post #14
sumy23 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ivermectin cream. They are believed to cause rosacea, but are typically harmless if not beneficial.

>Ivermectin cream. For a moment I thought it was a joke. Such are the times.

This has been used for rosacea for a long time, predating the pandemic. there's a prescription called soolantra

Re: The mites in the skin of our faces

#49

Post by npteljes »

pmontra wrote: post #22
ilaksh wrote: post #3

How do you kill them?

They're probably mostly harmless or there won't be 8 billion humans on the planet.

That's not saying much - just means that we can live until we can breed, and that the next generation also makes it somehow. The same thing could be said about any illness, drug, disaster or mis-treatment that ever happened.

Re: The mites in the skin of our faces

#50

Post by aidos »

sverhagen wrote: post #36
RamRodification wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To save other people time: The video shows how to get some of them off your face if you want to study them. Not how to get rid of them permanently, or even temporarily.

As a totally unrelated aside, would one be able to express that distinction using "of" versus "off"?

I guess here you could use “get them from your face”
Post reply on HN