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

Susan Wojcicki has died

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 523 posts

Re: Susan Wojcicki has died

#431

Post by [deleted] »

polotics wrote: post #417
meiraleal wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know that Google has an intranet, right? The CEO of a division that extracts rent from almost every living person doesn't deserve more respect than a homeless person in SF

On a 1-10 scale of nefariousness, I would classify Youtube as pretty low, it's a manageable addiction and with a little bit of self control the videos you watch will be worthwhile. I am a subscriber. Then there is Youtube Kids, and whoever worked on that deserves a 9, and good bye.

[deleted]

Re: Susan Wojcicki has died

#432

Post by cpncrunch »

melling wrote: post #427
cpncrunch wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you have misinterpreted that sentence. It is saying that too little sun exposure is harmful to health in women. See also this study which found the same for men in Norway: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01695...

Yes, we agree. Very restrictive exposure in countries with low solar intensity “ Susan lived in Northern California. How’s the solar intensity where she lived? “ sun exposure advice that is very restrictive in countries with low solar intensity might in fact be harmful to women's health

Oslo is about half the UV of SF, so you would need to spend half as much time in the sun for the same benefit. If you are not outside much during the day, its still a risk factor no matter where you live. This would apply to most office workers.

Re: Susan Wojcicki has died

#433

Post by cpncrunch »

turtlesdown11 wrote: post #284
A_D_E_P_T wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's probably not her real schedule. It looks like clickbait and was probably invented by the author. (Who might be our prolific friend Chat-GPT.) Besides 10:00pm to 5:30am is 7.5 hours, which is either optimal or (arguably) too much. Lastly, there's no clear evidence tying sleep duration to cancer incidence. See, e.g.: https://bmccancer.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12885-...

arguably too much sleep? what world are you living in that seven and a half hours of sleep is too much?

6hr, as per my comment. Its enough for some people, but average is 7-8. I go to sleep 45-60 mins after going to bed, and i wake 30mins before exercising. Im assuming that is fairly typical.

Re: Susan Wojcicki has died

#434

Post by viraptor »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #213
viraptor wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've got a number of working cures and preventions for cancers, just not most types and many are not 100% reliable. I'm happy to complain about pharma and we've still got a long way to go, but this is a bad take. Yes, they've "allowed" it for years. (Did you get your HPV vaccine already?)

As I understand about the HPV vaccine: It only prevents new infections. It does not cure existing infections. And you need to get it very young to reduce chances of infection before vaccine.

Correct. That one falls under preventions. But that one also protects your partners.

Re: Susan Wojcicki has died

#437

Post by melling »

cpncrunch wrote: post #432
melling wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, we agree. Very restrictive exposure in countries with low solar intensity “ Susan lived in Northern California. How’s the solar intensity where she lived? “ sun exposure advice that is very restrictive in countries with low solar intensity might in fact be harmful to women's health

Oslo is about half the UV of SF, so you would need to spend half as much time in the sun for the same benefit. If you are not outside much during the day, its still a risk factor no matter where you live. This would apply to most office workers.

“ Research on a link between vitamin D and cancer is mixed. Some studies have shown a link between low vitamin D levels in the body and a higher risk of getting cancer or dying from cancer. However, it’s not clear if taking vitamin D or having certain vitamin D levels might help prevent cancer. It’s also not clear if vitamin D can help control the growth and spread of cancer. More research is needed to know what role vitamin D does or does not play in helping to prevent or control cancer.”

https://amp.cancer.org/cancer/risk-prevention/sun-and-uv/sun...

Re: Susan Wojcicki has died

#438

Post by [deleted] »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #371
mynameisvlad wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Egh… no. They wanted the FDA to put it under NDA for 75 years. Which a judge said was bull. Cool, how does that any way shape or form relate to this discussion? Did they make the claim that they are 100% safe and will never cause interactions ever? If so, show me the exact quote where they said that. There are many reasons to ask for an NDA, and lying is only one of them. Hanlon’s razor and all that. Are the number…

A. I didn’t say they did cause cancer. I don’t believe they do. I am sympathetic to those who want more investigation. B. Hanlon’s razor is flawed, as well-executed malice is indistinguishable from stupidity. C. Contrarywise, you are choosing to believe that it is not suspicious behavior; when being suspicious of a company with decades of fines and convictions is arguably quite reasonable. D. There are many reasons f…

[deleted]

Re: Susan Wojcicki has died

#439

Post by tim333 »

dotnet00 wrote: post #328
lchengify wrote: post #73

Was shocked to hear this news. I worked for Google years ago but I was in the NYC office, so we didn't run into the YouTube folks much. Opinions about YouTube may be mixed here on HN, but it is objectively one of the most successful businesses in tech or media to emerge in the past 15 years. If it weren't buried inside Alphabet, Youtube would be worth on the order of $400 billion, more than Disney and Comcast combine…

YouTube has very much been resting on its laurels, they were innovative 20 years ago when they started. For the past decade or so they have mostly just rested on their laurels allowing the auto-moderation to rampage and destroy people's livelihoods. They've been way behind on adding standard features that their competitors see lots of benefit from. For example, YouTube was years late to the 'channel memberships' game…

It's still for me much more useable than the competitors. There have been quite a lot of features added in the 20 years - being able to choosse the viewing quality, variable playback speed, rapid transcription for subtitles, live video where if you join late you can start from the begining at 2x till it catches up. I still interenally curse if I'm made to watch video on a non youtube player as there's usually something that doesn't work. Youtube is often the only one to work ok on slow connections.

Re: Susan Wojcicki has died

#440

Post by xanderlewis »

Aunche wrote: post #422
xanderlewis wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which customers are offended by the word ‘suicide’ and would prefer something like ‘unalive’? As with all of this crap, it’s about taking offence on behalf of those who aren’t offended or don’t even exist. > censorship boards in traditional media too, which are typically much stricter. Which ones? In which country would the word ‘suicide’ be censored? There are countless other examples of topics that YouTube has deci…

I'm pretty sure that unalive came from TikTok because they wanted to keep their app upbeat. My point is that average YouTube is going to be less censoring overall. The perception may be that there is more censorship because there is simply more content on it that can be censored and they have more stakeholders that they have to appease. BBC released The Modi Question, which got censored on YouTube. However, YouTube h…

Your point seemed to be that if advertisers are unhappy, then YouTube can’t make money. And advertisers are unhappy if their customers are unhappy.

This is true; the problem is that the customers aren’t unhappy. No sensible person cares about this kind of posturing, virtue-signalling, euphemism treadmill-riding for-lack-of-a-better-word ‘wokery’. It’s pushed by an incredibly small vocal minority of people who stand to benefit — mainly because it’s now possible not only to gain social cache but to have a whole career and make lots of money pushing this stuff.

Yes, YouTube may find that advertisers choose to virtue signal, ‘make a stand’ and leave their platform when their chosen magic words are not used, but ultimately they’ll come grovelling back. YouTube shouldn’t be so soft. Ultimately it’s just the endless cycle of unsolicited offence-taking.

And, by the way: this is all totally separate from Musk’s management of X, which purports to be rules-based and morally sound but is in reality entirely ad hoc. What Elon says goes… until he changes his mind tomorrow. At least YouTube has policies, even if they’re bonkers.

Post reply on HN