Live data from Hacker News

I am the healthiest person I know, and I got cancer

seema.page

491–500 of 523 posts

Re: I am the healthiest person I know, and I got cancer

#491
post #261
post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Legally mandating remote work and adding public transit options and raising the cost of daily useless commute would go a veeeeeery long way. Because the petrol not burned by driving can be used to replace the coal plants.

I think you are overestimating the amount of jobs that can be done remotely. Things that can never be done remotely: agriculture, construction, manufacture, hospitality, a big part of health/elder care, a big part of education, anything that requires expensive equipment (research, ...), artists/shows/events, the list goes on. A lot of these sectors were either closed or running slow during COVID, which was not sustai…

Most US cities need a small critical mass only to kickstart good [amazing!? okay, passable] public transport.

Urbanization is still in full force, cities are growing. (Even if COVID put a dip in the graph.)

Sure, the number one problem is density, but the US is ridiculously rich enough to support enough buses doing the rounds.

Agriculture is not causing congestion. (The rare combine on the rural road leading a queue is the exception.)

Construction is also a small part of the overall traffic. (Especially with more and more prefab happening around the world.)

Manufacturing, sure, production lines need operators, engineers, etc. Yet at the same time (speaking from experience) about half of the staff could do remote.

> So even if every single person that can work remotely does so, still expect big cities with transportation issues.

No questions there, but as I said a few sentences back, the peak is the problem. The upkeep (maintenance costs) for a transit network that can serve X number of people all commuting at the same time (in the same direction) is basically double than a network for half (or ~80%) of that demand.

Re: I am the healthiest person I know, and I got cancer

#492
post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are overestimating the amount of jobs that can be done remotely. Things that can never be done remotely: agriculture, construction, manufacture, hospitality, a big part of health/elder care, a big part of education, anything that requires expensive equipment (research, ...), artists/shows/events, the list goes on. A lot of these sectors were either closed or running slow during COVID, which was not sustai…

Not to go into each of your counter-examples, but while some of them can't be done remotely today, surely we can get there. Eg. how far away are we from having remote-controlled tractors and combine-harvesters? Sure, get them home into a garage when they need servicing. Hospitality? There are places which, especially in the first pandemic year, have gone all hands-off (eg. get a token to access a property on your che…

People going to places is no the problem. The problem is the peak demand. (Eg. usual commute. Rush hour.)

It'd be much much better if people were spending all that fuel on traveling with friends to anywhere else. (Or just going to events/festivals.)

...

That said remote work without any IRL interaction is definitely psychologically unhealthy. But! Doing a twice monthly sprint rollover or whatever means a qualitatively different kind of transit than the daily commute.

Re: I am the healthiest person I know, and I got cancer

#493
post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Legally mandating remote work and adding public transit options and raising the cost of daily useless commute would go a veeeeeery long way. Because the petrol not burned by driving can be used to replace the coal plants.

> Legally mandating remote work That's... extremely totalitarian :) ...but legally forcing employers to allow remote work X days a week for jobs where it makes sense + solid investment in public transit would make wonders.

Yes. Carbon taxes (and probably some land value tax) are the preferred solution.

Re: I am the healthiest person I know, and I got cancer

#494
post #279

First of all, I'm sorry to learn the author got cancer; I wish her all the best and continued strength. Many contributors have already made good suggestions how to reduce the risk of getting cancer, or how to deal with it; but I found most posts quite _technical_. Speaking in general terms, cancer is not a disease like a common cold. The human body sooner or later is bound to decay, which pretty much starts once one…

> Make the best of every minute you have, and live it as if it were your last.

I’m against this advice because aside from the usual objections like practicality, it’s fundamentally based on fear of missing out and not having lived a good life. It’s a kind of striving and all striving leads to suffering.

If you want to spend your afternoon navel gazing or looking at fish in the pond, that’s the true thing you should do. Free and easy wandering.

Re: I am the healthiest person I know, and I got cancer

#495
post #279

First of all, I'm sorry to learn the author got cancer; I wish her all the best and continued strength. Many contributors have already made good suggestions how to reduce the risk of getting cancer, or how to deal with it; but I found most posts quite _technical_. Speaking in general terms, cancer is not a disease like a common cold. The human body sooner or later is bound to decay, which pretty much starts once one…

The best way to reduce your chances of cancer is to either not be born or kill yourself. I did cancer research for many years, so, it's a very valid advice.

Re: I am the healthiest person I know, and I got cancer

#496
"Healthiest" is very subjective. For example, people still believe low-fat diets are healthier and that saturated fats are evil and PUFAs are not (although people like Ray Peat call them "toxic at any dosage"). Excessive exercise is another proof that toxicity is all about the dose - because a sedentary lifestyle is possibly unhealthy, people wrongly conclude that working the hell out is any better.

Also, the environment does a huge toll - you can have the healthiest lifestyle in Los Angeles, but you still inhale one of the most polluted air. Also, you drive a new car, which intoxicates you, and reverses your lifestyle efforts manyfold!

Many consider eating kale to be healthy... and they drink kale juice, eat raw kale, not realizing how goitrogenic kale actually is.

So, when I hear "I live a healthy lifestyle", I really interpret it usually as "I suffer from orthorexia".

Re: I am the healthiest person I know, and I got cancer

#497
post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is - even in the absence of external factors, you may get cancer. A good part of the cause of cancer are natural processes - errors in DNA replication, oxidative stress due to infection or hell, just plain metabolism. Then add on top all the genetic errors you inherited from your parents. You could live in a bubble of pure clean air and only eat pure, clean organic food and get cancer. The answer is to do t…

> even in the absence of external factors, you may get cancer That's like saying "even in the absence of lead poisoning, your child could still be retarded". > You could live in a bubble ...they point is we do live in "a bubble", it's called Earth, and we can work to make this a cleaner and less toxic bubble. I know perfectly well that cancer is a natural component of aging. And I also know that advances in anti-agin…

Not sure what your rant is getting at but my point stands - eliminate all pollution (even naturally occurring arsenic?) and you’d reduce cancer rates by maybe 30%.

Worthwhile? Of course? Going to get rid of cancer? No.

Re: I am the healthiest person I know, and I got cancer

#498

Earlier quoted context omitted.

David Sinclair is right about mTor and IGF-1 but i find him to be really untrustworthy. he has so much riding on Resveratrol and has put so much into videos, books, gotten grants and so forth, that when studies came out proving Resveratrol isn't the miracle substance he (and many others) purported it to be, he basically just started doubling down and refusing to engage with other scientists calling him out on it. if…

> Resveratrol That's a pretty outdated view of him. I've seen him admit resveratrol was thematically the right idea, but admittedly not as revolutionary as hoped. Lately he's been more interested in sirtuins, NMN and the like as ways of dealing with the 4 yamanaka factors etc. I highly recommend his youtube channel where he puts it into pretty easily consumable content

i cannot delete my comment.

But scratch that, he actually seems to be recently digging in trying to claim still being right about resveratrol (:sad_panda:).

Thanks for sharing those links giving a more balanced view.

Re: I am the healthiest person I know, and I got cancer

#499
Cancer is not a taboo in India, why would it be? I have lived in 6 different states of India and have heard/seen relatives/friends/people openly talk about having breast cancer, lung cancer, having cancer treatments etc. I really don't understand why she repeatedly mentions that in her, otherwise, insightful post.

Re: I am the healthiest person I know, and I got cancer

#500
post #483
post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The effect will necessarily appear weak when incidence of HPV is over 80%. At 95% it would appear weaker yet. That any signal shows up under the circumstances means the effect is huge.

With respect, this isn’t an accurate interpretation of an odds ratio. If you look at other cancers with a clear viral cause (EBV and nasopharyngeal carcinoma, HPV and cervical cancer), you will see that nearly 100% of tumours show evidence of viral infection and the odds ratios are very high, even though the viruses are ubiquitous. The data for HPV and prostate cancer suggest, at best, an indirect effect such as infl…

For cancer categories that are caused only by HPV, the signal would be clear even at 95%. But many categories have multiple possible causes. A cancer that could be caused by HPV or something else is still sufficient reason to get vaccinated.

Everybody not already exposed to HPV should get vaccinated against it. All insurance companies should be obliged to pay for such vaccinations.

Post reply on HN