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

Calcutta girl who fled home & marriage at 17 returns as millionaire US innovator

telegraphindia.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 75 posts

Re: Calcutta girl who fled home & marriage at 17 returns as millionaire US innovator

#61

Post by pretoriusB »

guard-of-terra wrote: post #54
pretoriusB wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So now you vote for stopping progress forever for the fears of safety? Why not? Because you believe in "progress" as in an inherently good metaphysical entity? I'd take safety and a better life for the vast majority of mankind over progress anyday.

The vast majority of mankind do not have safe and enjoyable life. The reason for that is not enough progress. "Safe and better" isn't going to materialize out of thin air.

>The vast majority of mankind do not have safe and enjoyable life.

My sentiments exactly.

>The reason for that is not enough progress.

No, the reason for that is not enough political action for solving that.

It's not like we don't have enough food, resources of technology to solve all of those problems. And it's not like any new technology is applied to solving them.

People are dying (by the millions) by problems that can be solved by 200 and 300 year old technology.

Re: Calcutta girl who fled home & marriage at 17 returns as millionaire US innovator

#62

Post by beagle3 »

raverbashing wrote: post #53
jackalope wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I baked like a lobster once after spending too much time on a boat without any sunscreen. I was extremely concerned about the cancer risk and was surprised to come across this in the wikipedia article on sunburn: ...if sunscreen penetrates into the skin, it promotes indirect DNA damage, which causes the most lethal form of skin cancer, malignant melanoma. This form of skin cancer is rare, but it causes 75% of all ski…

Having your skin burned by sun rays (with a certain frequency) is worse than using sunscreen. And it is certainly not only 'mild cancer' Constantly damaging a tissue (mechanical, chemical, radioactive damage) is a trigger for cancer Not to mention the Ozone layer hole (in the southern hemisphere)

And yet, athletes who constantly subject their body to mechanical damage, have a much lower incidence of cancer than the general population. Yes, there are a lot of confounding factors and it is hard to tell what causes what.

But there is also a lot of evidence for hormesis - the idea that small amounts of bad stuff is good for you; a small amounts of alcohol daily is better than no alcohol at all, and better than exactly same cumulative amount consumed weekly. And I assume the same thing goes for sun, and mechanical damage, although I'm not familiar with the literature.

Re: Calcutta girl who fled home & marriage at 17 returns as millionaire US innovator

#63

Post by btilly »

guard-of-terra wrote: post #60
btilly wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I vote for recognizing clear risks, and taking appropriate steps to mitigate them up front. If you're deliberately trying to put biologically active stuff into millions of people, it is just a question of time before the law of unintended consequences hits you. Your desire to sell more effective skin whitening creams does not, in my books, mean that you should ignore the possibility that your beautifier can make peop…

What makes you think she doesn't have good evidence that her product is both acceptably safe and makes people look better? I re-read that portion of TFA and nothing rang my bell.

Based on the article, she's a pioneer in using new biological pathways for a cosmetic effect. You don't get to be first if you're trying to study safety, and that industry as a whole does not pay much attention to safety.

Therefore I find it extremely likely that she has evidence of biological effect in your body's cells, and has not done research on unexpected possible side effects in the same cells that she's impacting.

Re: Calcutta girl who fled home & marriage at 17 returns as millionaire US innovator

#64

Post by raverbashing »

beagle3 wrote: post #62
raverbashing wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having your skin burned by sun rays (with a certain frequency) is worse than using sunscreen. And it is certainly not only 'mild cancer' Constantly damaging a tissue (mechanical, chemical, radioactive damage) is a trigger for cancer Not to mention the Ozone layer hole (in the southern hemisphere)

And yet, athletes who constantly subject their body to mechanical damage, have a much lower incidence of cancer than the general population. Yes, there are a lot of confounding factors and it is hard to tell what causes what. But there is also a lot of evidence for hormesis - the idea that small amounts of bad stuff is good for you; a small amounts of alcohol daily is better than no alcohol at all, and better than ex…

The hormesis idea is nice, but it doesn't work if the damage is too much.

So I suppose a moderate dose of sunbathing is beneficial (and not only because of Vitamin D)

There are some cases where cancer is believed to be caused by repeated damage to a tissue, example (search for 'hot beverages') http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/cancerstats/type...

Re: Calcutta girl who fled home & marriage at 17 returns as millionaire US innovator

#65

Post by guard-of-terra »

pretoriusB wrote: post #61
guard-of-terra wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The vast majority of mankind do not have safe and enjoyable life. The reason for that is not enough progress. "Safe and better" isn't going to materialize out of thin air.

> The vast majority of mankind do not have safe and enjoyable life. My sentiments exactly. > The reason for that is not enough progress. No, the reason for that is not enough political action for solving that. It's not like we don't have enough food, resources of technology to solve all of those problems. And it's not like any new technology is applied to solving them. People are dying (by the millions) by problems t…

Will that political action consist of taking the wealth from people who embraced progress and giving it to people who ignored progress?

So they can keep on remaining in the cultural and intellectual stone age and be proud of it?

Re: Calcutta girl who fled home & marriage at 17 returns as millionaire US innovator

#66

Post by guard-of-terra »

btilly wrote: post #63
guard-of-terra wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you think she doesn't have good evidence that her product is both acceptably safe and makes people look better? I re-read that portion of TFA and nothing rang my bell.

Based on the article, she's a pioneer in using new biological pathways for a cosmetic effect. You don't get to be first if you're trying to study safety, and that industry as a whole does not pay much attention to safety. Therefore I find it extremely likely that she has evidence of biological effect in your body's cells, and has not done research on unexpected possible side effects in the same cells that she's impac…

Oh that's brilliant. If she is a pioneer then she is automatically pronounced guilty, and the people who come and share her work with much less risk are to get the benefits.

I see so much enterpreneur spirit in your comments on HN that I am speechless.

Is this your life choice as well? Looking for people who innovate, bash them over their mistakes and then steal their good results?

Re: Calcutta girl who fled home & marriage at 17 returns as millionaire US innovator

#68

Post by solutionhn »

shiven wrote: post #35
solutionhn wrote: post #22

A shiny example of a country filled with incompetent people, including the ones who frequent HN. How can a journalist be such a fool to publish something as ridiculous as this? A simple Google search can confirm that she is fake. With this article behind her back, don't be surprised if she ends up on a '50 under 50' list within a year.

Wow! By this metric if you can't find my life's story on Google, I must be fake . And, pari passu , anything you find about me on Google must be not fake. Unless, of course, your post was an attempt at trolling... In which case, I must admit, you've succeeded. ;-)

> By this metric if you can't find my life's story on Google, I must be fake

Thank you. By writing this comment you just proved the statement I made above.

Did I say I couldn't find details about her on Google? On the contrary, I found enough evidence while doing a simple Google search to come to a reasonable conclusion. If I can't find your story I would reserve my judgement.

> Companies with single shareholders > Cal Poly and Caltech > Shitty websites for companies supplying important formulations to the likes of Estee Lauder and many more..

Please avoid using the word 'Troll' casually without concrete evidence.

Re: Calcutta girl who fled home & marriage at 17 returns as millionaire US innovator

#69

Post by illuminate »

jackalope wrote: post #51
raverbashing wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really don't know what's worse, cosmetic companies putting whatever they want or this exaggeration of risks Among that list of "dangerous substances" we have: talc, silica (sand). Exaggerated alarmism and "think of the children" mentality. I'm sure there's some people that die after consuming Vitamin C supplements, but that doesn't mean it is 'dangerous'. Do you know what else is carcinogenic? Sunscreen. Of course,…

I baked like a lobster once after spending too much time on a boat without any sunscreen. I was extremely concerned about the cancer risk and was surprised to come across this in the wikipedia article on sunburn: ...if sunscreen penetrates into the skin, it promotes indirect DNA damage, which causes the most lethal form of skin cancer, malignant melanoma. This form of skin cancer is rare, but it causes 75% of all ski…

" I was extremely concerned about the cancer risk and was surprised to come across this in the wikipedia article on sunburn:"

This sounds like you're reading the article incorrectly perhaps? The sunscreen isn't causing DNA damage in and of itself, it prevents one form of severe harm and leaves others intact. Don't go in the sun unclothed if you want to avoid cancer.

"Now I'm left with one more dilemma"

It's not a dilemma. It's always a bad idea to get long exposures of sunlight if you can avoid it.

Re: Calcutta girl who fled home & marriage at 17 returns as millionaire US innovator

#70

Post by illuminate »

hermaj wrote: post #41
btilly wrote: post #19

If the story is true, then I question her ethics. As http://www.preventcancer.com/consumers/cosmetics/cosmetics_p... (among many other sources) points out, we do not have good regulation of the cosmetics industry. Which is kind of scary, because the cosmetics industry is deliberately seeking biologically active stuff, and smearing it all over people. Stuff that, in her case, does things like change your natural skin…

How many serious scientists would be on the board of advisors for RUMi OM™ YOUR SOUL VACATION™ HOME: http://www.rumiom.com/index.php/board-of-advoisors.html This is a nonsense story designed to promote some kind of pseudoscience yoga resort.

It's surprising how at face value these stories from MLM and other sham purveyors are taken.
Post reply on HN