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

What we learned doing Fast Grants

future.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 107 posts

Re: What we learned doing Fast Grants

#81

Post by selimthegrim »

teclordphrack2 wrote: post #67
nickthemagicman wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Didn't that turn out to work? https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.28.21258012v...

No, it did not. Please explain how you think the link you provided backs your opinion. Give me your analysis of the data presented. Let me know you actually understand it. This is one paper on one hospital and only looking at data after the fact. Across the USA if you were hospitalized more than 10 days you had a much higher chance of survival. It did not depend on any medication given. That is a stat that runs acros…

Furthermore HCQ advocates would reject this study because they want it tested with zinc as a prophylaxis before things get bad enough to send you to hospital

Re: What we learned doing Fast Grants

#82

Post by nickthemagicman »

teclordphrack2 wrote: post #67
nickthemagicman wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Didn't that turn out to work? https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.28.21258012v...

No, it did not. Please explain how you think the link you provided backs your opinion. Give me your analysis of the data presented. Let me know you actually understand it. This is one paper on one hospital and only looking at data after the fact. Across the USA if you were hospitalized more than 10 days you had a much higher chance of survival. It did not depend on any medication given. That is a stat that runs acros…

Here's a more clear paper for you about HCQ.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7534595/#:~:tex....

"HCQ was found to be consistently effective against COVID-19 when provided early in the outpatient setting. It was also found to be overall effective in inpatient studies. No unbiased study found worse outcomes with HCQ use. No mortality or serious safety adverse events were found."

Also the articles that claimed it DIDN'T work were retracted because the authors of the articles couldn't prove their data.

https://www.the-scientist.com/features/the-surgisphere-scand...

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...

Don't let your politics override fact.

Re: What we learned doing Fast Grants

#83

Post by nickthemagicman »

cbsmith wrote: post #57
nickthemagicman wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Covid chance of death in general population (Deaths / US population): 100 - (600000/350 million) = 99.9982857143% survival rate > "Currently, no coronavirus vaccine is fully approved by the FDA, but three were given emergency use authorization by the agency" https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/coronavirus/are-covid-vaccin... > The demand on our healthcare infrastructure is potentially crippling, as we've seen Completel…

[flagged]

You're telling me that I'm wrong for believing the collectively agreed up English language definition of the term 'ring your bell' that has been around for hundreds of years... in favor of your brand new definition?

"To strike someone with a violent blow to the head, especially as might stun or concuss."

https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/ring+your+bell

I find your argument un-appealing, bordering on orwellian newspeak, and disengenous.

Re: What we learned doing Fast Grants

#84

Post by nickthemagicman »

dang wrote: post #61
nickthemagicman wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Covid chance of death in general population (Deaths / US population): 100 - (600000/350 million) = 99.9982857143% survival rate > "Currently, no coronavirus vaccine is fully approved by the FDA, but three were given emergency use authorization by the agency" https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/coronavirus/are-covid-vaccin... > The demand on our healthcare infrastructure is potentially crippling, as we've seen Completel…

We've had to ask you multiple times before not to break the site guidelines like this. You've been posting lots of flamewar comments lately. I don't want to ban you but you're not making this easy. Would you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and fix this?

Dude had an implication with a threat to 'ring my bell' which is an actual violent threat..they get no warning...and you're telling me I'm in the wrong?

Life is not fair.

Just ban me already then.

Re: What we learned doing Fast Grants

#85

Post by dang »

nickthemagicman wrote: post #84
dang wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've had to ask you multiple times before not to break the site guidelines like this. You've been posting lots of flamewar comments lately. I don't want to ban you but you're not making this easy. Would you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and fix this?

Dude had an implication with a threat to 'ring my bell' which is an actual violent threat..they get no warning...and you're telling me I'm in the wrong? Life is not fair. Just ban me already then.

It was certainly a lame thing to put in an HN comment but (a) you're misquoting it and (b) I don't think most people would read it as "an actual violent threat".

Re: What we learned doing Fast Grants

#86

Post by cbsmith »

nickthemagicman wrote: post #83
cbsmith wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

You're telling me that I'm wrong for believing the collectively agreed up English language definition of the term 'ring your bell' that has been around for hundreds of years... in favor of your brand new definition? "To strike someone with a violent blow to the head, especially as might stun or concuss." https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/ring+your+bell I find your argument un-appealing, bordering on orwellian news…

No. I'm agreeing with you about the "ring your bell" definition. What you clearly misunderstood (and I'll take the blame for not wording it well if that helps you) was the time of the "ringing of the bell". I was suggesting that your bell had already been rung, and it was impacting your thinking.

I also didn't say I'd "ring your bell", I referred to having had "your bell rung" (which would mean to have had your head struck, not necessarily by any person). There was no implication of any action on my or anyone else's part at all.

To me you were talking about critical thinking you'd already done in the past, and that others should have done in the past, not the future. Consequently, saying that what had happened in the past wasn't critical thinking but rather impaired thinking.

Obviously, I really failed to convey the message well and I'll totally take the blame for that, but I really was not making a threat. I'm very sorry that you felt threatened. That was not at all what I was trying to convey.

Re: What we learned doing Fast Grants

#87

Post by cbsmith »

dang wrote: post #85
nickthemagicman wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dude had an implication with a threat to 'ring my bell' which is an actual violent threat..they get no warning...and you're telling me I'm in the wrong? Life is not fair. Just ban me already then.

It was certainly a lame thing to put in an HN comment but (a) you're misquoting it and (b) I don't think most people would read it as "an actual violent threat".

Yeah, I think I screwed up big time.

I'm really at a loss for how it came across as any kind of suggestion about something that might happen in the future (a key perquisite for anything to be a threat). Even that aside, for it to be a threat, that would somehow mean the original statement it was referring to was threatening people with critical thinking bells... that seems nonsensical to me.

So again: I definitely screwed up here, and I'm horribly embarrassed by it all, but I'm at a loss to see how this could have been interpreted as a threat of any kind. I'm really sorry that it was.

Re: What we learned doing Fast Grants

#88

Post by nickthemagicman »

cbsmith wrote: post #87
dang wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was certainly a lame thing to put in an HN comment but (a) you're misquoting it and (b) I don't think most people would read it as "an actual violent threat".

Yeah, I think I screwed up big time. I'm really at a loss for how it came across as any kind of suggestion about something that might happen in the future (a key perquisite for anything to be a threat). Even that aside, for it to be a threat, that would somehow mean the original statement it was referring to was threatening people with critical thinking bells... that seems nonsensical to me. So again: I definitely sc…

Your quote:

"""There's a difference between critical thinking bells and having your bell rung. ;-)"""

This is essentially your argument:

"""

There's a difference between critical thinking bells and having your brains blown out with a critical thinking shotgun and some eight gauge ideas and buried in an unmarked grave of introspection!

Can't IMAGINE how you could interpret that in a negative way! """

You're either calling me stupid.... or implying that you're going to violently attack me.

You are correct, you did screw up...what you said is flamebait bannable offense and you deserve to be permanently banned immediately for violent threats to others or insulting others baselessly.

Please ban this person immediately @dang.

There should be ZERO tolerance for violence or insults.

Re: What we learned doing Fast Grants

#89

Post by nickthemagicman »

cbsmith wrote: post #86
nickthemagicman wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're telling me that I'm wrong for believing the collectively agreed up English language definition of the term 'ring your bell' that has been around for hundreds of years... in favor of your brand new definition? "To strike someone with a violent blow to the head, especially as might stun or concuss." https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/ring+your+bell I find your argument un-appealing, bordering on orwellian news…

No. I'm agreeing with you about the "ring your bell" definition. What you clearly misunderstood (and I'll take the blame for not wording it well if that helps you) was the time of the "ringing of the bell". I was suggesting that your bell had already been rung, and it was impacting your thinking. I also didn't say I'd "ring your bell", I referred to having had "your bell rung" (which would mean to have had your head…

So what you're saying....

is that instead of violently threatening me....

you were baselessly calling me stupid??

Even though I posted numerous references while your ideas were unsourced false fear mongering information?

You should be banned from this site forever for posting Facebook science and attacking people.

Re: What we learned doing Fast Grants

#90

Post by nickthemagicman »

dang wrote: post #85
nickthemagicman wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dude had an implication with a threat to 'ring my bell' which is an actual violent threat..they get no warning...and you're telling me I'm in the wrong? Life is not fair. Just ban me already then.

It was certainly a lame thing to put in an HN comment but (a) you're misquoting it and (b) I don't think most people would read it as "an actual violent threat".

Their quote:

"""There's a difference between critical thinking bells and having your bell rung. ;-)""""

Theyre either baselessly calling me stupid or threatening me...both are bannable offenses...and I'm getting the warning...

If this was a truly fair site that person would be banned.

Post reply on HN