> You can control the side effects you may get from a medication you take?
You can eliminate unneeded medication to eliminate side effects.
You can reduce or change your needed medication to control side effects.
You can change your lifestyle to eliminate the need for medication.
Even if there is no way to eliminate your need for medication, you still don't necessarily have to accept bad side effects. Doctors make mistakes and the standard treatment doesn't work for everyone. The first medication a doctor prescribes is often a poor fit. Doctors sometimes need to be prompted to look for better alternatives.
> I get that most people on HN, can control the air they breath as they have the means to decide where they want to live, this isn't the case for most of the people.
Even with very limited means, there is still likely to be something you can control such as: how close to major road traffic you live, how well-ventilated your home is, whether you allow unnecessary particulate or VOC sources in your home, whether you exercise outdoors on days with higher than normal pollution levels, or whether you go running near a highway or at a park. These simple things can have a significant effect on one's air quality.
> Cancer is literally just a numbers game, people in perfect health at their PEAK get diagnosed with cancer.
Cancer has controllable risk factors. There is overwhelming evidence that we can take reasonable actions to significantly reduce our risk of getting cancer.
I agree that the father appears lucky to have avoided issues such as debilitating disease due to random genetic mutation. Even the father acknowledges that "lots of good luck" was involved. The article does not appear to overstate the significance of this single example.
Anecdotes are not useless. They can be inspirational and they can help illuminate possibilities and methods that are otherwise opaque in large-sample statistics. Anecdotes that are consistent with our best scientific understanding are powerful ways of communicating knowledge and providing inspiration for change to those who don't have the ability or inclination to evaluate the studies. In this case, the father is doing several things that large studies tell us are beneficial to health. These unmentioned studies suggest that the father has probably improved his quality of life. Most people I know are far more motivated by such anecdotes than they are by credible statistical analysis.
I disagree with your list of uncontrollable variables. All of them are largely controllable. Much of the medication consumed today is either outright unnecessary or can be reduced with lifestyle changes. You can control the air you breath by controlling where you live and when/where you are most active. You can lower your risk of cancer and many other diseases by lifestyle and environmental changes. The fact that complete control and certainty are impossible is no reason for inaction.
If you want to reason about the real world, then a top-left origin will typically be better as it aligns with a right-handed coordinate system of Forward-Right-Down; where the Forward dimension aligns with the range to an object in the scene, the Right dimension aligns with the pixel column, and the Down dimension aligns with the pixel row. As a result, vector operations are more intuitive and there is less mental translation required when mapping between image space and real-world space.
> As the author mentions, the original moniker for Excel was VisiCalc
VisiCalc wasn't actually a moniker for Excel. It was a predecessor. It was the first spreadsheet program, which was made by a different company, VisiCorp, and released in 1979. Excel was developed by Microsoft and released in 1985. Prior to Excel, Microsoft had released an earlier spreadsheet called Multiplan in 1982.
Humans have an instinctive drive to optimize genetic survival. Without it, we would not exist. One of the control mechanisms for this is our instinct for reproduction. We constantly access future availability of resources, attractiveness to high quality mates, and probability of a new child surviving to bear children of their own with high quality mates. The industrial revolution, with its massive increase in productivity and technological advancement, dramatically altered the survival cost function that humans must now optimize. A measly 200 years has not been enough time for our instinctual optimization algorithm to adapt. As a result, I believe we are seeing over-compensation for higher resources and lower mortality, which is most apparent in countries with the highest per-capita GDP (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate#/media/Fi...) where parents are over-delaying childbirth because they perceive an opportunity to improve their economic standing, improve their mate selection, and take better care of a smaller number of children. We even see this happening with immigrants from low-GDP countries who move to high-GDP countries and converge towards the lower fertility rate of their new country. I expect we will eventually adapt, but it will likely require a conscious override of instinct if we want to avoid a massive population decline in the process.
Higher prices will result in increased production. We don't need to motivate producers beyond that. There's plenty of potential from non-Russian sources. It will take months though.
I think the biggest motivational issue will be expectations for the duration of any oil sanctions. If producers think it is likely to only be short-term, there won't be as much motivation to bring extra production online.
Constricting the pupil can certainly reduce the effect of defects in the eye lens by reducing the amount of lens used; however, it won't work well in dim light.
Alternative: Increase environmental lighting and use bright, high contrast displays with dark text on bright backgrounds (no dark mode). This will not just constrict your pupils (as the eyedrops do), but also increase the rate of photons reaching your retina in bright areas of the scene relative to dark areas (in other words, improves contrast, which the eyedrops won't do).
> In math there is the concept of having a first element...
There is also the mathematical concept of not having a first element of a sequence, where each element has an infinite number of elements indexed before it.
You seem to be arguing that the existence of a mathematical concept implies that the universe must follow it. In this case, you have one concept that implies a first element and another that implies no first element. They can’t both be true.
Similarly, periodical cicadas synchronously emerge in great numbers (more 370 per square meter) every 13th or 17th year.[1] This overwhelms predators and it's thought that the prime-numbered intervals prevent predators from synchronizing their reproductive cycles with that of the cicadas.
In my experience, 100x absolutely exists. It can be sustained in areas where someone has considerable amounts of closely-related experience; however, when innovating, it is only sustainable for up to a few months at a time and with great sacrifice in one’s personal life.
Some very young children just absolutely do not want to be messed with. Even brushing their hair with a soft brush can be a major struggle no matter how clever you might be at distracting, comforting, or convincing.
If you have one of these children, then you know what’s coming as soon as the hairdresser touches their hair and there isn’t much you can do about it. It’s quite reasonable to decide it’s better to let the child know what’s about to happen rather than let them be surprised. A haircut takes time. It’s not like a shot that’s over in an instant. Holding them might be the only way to prevent them from swatting the scissors away and jerking their head in an unsafe manner.
After a few unsuccessful haircut attempts, you’ll likely find yourself considering a child-bun or just allowing their vision to be impaired until they are old enough to understand better.
Yes, I also strongly advise not riding dirt bikes either.
With that said, over countless hours of riding the ‘burbs, rural back roads, and trails; I never had what I considered a near-death experience on a dirt bike versus having at least three on street bikes. I was undoubtedly lucky, but if you avoid competitive motocross, don’t try stupid stunts, wear a full complement of protective gear, and limit your time on the street, I suspect you are safer on a dirt bike than a big street bike. Even so, I wouldn’t do it. I’ve seen dirt bikes put friends in the ICU and I now realize there are better ways I could have spent that time.
Here are a few leisure experiences from which I have received greater fulfillment with far less risk:
- Volunteer to help someone in need.
- Actively support a cause that makes the world a better place.
- Learn a new skill.
- Backpack remote areas with interesting geology, wildlife, and skies that are so bright with stars at night that it is difficult to find the constellations. Study the route beforehand to fully appreciate the area and know where to look for fossils, prehistoric artifacts, interesting minerals, geological formations, plants, and animals. For an extra challenge, pursue ultralight backpacking.[1]
- Travel to places with unique cultures. Hang out with the locals and get to know them. The lowest-profile people tend to have the most surprising and interesting life stories. Learn some of the local history and language beforehand.
- Learn to sail. With sufficient qualifications, you can rent sailboats all over the world. Fly to a beautiful location, rent a boat, island hop, travel the coastlines, and explore.
Even better for me was to start a family and focus on giving them a wonderful life.
I grew up riding dirt bikes. Later moved on to street bikes. Wandered many miles of beautiful deserts, mountains, plains, and rainforests. Had truly awesome experiences. Also had a few truly perilous experiences where the difference between life or death was razor thin. Fortunately, I escaped without major injury, but I’ve seen others not be so lucky.
My strong advice is to never ride motorcycles. There’s plenty of other wonderful experiences to be had in this world without taking such risks.
No, there is no survivorship bias apparent here. The samples appear to be representative of the populations they were investigating. They were looking at the risk of infection. Dead people don’t get infected, so they were not part of the populations studied.
