From Wiki:
At one point, the CDC coined the phrase "the 4H disease", since the syndrome seemed to affect Haitians, homosexuals, hemophiliacs, and heroin users. In the general press, the term "GRID", which stood for gay-related immune deficiency, had been coined.[180] However, after determining that AIDS was not isolated to the gay community,[178] it was realized that the term GRID was misleading and the term AIDS was introduced at a meeting in July 1982.[181] By September 1982 the CDC started referring to the disease as AIDS.[182]
An article like this makes you wonder how many different diseases (answer - over 200) get lumped together under the large "cancer" umbrella.
One wonders if we are doing ourselves a disservice maintaining a term more inline with shared symptoms instead of separating the diseases into shared causes.
At any rate I'm digressing, but cancer is a fascinating (while horrible) concept that exists in our reality. When you think about it, it is probably more responsible for what we are today than any other force on the planet, in evolutionary terms.
As for AIDS: The fact that it was a "gay disease" hampered everything about our response to it. I'd like to think that we would be much more in tune with emerging health threats these days, but somehow I doubt it. I really hope we have HIV licked in a few years though, because Africa really, really needs a vaccine before it can do anything else really.
What motivates web designers to tell stories by repurposing the scroll mechanism instead of, say, using video?
I can only speak for myself, but I rarely, if ever, watch website videos, especially at work.
I made it through this entire thing by scrolling.
While I understand video is sometimes the best way to convey an idea, I fricken hate it. It would need to be something very, very intriguing for me to watch. 99% of websites selling things don't fall into that category.
Ah, the web was invented to keep military sites in communication (presumably so that they could keep killing people) while the rest of the world was dying a horrible, nuclear death. So it kinda was.
>The politicization and militarization of technology is undeniable
You make this statement as if it was some sort of new happening. This is as old as technology itself. Finding new ways to kill each other has been the number one driver of technology progress, and always has been.
Agreed, although the top comment here was actually quite interesting.
HN has made an exception for all things US gov't spying related. I even lost my flagging rights for flagging all the snowden stuff (which I thought was exactly what you were supposed to do when you thought something was off topic... not my fault it was the entire front page!)
It's an important topic, but like you I preferred when HN was an oasis of tech away from this nonsense.
As per the article: You are not in anyway immune to the same processes that you are complaining your parents are beholden to.
Your views and experiences are reinforcing your own beliefs that your parents are not accepting the "facts" you know. Seeing one side as "unreasonable" to logic while your view is "obvious" is exactly the type of behaviour the article is attempting to underline.
Somewhat oversimplifying, you can think of hierarchical individualists as akin to conservative Republicans, and egalitarian communitarians as liberal Democrats.
Somewhat? That's like saying that black is a dark colour like navy blue and white is more like royal blue.
Personally, I think the US would benefit by understanding just where in the overall spectrum they fit politically and how limited their "typical" options are.
Americans probably have the most limited options of any modern democracy on the planet, and yet most people think they are so different.
I exist outside of HN.
HN though is where I want to see technology articles and discussion, not politics.
From the guidelines:
Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon.