4 ms·

You should have read more than the headline before commenting.

by ItsMe000001 9y ago

RobertRoberts 9y ago
Let me rephrase then: "Why does this _headline_ feel a little like fear-mongering?"
- ItsMe000001 9y ago
  Unless you have an (irrational exclusive) association of "virus = bad/fear/disease" to begin with the headline is perfectly fine. It's just your interpretation made by adding your own context. You should try to separate what is actually there from what you yourself add. It's a statement of fact that sounds interesting and that's all, and unlike what the other person said it's not very "click baity", it actually is a pretty accurate description of the main point.
  - RobertRoberts 9y ago
    No virus that I have ever had, or heard of anyone having, was ever called "good". I'm literally stunned this isn't common sense. To prove me wrong, please show me any everyday circumstance an average person from the past 50 years would have had a good experience with a virus.
    - ItsMe000001 9y ago
      You should read the article and take a course in biology. Coursera and even more so edX.org offer excellent free courses. To you last sentence: The fact that you exist. Viruses contributed significantly. If you had read the article(!) you would already have been told about that, including examples. For example, quoting the article: > Researchers recently identified an ancient virus that inserted its DNA into the genomes of four-limbed animals that were human ancestors. That snippet of genetic code, called ARC, is part of the nervous system of modern humans and plays a role in human consciousness — nerve communication, memory formation and higher-order thinking. Between 40 percent and 80 percent of the human genome may be linked to ancient viral invasions. It bothers me that there are people on HN that keep commenting while completely disregarding the article that is being discussed.
      - RobertRoberts 9y ago
        >You should read the article and take a course in biology. You have proved my point for me. The everyday person has never once in their life, ever, heard that viruses are good. I'm an educated and well read, and I have only recently started hearing this, and only because of genetic manipulation. This is a _new_ idea in the last 20 years, and even today, it appears to be all talk about something in the future, and not a single instance I've ever heard of where you could get a virus treatment that was good for you today. I read the article, I am talking about average people, not scientists who read journals. It's shocking to me that people have such short memory. Maybe you are a teenager, but there was no virus manipulation 50 years ago that was considered a benefit to humans. And if there was, it certainly wasn't advertised to the masses.
        ItsMe000001 9y ago
        > The everyday person has never once in their life, ever, heard that viruses are good. Uhm... I'm shocked to find someone who seems to think that viruses have an effect only when people "believe" in them/have heard about them. Sorry, that's not how anything works. It is of exactly zero importance whether or not anyone has "heard" about viruses. I'm shocked to read stuff like that in this forum. We were talking about the headline, and I repeat, it's a faithful representation of the main point, pretty much 1:1. From my perspective, I felt well informed when clicking on the article - for once I actually knew what it would be about before I clicked. That is a good thing.
        RobertRoberts 9y ago
        The title of the article is this: >Trillions of Viruses Fall from the Sky Each Day I learned in 4th grade science that viruses are parasites. Having trillions of parasites falling from the sky every day is not a good thing. Some mental gymnastics are required to conclude "parasites are good", but I suggest that the vast majority of people don't believe parasites are good.
        ItsMe000001 9y ago
- chiefalchemist 9y ago
  Perhaps not fear mongering, bu it's closer to click bait. You'd expect an outfit like the NYT not to stoop to such intentions and tactics.

You should have read more than the headline before commenting.

RobertRoberts 9y ago

Let me rephrase then: "Why does this _headline_ feel a little like fear-mongering?"

ItsMe000001 9y ago
Unless you have an (irrational exclusive) association of "virus = bad/fear/disease" to begin with the headline is perfectly fine. It's just your interpretation made by adding your own context. You should try to separate what is actually there from what you yourself add. It's a statement of fact that sounds interesting and that's all, and unlike what the other person said it's not very "click baity", it actually is a pretty accurate description of the main point.
- RobertRoberts 9y ago
  No virus that I have ever had, or heard of anyone having, was ever called "good". I'm literally stunned this isn't common sense. To prove me wrong, please show me any everyday circumstance an average person from the past 50 years would have had a good experience with a virus.
  - ItsMe000001 9y ago
    You should read the article and take a course in biology. Coursera and even more so edX.org offer excellent free courses. To you last sentence: The fact that you exist. Viruses contributed significantly. If you had read the article(!) you would already have been told about that, including examples. For example, quoting the article: > Researchers recently identified an ancient virus that inserted its DNA into the genomes of four-limbed animals that were human ancestors. That snippet of genetic code, called ARC, is part of the nervous system of modern humans and plays a role in human consciousness — nerve communication, memory formation and higher-order thinking. Between 40 percent and 80 percent of the human genome may be linked to ancient viral invasions. It bothers me that there are people on HN that keep commenting while completely disregarding the article that is being discussed.
    - RobertRoberts 9y ago
      >You should read the article and take a course in biology. You have proved my point for me. The everyday person has never once in their life, ever, heard that viruses are good. I'm an educated and well read, and I have only recently started hearing this, and only because of genetic manipulation. This is a _new_ idea in the last 20 years, and even today, it appears to be all talk about something in the future, and not a single instance I've ever heard of where you could get a virus treatment that was good for you today. I read the article, I am talking about average people, not scientists who read journals. It's shocking to me that people have such short memory. Maybe you are a teenager, but there was no virus manipulation 50 years ago that was considered a benefit to humans. And if there was, it certainly wasn't advertised to the masses.
      - ItsMe000001 9y ago
        > The everyday person has never once in their life, ever, heard that viruses are good. Uhm... I'm shocked to find someone who seems to think that viruses have an effect only when people "believe" in them/have heard about them. Sorry, that's not how anything works. It is of exactly zero importance whether or not anyone has "heard" about viruses. I'm shocked to read stuff like that in this forum. We were talking about the headline, and I repeat, it's a faithful representation of the main point, pretty much 1:1. From my perspective, I felt well informed when clicking on the article - for once I actually knew what it would be about before I clicked. That is a good thing.
        RobertRoberts 9y ago
        The title of the article is this: >Trillions of Viruses Fall from the Sky Each Day I learned in 4th grade science that viruses are parasites. Having trillions of parasites falling from the sky every day is not a good thing. Some mental gymnastics are required to conclude "parasites are good", but I suggest that the vast majority of people don't believe parasites are good.
        ItsMe000001 9y ago
chiefalchemist 9y ago
Perhaps not fear mongering, bu it's closer to click bait. You'd expect an outfit like the NYT not to stoop to such intentions and tactics.