4 ms·

Sounds like they're just commercializing the work done by the Dog Aging Project: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_Aging_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D

by ipsum2 5y ago

Sounds like they're just commercializing the work done by the Dog Aging Project: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_Aging_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_Aging_Project.

dang 5y ago
This would be a good comment if not for the word "just", which makes it sound like a shallow dismissal. ("Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something." - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) The link to relevant other work is most welcome, of course.
- ipsum2 5y ago
  "Just", because the blog post sounds like it was doing fundamental basic research on longevity based on brand new ideas ("I was chatting with some friends about how I thought I had an idea for how to make dogs live longer."), instead of commercializing on existing research. It wasn't my intention to be dismissive.
  - throwaway77112 5y ago
    Very early on in the article she says she 'did not discover the science behind the company'.
    - Grustaf 5y ago
      So ipsum is correct?
      - navane 5y ago
        Not right in using 'just'. It is not a gotcha as she admits it herself.
  - refurb 5y ago
    I think your comment is fine. One could read it and be like “wow! Are they running a lab too?” and once you find out this person role is really connecting the money to this preexisting science, the term “just” is warranted. It’s not negative, it’s a recognition that they aren’t running their own lab as well.
  - dang 5y ago
    I believe you about your intent, but intent doesn't communicate itself in internet comments, so the burden is on the commenter to disambiguate. In this context the word "just" is very much a trope of shallow dismissals ("why don't you just", "can't you just", "this is just", etc.), so the ambiguity went against you. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=disambiguate%20burden%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
inglor_cz 5y ago
Everyone builds on work of someone else. A lot of scientific research fails to translate to commercially viable product; that is not a trivial task. Plus, in this precarious phase, further discoveries are possible. Few things work exactly the same way in labs and in the real world. Usually, some anomalies are observed that actually widen our understanding of the problem.
zild3d 5y ago
Commercializing research or open source tech that the founder wasn't highly involved in is very common. GitHub just commercialized git in the beginning. DataStax <> Cassandra. Armory.io <> Spinnaker. AWS <> *

by ipsum2 5y ago

Sounds like they're just commercializing the work done by the Dog Aging Project: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_Aging_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_Aging_Project.

dang 5y ago

This would be a good comment if not for the word "just", which makes it sound like a shallow dismissal. ("Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something." - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) The link to relevant other work is most welcome, of course.

ipsum2 5y ago
"Just", because the blog post sounds like it was doing fundamental basic research on longevity based on brand new ideas ("I was chatting with some friends about how I thought I had an idea for how to make dogs live longer."), instead of commercializing on existing research. It wasn't my intention to be dismissive.
- throwaway77112 5y ago
  Very early on in the article she says she 'did not discover the science behind the company'.
  - Grustaf 5y ago
    So ipsum is correct?
    - navane 5y ago
      Not right in using 'just'. It is not a gotcha as she admits it herself.
- refurb 5y ago
  I think your comment is fine. One could read it and be like “wow! Are they running a lab too?” and once you find out this person role is really connecting the money to this preexisting science, the term “just” is warranted. It’s not negative, it’s a recognition that they aren’t running their own lab as well.
- dang 5y ago
  I believe you about your intent, but intent doesn't communicate itself in internet comments, so the burden is on the commenter to disambiguate. In this context the word "just" is very much a trope of shallow dismissals ("why don't you just", "can't you just", "this is just", etc.), so the ambiguity went against you. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=disambiguate%20burden%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...

inglor_cz 5y ago

Everyone builds on work of someone else. A lot of scientific research fails to translate to commercially viable product; that is not a trivial task. Plus, in this precarious phase, further discoveries are possible. Few things work exactly the same way in labs and in the real world. Usually, some anomalies are observed that actually widen our understanding of the problem.

zild3d 5y ago

Commercializing research or open source tech that the founder wasn't highly involved in is very common. GitHub just commercialized git in the beginning. DataStax <> Cassandra. Armory.io <> Spinnaker. AWS <> *