3 ms·

Where is the rule that comments must stay on topic and avoid diversion? It was a more interesting and informative comment than yours that you've restated here (

Where is the rule that comments must stay on topic and avoid diversion? It was a more interesting and informative comment than yours that you've restated here (particularly given that being "very covered by Medicare" does not even counter what you originally replied to, as it will not cover all or perhaps even most costs)

tptacek 1y ago
[flagged]
- aspenmayer 1y ago
  I found their aside relevant to my interests as a fellow HN reader. The guidelines also advise against fulminating; you made your point, and I think it’s fair that theirs also stands.
  - tptacek 1y ago
    That's fine, I'm just always going to respond to something on HN worded as "where is the [HN] rule that". :)
    - aspenmayer 1y ago
      I am happy that you are concerned with the guidelines, and I don’t want to protest too much. I appreciate your contributions to HN more than my own most days, and I do hope I don’t rustle your feathers. > That's fine seems to conflict with your concerns about the upthread conversation being derailed to a certain reading: > This doesn't have anything to do with the thread, and hashing this out would tilt a story about Kryptos sharply towards a story on health policy. As the auction proceeds would ostensibly fund healthcare costs, it seems on topic to muse about the costs being covered by Medicare, or not. If they would be covered by Medicare, the claims of healthcare costs not being met are all the more interesting and discussion-worthy.
  - thesmtsolver 1y ago
    Their aside is also false though. Look at my comment below the OP.
    - aspenmayer 1y ago
      > Their aside is also false though. You are drawing a conclusion that was not proven by your comment. OP was talking about folks delaying treatment due to not being able to afford it, whereas you were focusing on survival rates. Both of you could be correct: OP could be correct that many income-constrained folks delay treatment until they age into qualifying for Medicare, and you could be correct that on the whole, folks in the USA have better cancer treatment outcomes. If you reread OP, they were speaking to there being more advanced cases of later stage cancers in the US, which you didn’t really speak to or refute, so to my reading, you are jumping to conclusions when you say that their aside is false per se.
      - thesmtsolver 1y ago
        > OP was talking about folks delaying treatment due to not being able to afford it, whereas you were focusing on survival rates. Yes, and you can make a straightforward logical deduction from survival rates to delaying diagnosis which I left out, but detail it below: 1. From Data: Assume equal or worse cancer rates in the US and similar levels of cures across US and Europe (cancer rates are indeed worse in the US and Europe does have good cancer treatment on par with US) 2. OP claimed: People delay diagnosis in the US 2a. From data/science: Delayed diagnosis => Higher death rate 3. Deduction from 1 and 2, and 2a.: Higher death rate in the US 4. Data: Lower death rate in the US 5. Contradiction: 3 and 4 6. Reductio: We have a contradiction. We have to negate one of our assumptions or more. We can't throw away data, so we can only throw away OP's claim (2). I agree there may be some folks in the US who delay diagnosis but population-wise, data doesn't support that.
        aspenmayer 1y ago
        Did you copy and paste the numbered list from somewhere else? That isn’t how folks on HN typically format things here, and it seems reminiscent of AI output, which is not allowed under the HN guidelines. > I agree there may be some folks in the US who delay diagnosis but population-wise, data doesn't support that. We aren’t talking about population-level statistics in this thread, but rather a specific named individual meeting their personal healthcare costs, so your point is off-topic, not OP’s.
- jrflowers 1y ago
  “Avoid generic tangents” is up to interpretation. Incidentally, so is “don’t be curmudgeonly” Also Medicare does not cover long-term care, so if someone gets sick and develops the need for it, they’re paying out of pocket. It is a possibility that a lot of people plan for financially, which is reasonably in the realm of relevance here. What’s not really relevant here are your personal opinions on what medical costs are or are not generally worth planning for financially.

tptacek 1y ago

[flagged]

aspenmayer 1y ago
I found their aside relevant to my interests as a fellow HN reader. The guidelines also advise against fulminating; you made your point, and I think it’s fair that theirs also stands.
- tptacek 1y ago
  That's fine, I'm just always going to respond to something on HN worded as "where is the [HN] rule that". :)
  - aspenmayer 1y ago
    I am happy that you are concerned with the guidelines, and I don’t want to protest too much. I appreciate your contributions to HN more than my own most days, and I do hope I don’t rustle your feathers. > That's fine seems to conflict with your concerns about the upthread conversation being derailed to a certain reading: > This doesn't have anything to do with the thread, and hashing this out would tilt a story about Kryptos sharply towards a story on health policy. As the auction proceeds would ostensibly fund healthcare costs, it seems on topic to muse about the costs being covered by Medicare, or not. If they would be covered by Medicare, the claims of healthcare costs not being met are all the more interesting and discussion-worthy.
- thesmtsolver 1y ago
  Their aside is also false though. Look at my comment below the OP.
  - aspenmayer 1y ago
    > Their aside is also false though. You are drawing a conclusion that was not proven by your comment. OP was talking about folks delaying treatment due to not being able to afford it, whereas you were focusing on survival rates. Both of you could be correct: OP could be correct that many income-constrained folks delay treatment until they age into qualifying for Medicare, and you could be correct that on the whole, folks in the USA have better cancer treatment outcomes. If you reread OP, they were speaking to there being more advanced cases of later stage cancers in the US, which you didn’t really speak to or refute, so to my reading, you are jumping to conclusions when you say that their aside is false per se.
    - thesmtsolver 1y ago
      > OP was talking about folks delaying treatment due to not being able to afford it, whereas you were focusing on survival rates. Yes, and you can make a straightforward logical deduction from survival rates to delaying diagnosis which I left out, but detail it below: 1. From Data: Assume equal or worse cancer rates in the US and similar levels of cures across US and Europe (cancer rates are indeed worse in the US and Europe does have good cancer treatment on par with US) 2. OP claimed: People delay diagnosis in the US 2a. From data/science: Delayed diagnosis => Higher death rate 3. Deduction from 1 and 2, and 2a.: Higher death rate in the US 4. Data: Lower death rate in the US 5. Contradiction: 3 and 4 6. Reductio: We have a contradiction. We have to negate one of our assumptions or more. We can't throw away data, so we can only throw away OP's claim (2). I agree there may be some folks in the US who delay diagnosis but population-wise, data doesn't support that.
      - aspenmayer 1y ago
        Did you copy and paste the numbered list from somewhere else? That isn’t how folks on HN typically format things here, and it seems reminiscent of AI output, which is not allowed under the HN guidelines. > I agree there may be some folks in the US who delay diagnosis but population-wise, data doesn't support that. We aren’t talking about population-level statistics in this thread, but rather a specific named individual meeting their personal healthcare costs, so your point is off-topic, not OP’s.
jrflowers 1y ago
“Avoid generic tangents” is up to interpretation. Incidentally, so is “don’t be curmudgeonly” Also Medicare does not cover long-term care, so if someone gets sick and develops the need for it, they’re paying out of pocket. It is a possibility that a lot of people plan for financially, which is reasonably in the realm of relevance here. What’s not really relevant here are your personal opinions on what medical costs are or are not generally worth planning for financially.