4 ms·

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 t

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.
      - tptacek 1y ago
        Both of you are hashing something out that 'dang has already called out as off-topic across the thread.
        aspenmayer 1y ago
        Dang has told me more than once to let the mods do the moderating and to not hash it out amongst ourselves, as it steps on their toes and makes any enforcement by mods seem selective. Email and/or flag, and move along. I don’t work here, and neither do you, so let’s both agree to disagree on it being on-topic or not, as it’s not my place to speak for dang or the other mods, and it’s not yours either, for that matter.

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.
    - tptacek 1y ago
      Both of you are hashing something out that 'dang has already called out as off-topic across the thread.
      - aspenmayer 1y ago
        Dang has told me more than once to let the mods do the moderating and to not hash it out amongst ourselves, as it steps on their toes and makes any enforcement by mods seem selective. Email and/or flag, and move along. I don’t work here, and neither do you, so let’s both agree to disagree on it being on-topic or not, as it’s not my place to speak for dang or the other mods, and it’s not yours either, for that matter.