2 ms·
As noted elsewhere in this thread, which you seem not to have read, I discuss that matter in the article, which you also seem not to have read.
by DavidSJ 5mo ago
As noted elsewhere in this thread, which you seem not to have read, I discuss that matter in the article, which you also seem not to have read.
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- kurthr 5mo agoNot only have I read it, I know people mentioned in it. There aren't very many.
- DavidSJ 5mo agoYou read the article in which I discuss the matter you say I was unfamiliar with?
- thechao 5mo agoI'm responding to a random comment: I was in molecular biology, but >20 years ago. Your article immediately presents as someone who's acquired reading expertise in a biological/medical subfield. Second, your initial survey presents as a "brittle x": AB is the proximal cause all by itself; but, it can also be the secondary cause from many vectors. Diseases like that are (essentially) impossible to explain to the public. Also, the biological principle function is a standard trope for "good for X in the short run, bad for the person in the long run".
- DavidSJ 5mo agoThanks for these comments! The multiple pathways into a common entrypoint is definitely a challenge to communicate.
- ncr100 5mo agoThis form of hostile challenge is discouraged in the HN rules: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- DavidSJ 5mo agoThat's fair. I responded to hostility with hostility. Perhaps I should have ignored the comment or just responded kindly despite the hostility.