4 ms·

I hate titles like this. Obviously nothing will decrease your risk of death because your death is 100% guaranteed.

by kzahel 13y ago

cheepin 13y ago
If I decrease my likelihood to die from cancer and heart-disease, which ones am I increasing?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- sp332 13y ago
  Kidney failure. Also various accidents and disasters.
  - chc 13y ago
    Not at any point in time, you don't. You increase your risk of those things as t=∞ (because previously you might have died before they could happen), but your risk of those things does not increase at any point in time.
    - sp332 13y ago
      Oh, I see. Well if you start eating a lot of grapes, your chances of choking on a grape go up a lot :)
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  The actual study, rather than the headline, is about all-cause chance of dying at any point in time. So you aren't increasing any. Your chance of dying eventually of some cause is unaffected, and remains at 1.00.
chc 13y ago
I have a much stronger dislike for comments like this. Obviously nothing will decrease your risk of death as time stretches toward infinity, so why bother pointing that out? "Hey guys, I chose to interpret this to mean something obviously wrong and it was wrong" isn't at all revelatory. The article even explicitly says "at any point in time" in the very first graf. The fact that the entire article isn't packed into the headline is also not all that revelatory.
- bananas 13y ago
  It actually says "at any point in time". The title and the abstract are poorly written and the GP is deriding it which his perfectly appropriate. Not only that, after reading it, it appears that the science is bollocks too. And to mention body mass in it instantly shoots all credibility.
  - chc 13y ago
    > The title and the abstract are poorly written and the GP is deriding it which his perfectly appropriate. Without criticizing it for not including more information (which, again, is not the point), what is poorly written about the title? I wouldn't say it's a work of art, but it seems serviceable to me. It's not deceptive, offensive or so vague you don't know what to expect. > Not only that, after reading it, it appears that the science is bollocks too. There are certainly valid and substantial criticisms you could make along those lines. That is one of the many reasons I feel like deliberately misinterpreting the title and criticizing that incorrect interpretation is a poor use of time and space. I think you believe I'm supporting the article as a piece of great science. I'm not. I'm saying that nit-picking titles does not constitute meaningful criticism and doesn't increase our collective understanding of the article one iota. I feel like every science article includes some "Well, actually…" comment about the title that doesn't actually make anything more clear. I'd rather see more people tearing articles apart and fewer sarcastic comments about titles.
  - jamesaguilar 13y ago
    Risk of death is actually a pretty common medical term IIUC. It is obviously a risk over a period of time with two end points, not over the half-line from now to infinite-future, because the second interpretation makes zero sense. It's not useful to point out that common and well understood terminology isn't perfectly precise.
ffbellfhtlflf 13y ago
We could figure out how to slow down, stop, or even reverse aging at some point, you are like someone saying we'll never reach the Moon in the 19th century

I hate titles like this. Obviously nothing will decrease your risk of death because your death is 100% guaranteed.

by kzahel 13y ago

I hate titles like this. Obviously nothing will decrease your risk of death because your death is 100% guaranteed.

cheepin 13y ago

If I decrease my likelihood to die from cancer and heart-disease, which ones am I increasing?

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
sp332 13y ago
Kidney failure. Also various accidents and disasters.
- chc 13y ago
  Not at any point in time, you don't. You increase your risk of those things as t=∞ (because previously you might have died before they could happen), but your risk of those things does not increase at any point in time.
  - sp332 13y ago
    Oh, I see. Well if you start eating a lot of grapes, your chances of choking on a grape go up a lot :)
dragonwriter 13y ago
The actual study, rather than the headline, is about all-cause chance of dying at any point in time. So you aren't increasing any. Your chance of dying eventually of some cause is unaffected, and remains at 1.00.

chc 13y ago

I have a much stronger dislike for comments like this. Obviously nothing will decrease your risk of death as time stretches toward infinity, so why bother pointing that out? "Hey guys, I chose to interpret this to mean something obviously wrong and it was wrong" isn't at all revelatory. The article even explicitly says "at any point in time" in the very first graf. The fact that the entire article isn't packed into the headline is also not all that revelatory.

bananas 13y ago
It actually says "at any point in time". The title and the abstract are poorly written and the GP is deriding it which his perfectly appropriate. Not only that, after reading it, it appears that the science is bollocks too. And to mention body mass in it instantly shoots all credibility.
- chc 13y ago
  > The title and the abstract are poorly written and the GP is deriding it which his perfectly appropriate. Without criticizing it for not including more information (which, again, is not the point), what is poorly written about the title? I wouldn't say it's a work of art, but it seems serviceable to me. It's not deceptive, offensive or so vague you don't know what to expect. > Not only that, after reading it, it appears that the science is bollocks too. There are certainly valid and substantial criticisms you could make along those lines. That is one of the many reasons I feel like deliberately misinterpreting the title and criticizing that incorrect interpretation is a poor use of time and space. I think you believe I'm supporting the article as a piece of great science. I'm not. I'm saying that nit-picking titles does not constitute meaningful criticism and doesn't increase our collective understanding of the article one iota. I feel like every science article includes some "Well, actually…" comment about the title that doesn't actually make anything more clear. I'd rather see more people tearing articles apart and fewer sarcastic comments about titles.
- jamesaguilar 13y ago
  Risk of death is actually a pretty common medical term IIUC. It is obviously a risk over a period of time with two end points, not over the half-line from now to infinite-future, because the second interpretation makes zero sense. It's not useful to point out that common and well understood terminology isn't perfectly precise.

ffbellfhtlflf 13y ago

We could figure out how to slow down, stop, or even reverse aging at some point, you are like someone saying we'll never reach the Moon in the 19th century