7 ms·

Yeesh what an overwritten article. I plowed through it because this is relevant to my interests but man this could've been 3 paragraphs. I'll try and sum it u

by wdewind 12y ago

Yeesh what an overwritten article. I plowed through it because this is relevant to my interests but man this could've been 3 paragraphs. I'll try and sum it up: -People don't use condoms mostly because they are uncomfortable -Current condoms are highly suboptimal for anal sex in particular -Materials other than latex are generally difficult to get to pass FDA tests, and it looks like there is some disagreeing science about why. All condoms seem to be good at blocking pregnancy, some, like polyurethane and lambskin condoms, have disagreeing science about how well they stop the transmission of STDs (including HIV). -New condoms sometimes get blocked because of somewhat antiquated tests (specifically sizing tests) Overall there was not a lot of information here. It follows someone named Resnic, loosely, who claims to be making a new revolutionary condom, but who ultimately decides to change his condom back to latex because it's so much easier to manufacture in the US. It's not clear what his key innovations are that will make his condom more useful/comfortable to more people. Overall the point that a better condom would get more people to use it makes sense, but the article doesn't make the case that one is on the way, or explain what one even would be. Yes, a better material might transmit heat better, but there are obvious downsides, especially with regards to Africa, where STD transmission is the primary concern, not pregnancy. If there is one conclusion I take from this article it's that if you are in a committed relationship where you are not worried about STD transmission and are primarily concerned about pregnancy prevention, and do not like latex condoms, give lamb skin or polyurethane condoms a shot. Otherwise you're probably best sticking to latex.

mbroshi 12y ago
Or, to sum up even more succinctly: - Government regulations have stifled innovation, thereby making existing products less safe, less comfortable, and less used than they would be otherwise. In other words, nothing new.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- jfuhrman 12y ago
  That doesn't explain why the innovation didn't happen in, say Somalia, where there are no government regulations to speak of.
  - baddox 12y ago
    The situation in Somalia can be readily explained by low incomes and decades of violence.
    - foldr 12y ago
      Which in turn can readily be explained by the lack of a strong government.
      - icebraining 12y ago
        Can it? On what do you base that opinion? What particular facts from the modern history of Somalia have you used to support it?
        foldr 12y ago
        The fact that it's currently in a state of near anarchy and has been for a while.
        icebraining 12y ago
        That's not an explanation, that's restating the fact.
        foldr 12y ago
        Your comment was ambiguous. I thought you were asking me for the basis of my claim that Somalia lacks a strong government. If you think the civil war doesn't have anything to do with Somalia's current problems, I'm open to being persuaded.
- IanDrake 12y ago
  You aren't allowed to criticize government regulation on HN.
  - icebraining 12y ago
    You are, you just can't be lazy about it.
    - IanDrake 12y ago
      Pretty sure it was clear. Government is lazy and callus about updating regulations regarding to development and testing of prophylactics. Innovative and better alternatives were taken off the market due to said regulations. The commentary was spot on. The point of the original comment was to provide bullets without lengthy justification and citation and it was upvoted. Then this "lazy" bullet was added and all the sudden the author needs to back up his assertion with detailed arguments? The pro-government bias here is insane. As I said, don't be critical of government on HN unless you don't care about the group think popularity karma contest going on here.
      - icebraining 12y ago
        Oh, I'm not saying there isn't a pro-government bias. I'm saying that it's just a bias, not a complete rejection. If you're pro-government, you can be lazy, but if you're against it, you can still be upvoted, you just have to work a little harder to overcome the bias.
      - fobcat 12y ago
        Totally agree with your statement regarding the HN pro-gov't bias, unfortunately. Such is life. Without the FDA and its outmoded regulations, there would be a flourishing of condoms for people to choose from, instead of just the three entrenched companies that can afford to deal with the gov't. If nothing else, the article details the fact that there are a LOT of people who care deeply about and are trying to solve this problem (and should be left largely unconstrained to do so).
- wdewind 12y ago
  > Government regulations have stifled innovation, thereby making existing products less safe, less comfortable, and less used than they would be otherwise. The article implied this in tone, but in facts reported within did not make a slam dunk case. Latex is probably significantly safer in terms of blocking STD transmission, and it's also heavily understudied whether or not the sizing differences matter. I wouldn't say it's obvious government regulation is really the devil here.
- pdabbadabba 12y ago
  There's some truth to this, but your tone makes it a little hard to spot. I'm not sure that the article provides much support for the broad claim, implied by your comment, that government regulation is always a bad idea, or that the government should get out of the condom regulation business. I for one think it's a pretty good idea for a regulator to ensure that condoms (like other health-related products) perform up to some minimum standard. The social impact of sub-standard products is too significant to leave to the market and there is good reason to think that the market would not adequately communicate the signals that consumers need in order to make rational condom-purchasing decisions in the absence of regulation. I agree with your narrower claim that the existing condom regulations seem to be badly in need of reform. But I'm not at all convinced that they are worse than having no regulations at all.
mkirlin 12y ago
I more or less agree with your reading of this. I found it a little curious that the author didn't mention anything about researchers taking a slightly different tack, like the people who designed the Pronto, a South African-designed condom whose application is much faster than a traditional condom. Obviously condom feel is an issue in usage rates, but I suspect that speed/ease of use is at least as important. It's not like condoms take forever to put on, but the process of locating and using one can definitely interrupt the moment.
- brianbreslin 12y ago
  The pronto is a brilliant step in advancing product design at least. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMriPq9k278 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMriPq9k278
baddox 12y ago
> Yeesh what an overwritten article. So often, it seems that's what is meant by "long-form article."
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  Sadly true. Information that could be conveyed directly in a paragraph or two is dragged out to create a long and often dull narrative, usually without any points of reference. Condom designs don't change every year? Neither do penises. Medical gloves (whose technology derives from condom manufacturing) haven't changed much for decades either. Infection risks are mitigated with antimicrobial coatings and double-gloving. The basic problem is that condoms work well enough for most people and so there isn't that much economic incentive to launch different kinds, even before you consider the regulatory factors.
  - wutbrodo 12y ago
    > Condom designs don't change every year? Neither do penises. This misses the point by a mile. Particularly for someone complaining about the article having too much unnecessary information, it's bizarre that you missed the ~3 paragraphs following this that describe _why_ it's a problem that they haven't changed: low rates of satisfaction and usage for something that has considerable public health implications (particularly in the developing world). > Medical gloves (whose technology derives from condom manufacturing) haven't changed much for decades either. ....and if more than 50% of doctors weren't using medical gloves (regulation aside) due to evidently significant issues with comfort and convenience, this would be a cause for complaint too. > The basic problem is that condoms work well enough for most people and so there isn't that much economic incentive to launch different kinds This is a particularly ignorant claim, even if you hadn't read the article. Low rates of condom use in situations where they're extremely important is something that any informed person is aware of (again, this is most dramatically true for things like AIDS crises in developing countries like many in Sub-Saharan Africa). As the article establishes, usage isn't great even in the developing world: "5 percent of men and 63 percent of women who’d most recently had sex with a “new acquaintance” hadn’t used a condom. More alarmingly, 75 percent of women who weren’t using a back-up birth control method reported not using a condom the last time they’d had sex. Adults who’d had anal sex in the past year—the highest-risk sexual act with regard to HIV transmission—said they’d used condoms only 20 percent of the time." It should go without saying that economic incentives aren't a panacea for reaching global optima: Sometimes you end up in local optima, as in this case where the risk of doing research to potentially tap into the vast market of non-condom users may not be worth it. That's not to mention the systematic under-emphasis that economic incentives have on externalities, as in this case where the public health effects of more universal condom usage wouldn't all be captured by condom manufacturers.
dsjoerg 12y ago
Thanks for the summary. One of these days I should hire someone to write summaries like this. More than a one-liner, simply all the stuff that is... interesting. I guess your definition of interesting and mine line up pretty well.
- ywecur 12y ago
  There is a company that pretty much does that, give them a try: https://www.blinkist.com/ https://www.blinkist.com/
joshlegs 12y ago
"never use a long word when a short word will do" "if it is possible to cut a word out, cut it out."

by wdewind 12y ago

mbroshi 12y ago

Or, to sum up even more succinctly: - Government regulations have stifled innovation, thereby making existing products less safe, less comfortable, and less used than they would be otherwise. In other words, nothing new.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
jfuhrman 12y ago
That doesn't explain why the innovation didn't happen in, say Somalia, where there are no government regulations to speak of.
- baddox 12y ago
  The situation in Somalia can be readily explained by low incomes and decades of violence.
  - foldr 12y ago
    Which in turn can readily be explained by the lack of a strong government.
    - icebraining 12y ago
      Can it? On what do you base that opinion? What particular facts from the modern history of Somalia have you used to support it?
      - foldr 12y ago
        The fact that it's currently in a state of near anarchy and has been for a while.
        icebraining 12y ago
        That's not an explanation, that's restating the fact.
        foldr 12y ago
        Your comment was ambiguous. I thought you were asking me for the basis of my claim that Somalia lacks a strong government. If you think the civil war doesn't have anything to do with Somalia's current problems, I'm open to being persuaded.
IanDrake 12y ago
You aren't allowed to criticize government regulation on HN.
- icebraining 12y ago
  You are, you just can't be lazy about it.
  - IanDrake 12y ago
    Pretty sure it was clear. Government is lazy and callus about updating regulations regarding to development and testing of prophylactics. Innovative and better alternatives were taken off the market due to said regulations. The commentary was spot on. The point of the original comment was to provide bullets without lengthy justification and citation and it was upvoted. Then this "lazy" bullet was added and all the sudden the author needs to back up his assertion with detailed arguments? The pro-government bias here is insane. As I said, don't be critical of government on HN unless you don't care about the group think popularity karma contest going on here.
    - icebraining 12y ago
      Oh, I'm not saying there isn't a pro-government bias. I'm saying that it's just a bias, not a complete rejection. If you're pro-government, you can be lazy, but if you're against it, you can still be upvoted, you just have to work a little harder to overcome the bias.
    - fobcat 12y ago
      Totally agree with your statement regarding the HN pro-gov't bias, unfortunately. Such is life. Without the FDA and its outmoded regulations, there would be a flourishing of condoms for people to choose from, instead of just the three entrenched companies that can afford to deal with the gov't. If nothing else, the article details the fact that there are a LOT of people who care deeply about and are trying to solve this problem (and should be left largely unconstrained to do so).
wdewind 12y ago
> Government regulations have stifled innovation, thereby making existing products less safe, less comfortable, and less used than they would be otherwise. The article implied this in tone, but in facts reported within did not make a slam dunk case. Latex is probably significantly safer in terms of blocking STD transmission, and it's also heavily understudied whether or not the sizing differences matter. I wouldn't say it's obvious government regulation is really the devil here.
pdabbadabba 12y ago
There's some truth to this, but your tone makes it a little hard to spot. I'm not sure that the article provides much support for the broad claim, implied by your comment, that government regulation is always a bad idea, or that the government should get out of the condom regulation business. I for one think it's a pretty good idea for a regulator to ensure that condoms (like other health-related products) perform up to some minimum standard. The social impact of sub-standard products is too significant to leave to the market and there is good reason to think that the market would not adequately communicate the signals that consumers need in order to make rational condom-purchasing decisions in the absence of regulation. I agree with your narrower claim that the existing condom regulations seem to be badly in need of reform. But I'm not at all convinced that they are worse than having no regulations at all.

mkirlin 12y ago

I more or less agree with your reading of this. I found it a little curious that the author didn't mention anything about researchers taking a slightly different tack, like the people who designed the Pronto, a South African-designed condom whose application is much faster than a traditional condom. Obviously condom feel is an issue in usage rates, but I suspect that speed/ease of use is at least as important. It's not like condoms take forever to put on, but the process of locating and using one can definitely interrupt the moment.

brianbreslin 12y ago
The pronto is a brilliant step in advancing product design at least. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMriPq9k278 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMriPq9k278

baddox 12y ago

> Yeesh what an overwritten article. So often, it seems that's what is meant by "long-form article."

anigbrowl 12y ago
Sadly true. Information that could be conveyed directly in a paragraph or two is dragged out to create a long and often dull narrative, usually without any points of reference. Condom designs don't change every year? Neither do penises. Medical gloves (whose technology derives from condom manufacturing) haven't changed much for decades either. Infection risks are mitigated with antimicrobial coatings and double-gloving. The basic problem is that condoms work well enough for most people and so there isn't that much economic incentive to launch different kinds, even before you consider the regulatory factors.
- wutbrodo 12y ago
  > Condom designs don't change every year? Neither do penises. This misses the point by a mile. Particularly for someone complaining about the article having too much unnecessary information, it's bizarre that you missed the ~3 paragraphs following this that describe _why_ it's a problem that they haven't changed: low rates of satisfaction and usage for something that has considerable public health implications (particularly in the developing world). > Medical gloves (whose technology derives from condom manufacturing) haven't changed much for decades either. ....and if more than 50% of doctors weren't using medical gloves (regulation aside) due to evidently significant issues with comfort and convenience, this would be a cause for complaint too. > The basic problem is that condoms work well enough for most people and so there isn't that much economic incentive to launch different kinds This is a particularly ignorant claim, even if you hadn't read the article. Low rates of condom use in situations where they're extremely important is something that any informed person is aware of (again, this is most dramatically true for things like AIDS crises in developing countries like many in Sub-Saharan Africa). As the article establishes, usage isn't great even in the developing world: "5 percent of men and 63 percent of women who’d most recently had sex with a “new acquaintance” hadn’t used a condom. More alarmingly, 75 percent of women who weren’t using a back-up birth control method reported not using a condom the last time they’d had sex. Adults who’d had anal sex in the past year—the highest-risk sexual act with regard to HIV transmission—said they’d used condoms only 20 percent of the time." It should go without saying that economic incentives aren't a panacea for reaching global optima: Sometimes you end up in local optima, as in this case where the risk of doing research to potentially tap into the vast market of non-condom users may not be worth it. That's not to mention the systematic under-emphasis that economic incentives have on externalities, as in this case where the public health effects of more universal condom usage wouldn't all be captured by condom manufacturers.

dsjoerg 12y ago

Thanks for the summary. One of these days I should hire someone to write summaries like this. More than a one-liner, simply all the stuff that is... interesting. I guess your definition of interesting and mine line up pretty well.

ywecur 12y ago
There is a company that pretty much does that, give them a try: https://www.blinkist.com/ https://www.blinkist.com/

joshlegs 12y ago

"never use a long word when a short word will do" "if it is possible to cut a word out, cut it out."