timr

31 ms·

481.
by timr 1y ago
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disingenuous Lacking in candor. also : giving a false appearance of simple frankness : calculating
482.
by timr 1y ago
> As usual HN comments are more on point than the article....I've lost count of how many times something was proposed and rejected by everyone in the chain except the C-suite. Then the C-suite overrode the process decisions basicall
483.
by timr 1y ago
You started this subthread by saying: > I for one appreciated the clarification that it was not mainstream, since sneaking a random controversial take into a comment thread as if it was fact without noting that it's contentious is
484.
by timr 1y ago
Well yes, exactly: it's just consensuses all the way down. Which is just another way of saying "I feel like it's right and you're wrong, even though I have no actual evidence either way."
485.
by timr 1y ago
> Lack of data doesn't mean the treatment won't work In drug development, that is the default presumption, and rightfully so: almost nothing ever works. > There is plenty of reason to think statins work for primary preventio
486.
by timr 1y ago
I'm not suggesting you should take the medium article at face value either. Just that if you don't know enough to evaluate the evidence, you don't know enough to dismiss any particular opinion. People are far too willing, tod
487.
by timr 1y ago
> There is no logical fallacy in play here. Nobody is saying “the argument is wrong because of who said it”. The OP literally dismissed the parent based on nothing more than the opinions of others. > When assessing the probable signif
488.
by timr 1y ago
You should actually read the article. In particular: > Fourteen trials recruited patients with specific conditions (raised lipids, diabetes, hypertension, microalbuminuria). All‐cause mortality was reduced by statins (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.7
489.
by timr 1y ago
I'm unaware of any evidence for ppcsk9 inhibitors outside of the same cohorts (people with existing CVD) that the OP is citing. Do you have any?
490.
by timr 1y ago
> for one thing you do not make the rules around here; no one cares what you think counts as suitable grounds for arguing. You're asserting that a extremely well-known logical fallacy is not a fallacy. It's not an HN rule, it&#
491.
by timr 1y ago
> appeals to authority have some merit, you know. No, they don't. If you don't know enough to argue on the merits, don't argue. A count of opinions is not an argument. > sneaking a random controversial take into a comme
492.
by timr 1y ago
> This is not a mainstream view of the science, and it's worth noting that this perspective is also not supported by the OP or by the JACC article that it's citing. Your comment is an appeal to authority. While I have my proble
493.
by timr 1y ago
> the size of the federal workforce has been at around 2.7-3 million people since the late 1960s, while the US population has gone from ~198 million in 1967 to ~343 million in 2025. We've gone from 14.39 federal employees per 1,000
494.
by timr 1y ago
I'm responding to the parent's implicit assertion that the government should somehow naturally grow with the size of the population. Arguing that it historically has not done so only makes my point. Nor is it an argument that
495.
by timr 1y ago
"Scope of activities", maybe , but there's no inherent reason that has to be equal the rate of growth in the population . You'd hope that government becomes more efficient over time. Private organizations have profit c
496.
by timr 1y ago
> That's less than it seems though, given that the US population has grown with over 0.7% per year for most of those years. So what? Why does government have to grow proportionally with the size of the population? This is not a give
497.
by timr 1y ago
I'm not terrified. Just to put some perspective on this, per Pew [1], the federal workforce excluding the postal service (which has actually shrunk as a semi-private employer) has grown by about 1% per year since 2000. As of 2024, it
498.
by timr 1y ago
Yeah, I don't really mean it as a criticism -- my list is stuff that I think is incredibly painful to build, ends up taking >80% of dev time, is messy/spidery, and which I've spent a lot of my life explaining the necessity
499.
by timr 1y ago
You missed some universal ones that are both necessary, and a total pain: - Teams & Fine-grained Permissions - Audit logging - SOC 2/3 compliance - Data wiping / retention / data policy management - Reporting - Cookie law
500.
by timr 1y ago
Well, they definitely had a lot of Cap’n McCains left over, and we also had more than a few boxes of Obama O’s inside JTV. We would eat them as office snacks. I was told that we were given them, but maybe they were surplus? Either way, real
501.
by timr 1y ago
Maybe you're right, but the cited study doesn't provide evidence for your claim. I also didn't misquote the study. They surveyed ~2200 people, of whom roughly half had pets. Of those, 84% were up-to-date on the Rabies vaccine
502.
by timr 1y ago
Sure. Google "selection bias". You aren't meeting the 10,000 who failed. I also live in NYC. I lived in SF, during possibly the all-time greatest period of wealth creation in the last 50 years. I knew billionaires when they c
503.
by timr 1y ago
Let me make this simple for you: you will not get rich by 30. I know, I know...there are examples! And yes, there are, but statistically, they won't be you. You're playing the lottery, only it's a lottery that steals your y
504.
by timr 1y ago
That is because the commenter was incorrect. They cited a bogus study. The study didn't support their claim.
505.
by timr 1y ago
> If 10% of people aren't vaccinating their dogs for rabies that's WAY too many, and it's a big problem. First of all, it's an internet survey of 2200 people. The data is garbage and you can't conclude anything f
506.
by timr 1y ago
I didn't "highlight a quote". I showed that the entire paper is invalid. They use poor methodology and base their model of "vaccine hesitance" on a population with self-admitted high rates of vaccination.
507.
by timr 1y ago
> I thought perhaps you were joking but it turns out people are also hesitant to vaccinate their pets. Incorrect. Of the respondents to that paper's survey, 84% said that their pets were fully vaccinated for Rabies . [1] https:&#x
508.
by timr 1y ago
> Edited to add another charming detail from the article: "A 2023 study published in the journal Vaccine found in a nationally representative sample of Americans that nearly 40% believed canine vaccines were unsafe and 37% believed
509.
by timr 1y ago
> It is also true that 40% of dog owning households don't get their dogs vaccinated because they don't believe animal vaccines are medically necessary or effective. First of all, no, that's not what this says. The exact
510.
by timr 1y ago
This is not my experience anywhere in the US. We don't have a problem with stray dogs, rabies vaccination is ubiquitous, and I've never heard of anyone resisting it for their pets.

More ›