Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | KittenInABox's commentslogin

> Men are, on average, just more willing to put in the hours of social neglect in order to become good at such things as programming, or also gaming, or whatever other fringe unsocial hobby.

It is much easier to put in the hours of gaming when you're not repeatedly called for your rape or have someone trying to stalk you or similar aggressive behaviors towards people perceived as female in these spaces. I pretended to be a woman in gaming spaces for some time just to see if these women had a point and the level of harassment I experienced is way more than even my most unmoderated cod xbox days. It's a simple voice modulator in chat.


Point taken. I do think that it can be challenging to be a rare female amongst males (it would probably be similar the other way around). But the biggest contributing factor for such behaviours is certainly the anonymity of online gaming.

What is the good faith way to link to "(It doesn't help that all males currently under the age of 40 were raised to be supercucks.)"? The link exists in the post but you object to that link as a bad faith way to link. So what is a good faith way to link to this tweet?

One that links to the primary source and fully in-context as an absolute starting point.

Even your pseudoquote here gives me nothing to work with.

"It" doesn't help? Seriously? What am I supposed to make with this vague out of context snippet?


The subredditdrama post in question does in fact contain a link to the full tweet, which you objected to as bad faith. So I'm asking what is a good faith way to link to this tweet.

It could have been linked here directly instead of presented through the lens of a toxic smear community.

Presenting it through a community called "SubredditDrama" is poisoning the well[1]. I am not going to entertain that smear tactic.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well


I don't think "Drama" implies which side of said drama is in the right. That drama surrounds a bunch of Blow's public statements is maybe the one thing everyone can agree on

That community has no oversight for what gets posted. It's a free-for-all for anyone to gather (read: cherrypick) low quality information and present it in an overtly sensationalist way and intentionally misrepresent what they quote.

They have no standards, no oversight, no formal methodology, so naturally it attracts gossip-oriented people who want to stir up drama for fun.


Why link you to the handful of individual links directly when you clearly can identify and sort through the source yourself? The poisoning the well clearly wouldn't work on you. Well, here the links are:

"This is true, the gaming press is super left-wing, but on the other hand they have almost no impact now. I would say that the social pressure keeping "indies" in line mostly comes from them being socially fearful in the normal way. (It doesn't help that all males currently under the age of 40 were raised to be supercucks.)" https://x.com/Jonathan_Blow/status/1854708962462982465

(Feb 2025 for context)"Are you kidding? He is the best President we have had in my entire life, by far. It's a miracle. I just hope it doesn't abruptly go bad." https://x.com/Jonathan_Blow/status/1887599339037663629

"Interest is not the same as ability. I believe it is likely that the sexes have different interests on average, and that biological factors play a large part in this. This is *NOT REMOTELY* a controversial opinion except on Weird Far Left Twitter 2017." https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DRT4vNEUIAEJgP3.jpg

"There's a weird disconnect in this vaccine mandate debate: many are still pretending that Covid-19 is of natural origin, which gives such mandates a different feel than they otherwise have." https://x.com/Jonathan_Blow/status/1447601578123296769


Alright, I don't agree with half of what he said here, but really? Is that supposed to make him look like some irredeemably bad person?

Are we seriously going to pretend that men and women—on average—do not differ in their general interests, and furthermore get mad at people for pointing that out?

And I'm not fond of the current administration, but it's a bit extreme to write someone off as a person for liking who is president. You would be writing off literally half of the entire country, and no, that's not something to feel virtuous about, that's just nonsense.

Frankly I think I would rather have a conversation with someone like him instead of someone who would get disproportionately upset at those points.


How does this compare to other counties with first world healthcare? This raw number means nothing to me because I can't tell if it's even particularly bad statistically.

Also, how many of those patients who died on a waitlist would have died anyways?

A lot if this sample is representative: https://secondstreet.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/BC-%E2%8...

> In Fiscal Year 2024/25, there were 222 booking records cancelled and removed f rom the Interior Health (IH) wait list due to the death of the patient while they waited f or their surgical date. There were 59 various types of procedures cancelled due to patient death; Cataracts had 86 (39%), followed by Arthroplasty Knee Replacements 17 (8%)

Also, for this particular regional health authority, only 38% of these wait time were above the target.

> 85 bookings (38%) had been waiting over the clinical benchmark wait time target for that surgery type at the date of patient death.

So yes, most of these death have nothing to do with excessive wait time of patient whose death would have been preventable with another system.


Also, how many of those patients actually lived longer because they didn't need to endure the operation and its side effects.

All of them

nice

“23,746 patients died on waitlists during the past fiscal year, bringing the total to over 100,000 since 2018” puts some perspective on it.

…no it doesn’t? It still doesn’t say anything about how normal this is per capita when compared with other systems.

No? Almost a quarter of the total in the last 7 years happened in the past year…

The line directly after that says data from older years is incomplete, so no it does not say that.

Fair point. I glossed over the 300 word article. Conceded.

I saw there was another benchmark where top LLMs also struggle in real patient diagnostic scenarios in a way that isn't revealed when testing in e.g. medical exams. I wonder if this also applies to law, too...

Why would Ozempic, a chemical affecting a specific receptor found in specific parts of the body, affect alzheimer's? I'm just asking questions here I don't understand what the mechanism of action is that this would be disappointing news.


Semaglutide (Ozempic) has potential therapeutic effects in neurodegenerative disorders through "modulation of neuroinflammation, enhancement of mitochondrial function, and promotion of neurogenesis". It has shown benefits in animal models of Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. So they're not just testing a random drug, but something that could work.

For details, see: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38921025

This diagram shows how Ozempic can produce these results, the various pathways from the GLP-1 receptor to reduce inflammation, protect neurons, and affect mitochondria: https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/87c0/11202139/72234dd...


Thank you, I really appreciate it, as I'm not educated in biochem at all.


"Type 3 diabetes" is one of the speculated causes of alzheimer's. The evidence there is not great.


Fixing type 1 or 2 diabetes does not fix the damage they already did either.


It was correlated to lower Dementia rates in a past study. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/13872877251351329


Thanks, I wasn't aware of this. Do we know how?


Generally this is the answer when there's an announcement like this. Some early paper or analysis showed some (often weak but potentially very interesting) correlation between $new_drug and $scary_disease/$scary_disorder. Doctors and scientists go off and study that in more depth with better controls or more data points and we learn a little more about the world, if you miss the initial paper(s) the follow up can seem a little random.


This new study that did not find a causal link was part of the attempt to find out how. The original study was more of an observation than a deep dive.

You could think of it similar to a study that shows something like "People who don't watch network TV have fewer strokes", which could be an interesting correlation, but the causal effect might be something more like "people who are more health conscious tend to avoid sitting down for extended waking periods" which ultimately has nothing to do with TV.


I don't think there's a confirmed mechanism (or even whether the fact that it does prevent dementia is a confirmed fact).

But you could speculate that obesity -> cardiovascular issues -> neurological damage, and that could explain things.


We don't know the "how" in a surprising number of medicines.


We unfortunate know very little about how dementia / Alzheimer's develop in the first place.


I know we can tell that a chemical does a particular thing in the body, but can we tell that it does not do anything other than that thing? The body is ridiculously complex, and as far as I know we don’t know how every part (or combination of parts) works.

Edit: I mean in the theoretical “this targets the x receptor” kind of way, not in “we tested this and found no causal link” way.


That's why I'm genuinely asking why this would be disappointing, like what was the evidence that this does affect Alzheimer's. You would expect by X does not affect Y by default, so clearly there had to be a theory why you'd spend 2 years on a study to rule it out.


Ozempic is a diabetes drug, and there's a hypothesis that Alzheimer's is really a form of diabetes.


Personally, living with two T1D ( type 1 insulin dependent diabetic, the autoimmune disease not to be confused with the i am old, fat and over eat disorder) when your blood sugar is too high or low , you act weird , you are in a fog . Long term effects of the swings and sustained levels cause brain damage, not necessarily traumatic brain injuries but damage nonetheless.

So i can see the correlation for T1D and undiagnosed T2D cases Alzheimers. Now having a parent with both T2D and Alzheimers when they were taking rebelsis there was a change in their overall mood and activity , but i saw the change was "hey your sugar is under control, and no i am not your buddy from the army" . To be clear the difference is the fog of being unclear about what's going on like you're drunk , vs the grand delusions of seeing a different person that's not there .

This should have been obvious for the researchers.


> This should have been obvious for the researchers.

That's why they do research, to find out instead of just guessing.


T2D is not limited to "old, fat overeaters".


Significant, sustained weight loss can prevent or reduce the effects of conditions known to increase the likelihood or hasten the onset of Alzheimer's, like diabetes and high blood pressure.


This is anecdotal, I don't have proof but it's something I think is somewhat related. Is that obesity and nuerodegenerative diseases are somewhat related. So that's a guess as to why some people might have though a weight loss drug would potentially be related in some way with alzheimers.

This could just be false though, I can't recall where I heard this information. So do some searching before quoting me.


Obesity often goes hand in hand with poorly regulated blood sugar and high blood pressure, both known risk factors for Alzheimer's.


As I understand it, one of the reasons GLP-1 agonists seem to affect so many different things is that evolutionarily, it does not seem at all surprising that a huge number of things are hooked on the hungry/full signal.


It appears that it might be even more generically the "need/satiated" signal.


[flagged]


I’m one of those people who have a nonspecific disorder. I get plenty of exercise both aerobic and strength training. It helps with maybe 30% of my pain.

People who play armchair doctor only make things worse for those of us who are actually disabled.


What is your aerobic exercise?


My workout routine was prescribed by an MD who specializing in pain, specifically targeting my areas of pain. Then it was reinforced over eight weeks, four days per week, six hours per day by a team of two physical therapists and one occupational therapist in a pain management program. The program follows the bio-psycho-social model of pain management.

That said, I’m not going to share details with you because your other comments in this thread indicate that you intend to argue in bad faith.

However, if anything I said seems interesting, feel free to google! The bio-psycho-social model is very interesting, it’s the first real advance in pain management since we lost opioids as an option.

These kinds of disorders — the ones you think aren’t real — are really disabling. I genuinely hope that you (or really anyone) never find yourself in this position, it’s truly miserable.


I would be concerned if it has not solved your pain. Physical therapy did very little for me and the exercises they recommended because it is so weak. HIIT and core strength training was far more beneficial for pain


OK! Good luck, I hope you’re never disabled, you won’t enjoy it.


> Notice the absurd number of young, frail people with canes and masks.

I don't notice them. Do you have numbers to back this up?

> that would be solved if they started an aerobic and strength training regimen.

Source?


Yeah I have no idea what he's talking about either


[flagged]


What is your definition of "vaguely disabled"?


Needing a cane, barely able to walk either from obesity or being so frail you can barely move, pallid skin. It is quite obvious, my son and his friends have a derogatory name for them


You should be a better parent then, and teach your son to not judge other people so harshly.


I’m commenting about how “tHiS iSn’T ReAl!!!” comments are so hilariously off-base, so much so my own child and his friends comment on how absurd the number of 20 to 30 something cane people are everywhere


And you don't think, "hey this is a learning opportunity for them, I can teach them the value of minding their own business, not judging people based on how they look, not making assumptions about people based on what I see" ? I don't think you're really helping your point the way you think you are. You said yourself they call them derogatory terms.


I think it says something more about society that a significant chunk of our young adults have convinced themselves they have some sort of unspecific, incurable, un-diagnosable malady. It's actually super fucked up


I think it says a lot about you that you look at people and automatically assume your assessment of them is accurate. That you allow your child to talk shit about them.


I trust my eyes more than anything, and I see more vaguely-disabled people than ever, especially the 20-40 age group. I'm sorry you can't accept this, nor understand why this is not good


So your eyes alone tell you that these young adults have convinced themselves they have some sort of incurable malady? Impressive. You still also dodge answering why you think it’s acceptable for your kid to call people derogatory terms.


> Notice the absurd number of young, frail people with canes and masks.

I don't notice an absurd number of young, frail people or young people with canes. There are a larger number of people of all ages masking than was the case pre-pandemic (especially outside of the ethnic groups where precautionary masking was common pre-pandemic) but...I don't think that's particularly a sign of changes in health status as it is of changes in perception of external environmental conditions and associated health risks.


Maybe because poor diet has been linked to alzheimers?


I kind of think if it fixes a fundamental issue - too much weight.

Another problem it seems to help with is addictive/impulsive behavior. This might lead to wrong choices in diet or activity.

I suspect that many many functions of the body are degraded or disabled by too much weight or wrong choices, and fixing those problems might let the body cure and maintain itself properly.


Obesity may increase the risk of Alzheimer's but it's far from a requirement for the disease. I can't find a link between Alzheimer's and being overweight except in case of obesity.

https://www.alzheimers.org.uk/about-dementia/managing-the-ri...


I read this[1] some time ago. Seems relevant now.

- [1] https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/why-does-ozempic-cure-all-d...


The article describes data showing a correlation between Ozempic use and slowed progression of certain brain conditions. The study aimed to determine whether that effect came from Ozempic itself or simply from weight loss. Once researchers controlled for weight loss, the effect disappeared. In other words, correlation, not causation.


Since Ozempic was the primary reason for the weight loss, it's still causation. Although indirect.


That's an important caveat. But effectively it sounds like Ozempic typically results in a better diet, and a better diet typically results in slowed progression.


A lot of medical research is "x is correlated with y and we have no idea why".


"Alleged magic cure does not solve all our problems" just isn't as catchy.


It's disappointing to the manufacturers and consumers because many boomers are taking it already to treat 40+ years of poor and/or indulgent consumption (and more will now that they've negotiated a price reduction).

Glp-1 drugs inhibit drinking and compulsive behaviors and I'm not sure the mechanism of action is known


There is a huge difference between acknowledging that humans are an inherently social species that usually needs comfort and psychologically benefits from an intimate relationship and straight up codependency, where you violate the boundaries of each other and thereby take away psychological safety.


I agree! The point is, don’t use your wife for your comfort and psychology benefits. Use the other people in your life. Especially when you’re having marital problems.


I think employees are actually entitled to some of those things, like not being made uncomfortable purely because they are a minority or a female. I would find the opposite position to be an exceptionally strange take: that it is entitled to not want to work at a place that puts you in uncomfortable positions for your sex or your race.

I don't have an opinion on Valve or allegations Valve is doing that. I just find it very strange to say it's entitled for a black to want to be treated as equally as a white.


Being uncomfortable has no equivalence to racism, which you are trying to assert.

Assume a white guy voluntarily takes a job working in a wig shop that only sells black women's hair care products. He's going to be uncomfortable at some point. Does he have a right to not be uncomfortable? Should the company culture change, should they stop selling wigs and ditch their customers until he becomes comfortable?

No. The easiest solution is he should work elsewhere. He took the job knowing exactly what was involved. So no, you are not entitled to not be culturally uncomfortable.


What kind of "uncomfortable for women and minorities" if not racism or sexism?

Also wait does this mean Valve is white males-oriented culture and that minorities/women should expect to be made uncomfortable by lieu of being hired there? I think that's an even weirder take!


> What kind of "uncomfortable for women and minorities" if not racism or sexism?

Women generally have different interests than men, and different cultures generally have different interests and expectations than others. This is extremely well documented, as is the fact that people have a harder time being comfortable and fitting in around others who are unlike them or don't share their interests.

> wait does this mean Valve is white males-oriented culture

If Valve mostly hires white males, then either you're expecting the employees to not socialize at all (leading to no culture), which is sociopathic, or yes, that's exactly what you would expect.

You're objecting to reality and truth because it offends you, for some reason? There's literally nothing objectionable with any of the above. Being uncomfortable implies zero moral wrongdoing. You should do some reflection and/or research.


It's kinda wild how part of the modern zeitgeist is entitlement to be comfortable, and how irrationally people will defend that entitlement, including to the point of being literally racist and sexist.


I would argue you just reported, in a biased way, about your personal experience overhearing some journalists who were having a casual conversation among themselves, and what this says about all journalism as a result.

There is no biased reporting because there are no unbiased event descriptors. Not video, not photos, not physics papers, not even describing some stuff that happened to you firsthand.


If this is true, why do GLP-1 drugs which are just hormones also shown to have an effect on gambling?


> Lots of people in the US make way less money than senior software engineers, and they manage to get by.

No, I'm pretty sure this is getting less and less true actually. Credit card debt is at an all time high. Homelessness is rising. Medical debt is crushing.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: