Recent submissions

Comment · 4 years ago
I think it's more important to look at all-cause mortality, because treatment can also harm you. In this case it's a fairly tight confidence interval: "The risk of death from any cause was 11.03% in the invited group and 11.04% in the usual-care group (risk ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.04)."
Comment · 6 years ago
Mostly agreed. I think everyone (including myself) was ready for a huge pop science book to be bad, and boosted the post based just on its title.

In defense of the post, Walker's called-out claim that "Routinely sleeping less than six or seven hours...double[s] your risk of cancer" does seem pretty out there. Even if that correlation were well-established it would be hard to interpret.

Comment · 6 years ago
Comment · 7 years ago
I always thought this was just price discrimination, extracting more surplus from readers by bifurcating them into two groups. Hardbacks are released first. Everyone who really wants it now needs to shell out more, even if they don't really care about the physical properties. Then the paperback is released to attract the more reluctant readers.
Comment · 7 years ago
Comment · 7 years ago
Comment · 7 years ago
Comment · 7 years ago
> Not worried enough? Imagine an attacker who manipulates road signs in a way such that self-driving cars will break traffic rules.

If someone was manipulating a bunch of road signs for bad, human drivers would probably be in trouble too..I guess the point is that these attacks could be more subtle/scalable?

Comment · 7 years ago
Comment · 7 years ago

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton