HN user
This is not an argument against redistribution in principle. It’s an argument that the method of redistribution matters systemically, that a state which degrades its productive ecosystem to fund redistribution is not actually a more equitable state over time, but a less productive and ultimately less equitable one.
I've written an essay comparing political spectacle to professional wrestling's "kayfabe," using immigration policy as a case study. I'd appreciate the HN community's feedback on the argument's clarity and strength.
Also, this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45597478
Is this a trend? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45609875
Thanks for that; I'll check it out.
Thanks, George. I’m a new Australian (U.S. transplant) and still getting up to speed on the local medical culture. But, re: SAD/mood, bright-light therapy is first-line; I treat vitamin D as “correct deficiency, don’t expect it to replace standard care.”
On MS (the bit I didn’t cover well): Higher lifelong 25(OH)D is linked to lower MS risk (observational + genetic lines point the same way). In people already diagnosed, adding high-dose D3 to disease-modifying therapy hasn’t reliably cut relapses; MRI signals are mixed.
So, test and correct deficiency (good general health practice), but don’t expect vitamin D to function as a disease-modifying add-on.
Great question and fair push-back. Two quick clarifications:
The ETCS isn’t a ratio scale. A 70 vs 68 isn’t “1.02× more true”; it’s a weighted confidence score that blends consistency of RCTs/meta-analyses, effect size, heterogeneity, external validity (who benefits), dosing clarity, and risk trade-offs. Small gaps (especially near band edges) should be read as “roughly comparable confidence,” not a meaningful quantitative jump.
Why 70 (“Strong, with nuance”) for fractures vs 68 (“Moderate-to-Strong”) for respiratory infections? Because the fracture claim is consistently positive when paired with calcium in older/institutionalized adults (clear population + pairing guidance), whereas the respiratory finding shows a modest, baseline-dependent benefit (strongest only when deficient; daily/weekly dosing beats bolus; more heterogeneity and large neutral trials in sufficient populations). Same neighborhood numerically, but the value proposition differs (i.e., Fractures: act when risk is high; pair D3 with calcium; practical, repeatable benefit; Respiratory: correct deficiency first; expect at most a modest protective effect, not population-wide gains).
To make this clearer going forward, I’ll add a short ETCS legend in each post and note that ≤3–5-point differences within a band are “near-ties.” Thanks for the nudge. This is exactly the kind of reader feedback that I'm looking for.
Original paper: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adt8921
Original paper - https://journals.physiology.org/doi/abs/10.1152/japplphysiol...
Supplementary material https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs415...
original paper - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S175450482...
Not sure I buy the premise; I am wildly optimistic, but I do not not have a large social circle.
Original article: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41514-025-00244-x
According to the study, the order of your workout does significantly affect how much fat you lose. Participants who performed weight training before cardio lost significantly more fat and became more physically active throughout the day compared to those who did cardio first.
Wait... was your comment LLM-generated? Because that was a suspiciously accurate roast—complete with parallel structure, lexical flair, and a cheeky emotional beat at the end. Honestly, I feel... parsed.
And yes, I admit it: I treat emdashes like seasoning—measured in emotion, not quantity. Final participial phrases? Chef’s kiss. Coordinate series? Can’t stop, won’t stop.
Appreciate the close read—clearly, we’re both running on the same firmware.
Thanks so much—really appreciate that. There's something quietly universal about the choices we make when the day winds down. They're small, but they stack. And sometimes those quiet decisions say the most about who we're becoming. Appreciate you reading.
"These findings challenge the assumption that all sugars uniformly elevate type 2 diabetes risk."
Please say more about this.
Everything has a cost.
Everything is connected.
You’re not nearly as clever as you think you are.original paper - https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle...
"...ruminating on the feeling of loneliness is the key underlying factor that explains the adverse effects of loneliness in the generation of depression"
This doesn't suggest that gratitude is necessarily the prescription. Rather, activity. If you spend your time doing engrossing things, then you're less likely to become depressed - and (I would argue) more likely to meet interesting people.
A central control point that appears to coordinate multiple aspects of aging.
"These findings would seem to indicate that knowing we're being surveilled affects involuntary cognitive processes, influencing how we perceive, understand, and interact with the world around us – despite likely feeling as though it doesn't affect us. This 'imperceivable' influence, as the authors put it, could plausibly be having a quiet effect on the wider public's mental health, attention, and performance."