Hacker News Reader

Comment by DanielBMarkham | Hacker News Reader

Read a great book last year on cancer -- The Emperor of All Maladies http://amzn.to/10fEm78

If I remember correctly, most of the breast cancer that develops early is fast-spreading, while most of the cancer later in life is slow-spreading. So as you screen younger and younger people, you quickly reach a point where you cause more harm than good. You're only finding more disease you can do nothing about, and the false positive cause tremendous hardships on tens of thousands of women.

I also seem to remember that there's some serious discussion over the idea of categorizing cancer based on where it's first detected or starts. Cancer is much more a cell-based disorder than a location-based one. We may have created this huge categorization and treatment system that describes the problem in an inefficient way.

Good read.

View on HN

Agreed, many times over this is a great book. Not many books have over 500 reviews and a 4.6 out of 5 star rating.

Here's the link without the affiliate code: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1439170916

I don't get why you have to post a link without the affiliate code.

I agree. If you weren't aware of this book, followed that link, liked what you saw, and then purchased it, why shouldn't the person who linked you to it in the first place have some kind of reward? (particularly since Amazon pays it, not the purchaser)

I think some people get all up in arms about it when larger publications do it, since it throws into question the validity of what they've written if they're trying to make money from referral links. However, the above is clearly someone's personal opinion , and I don't think that it should be scrutinised as if it were deceitful.

At least the person who shares the link should have the decency to say it's an affiliate link.

I don't understand what's "decent" about that. What do you expect the benefit of that information to be, in Consequentialist terms? That people get the opportunity to be dissuaded from clicking on a link they'd have otherwise clicked on--and thereby disuaded from purchasing something they'd have otherwise purchased--because clicking that link makes someone else money with no cost to them? Even though it was a link to something they already saw enough objective value in to click without knowing that?

Would you also like Dropbox to add disclaimers to all their referral links reminding people that the person who sent them the referral is getting extra space as well?

What's not decent is when there is an artificial asymetry of information for no reason. If you tell me it's an affiliate link, at least you are being honest and transparent that the link will benefit you. Whats wrong with being transparent ?

Well there are three reasons:

1) when someone posts a book with an affiliate link and then says its a good book, it really clouds their intentions.

2) the link was obfuscated so you aren't really sure what it points to.

3) some people just won't click on an affiliate link.

By seconding his recommendation and providing a non obfuscated link everyone is better off. His recommendation has atleast been backed up and the user is certain of where the link leads to.

Everyone wins:)

I second that, great book, discovered it via HN Store[1].

I was first introduced to cancer and the methods used to combat it about 10 years ago via unfortunate circumstances.

It's fascinating stuff with surprising parallels to my work in IT.

1: http://www.hnstore.co/

Reply on news.ycombinator.com