Not that they have it great, but I just have difficulty feeling too much empathy.
Ok, I’m going to go back to trying not to kill anyone today.
2,623 karma · joined June 24, 2014
Not that they have it great, but I just have difficulty feeling too much empathy.
Ok, I’m going to go back to trying not to kill anyone today.
Not sure about that
One comment said charging is a big downside; I don’t really agree. It could just as easily be corded or hand-powered. We use hand powered balloons all the time (eg in angioplasty), admittedly not as large but also likely at far higher pressures than would be required for simple hemostasis.
The (potentially very big) problem is that wounds are not always circular or even ovoid like a balloon might be. With gauze you can pack down into whatever shape you are presented with and fill the space, causing hemostasis. With a ballon, you probably cannot. That difference could actually be very important. Think of it as the space-filling resolution of the technique. It also doesn’t take that long to pack a wound, so I don’t think that is a huge advantage with this device.
Even the headline here (100% accuracy) is inaccurate; it had 100% sensitivity). The list of cancer bio markers which have turned out not to work for screening is quite extensive.
That said, the most interesting thing here is the microRNA capture technology. If it can be scaled, it might be interesting.
Otherwise, the mRNAs aren’t present in high enough quantities to do significant signaling or silencing things, and it’s going in the deltoid... not really a medically interesting place. You could inject 1mL of dilute HCl there and it wouldn’t be a big problem.
It’s not exactly 1:1 equivalent because maybe long drive waits are more costly than frequent short gas stop visits and waits when you aren’t on a long road trip
As I said...
> It’s not exactly 1:1 equivalent because maybe long drive waits are more costly than frequent short gas stop visits and waits when you aren’t on a long road trip
Your comments have been quite low quality, I think kind of emblematic of how Hacker News has declined throughout the years. It's very easy to be contrarian if you can pick upon a thread, but as far as I remember HN guidelines discourage that.
I'm sure you have not formally crossed Amy HN guidelines, but it kind of sucks just seeing the current state of discourse (eg you) here compared to what it used to be.
Finally - I’d add that “refuel” times DO NOT affect daily range for an electric vehicle. You refuel at home, while you’re asleep. It’s irrelevant in those circumstances.
I still think EVs are okay for a family that does a lot of road trips. You are describing... me. I routinely make a ~12 hour drive. We take a bit of a break every few hours to walk around and play with the dog. The rest of the time, car drives itself.
Hacker News is really getting worse. Taking me out of context by quoting the first line of my comment and ignoring the rest (where I specifically address your comment) is inappropriate. We are better than this.
Anticipating your next complaint (“It takes so much longer to recharge!”) - You also save a lot of time by charging at home and never having to stop at a gas station. Overall, I think you save time because of this. It’s not exactly 1:1 equivalent because maybe long drive waits are more costly than frequent short gas stop visits and waits when you aren’t on a long road trip , but it’s really not the end of the world. Gives you some time to stretch your legs.