←back to thread

Weight-loss drug found to shrink muscle in mice, human cells

(www.ualberta.ca)
234 points Eumenes | 5 comments | 20 Nov 24 23:53 UTC | HN request time: 0.214s | source
Show context
talkingtab ◴[21 Nov 24 01:21 UTC] No.42200046[source]▶
It concerns me how discussions, such as this one go on HN. This is an important topic. With the epidemic of obesity we now find a drug that appeals to a large number of people. This is an important topic as well.

What is the current comment receiving most of the comment?

"That's the sort of headlines that smells like bullshit to me"

That's the sort of comment that smells like bullshit to me. What kind of place is this?

Many times I find the posts on HN interesting, but increasingly these kind of comments make me wonder about Y Combinator. Is this really the best they can do?

And for us readers who are supposed to be so called hackers, is this the best we can do?

replies(14): >>42200140 #>>42200198 #>>42200215 #>>42200239 #>>42200243 #>>42200320 #>>42200334 #>>42200342 #>>42200368 #>>42200458 #>>42200512 #>>42200524 #>>42200579 #>>42200899 #
1. abtinf ◴[21 Nov 24 02:12 UTC] No.42200368[source]▶
I agree with your desire for what HN should be, and disagree with your assessment that the top voted comment doesn’t support it.

HN is the only forum I know of that has broadly grasped that most so-called “science” outside of the hard sciences and mathematics is complete garbage and driven by funding needs. The world is awash in non-knowledge. This is an extremely serious issue.

Building the skill to rapidly come to a preliminarily judgement of a headline is crucial.

replies(4): >>42200532 #>>42200573 #>>42200636 #>>42200656 #
2. PaulHoule ◴[21 Nov 24 02:38 UTC] No.42200532[source]▶
There is plenty of garbage in hard science too. Start with

https://arxiv.org/archive/hep-th

3. ◴[21 Nov 24 02:44 UTC] No.42200573[source]▶
4. echelon ◴[21 Nov 24 02:54 UTC] No.42200636[source]▶
> disagree with your assessment that the top voted comment doesn’t support it.

Did you read the paper or skim its abstract, figures, and conclusion? I'm not so sure that commenter did, or they may have cited this,

> Because we report smaller cardiomyocytes in cultured cells and in mice treated with semaglutide, it is tempting to speculate that semaglutide may induce cardiac atrophy. However, we do not observe any changes in recognized markers of atrophy such as Murf1 and Atrogin-1. Thus, we cannot be certain that semaglutide induces atrophy per se or if it does, it may occur via molecular pathways that have not been identified herein.

> Building the skill to rapidly come to a preliminarily judgement of a headline is crucial.

You can't judge this paper based on the popsci headline.

> most so-called “science” outside of the hard sciences and mathematics is complete garbage and driven by funding needs

Based on my reading of the figures and conclusion, I don't think you should call this paper garbage.

5. kiba ◴[21 Nov 24 02:58 UTC] No.42200656[source]▶
The most reliable source of knowledge we have are in the science. This is further reinforced by technological development that validated the sciences, although at time the technology may precede the science.