I'm curious what HN thinks of the current trend in languages like Kotlin and Typescript of having getters and setters masquerade as properties.
Then again if you have to use accessors in the first place you have already committed the crime and exposed the internals and might as well just go with the simpler syntax instead of trying to fool yourself with a bunch of getFoo()s and setFoo()s.
That said, it should not be underestimated what an immense strain those people are on mental health workers. I wonder how much time those institutions dedicate to debriefing their own staff, I think that would make a big difference in how the patients are treated as well.
Would a drug proven effective for whites and ineffective for blacks in the US suddenly become effective for blacks and ineffective for whites if administered in Zimbabwe?
Or do you mean "minorities" in the "there are too many minorities in my waterpark" sense?
The article mentions in the first sentence that it is about North America. So presumably it is talking about specific apparent population groups that are minorities in North America? With this in mind, you can probably imagine some examples. But the first sentence does include some, if you're unfamiliar with America.
It would mean that if a drug was inefficient on an African American of Zimbabwe descent, the same drug would be unlikely to be efficient on the black people Zimbabwe. There are measurable genetic traits these can be attributed to, although unfortunately they are less understood for minority populations.
There's a lot of baggage with "race related medical research."
At least within the US, it is currently deemed wrong think for a number of reasons.
First, how are you defining race? The current American definitions of race are imprecise and sociologically constructed. Since the founding of America, the definition of white has expanded to include various groups that were previously excluded (e.g. Polish, Irish, Jewish people, Italians, Greek) [0].
As far as black/African Americans, the current definition (one drop rule) has its limitations. Sub-saharan Africa is not a monolith. It has been found that the genetic diversity between Sub-saharan African ethnicity groups exceeds other regions of the world [1]. Even as far as physical differences, there is a noticeable physical difference between a Tutsi from Rwanda, a Luhya from Kenya, an Amhara from Ethiopia, and a Yoruba from Nigeria. A very noticeable difference. I can't speak for their "genetic difference." However, it's large enough to warrant further investigation on what categories are used. This distinction is important moving forward. Since 1970, voluntary immigration from Africa has surged from the aforementioned regions [2], with many becoming first, and second generation Americans [3], the current racial assumptions and definitions are a tad archaic.
This is just one racial group within the US. I didn't really even mention how ludicrous bucketing 60% of the world's population as "Asian" is.
Second, and most importantly, the US does not have a great track record with biological research targeting black people, Native Americans, and other minority groups. There is a long history of medical abuse where researchers conduct experiments without the knowledge or consent of black patients. A few notable examples in recent history are the Tuskagee Syphilis Experiments between 1932 and 1972 [3] and DoD's non-consensual whole body radiation experiments on black cancer patients between 1960 and 1971 [4][5]. Even today, this sort of non-consensual racial medical experimentation has not stopped. As recently as 2013, Ethiopian Jews (immigrating from Ethiopia) in Israel were coerced into agreeing to injections of long acting birth control drugs by Israeli medical officials [6]. The apprehension is very much justified.
> If everyone is the same, why bother with diverse studies?
You're tone suggests that you don't understand why people are "dancing" around the subject and trying to be politically correct or whatever. I am under the impression that the American medical research community has, through its actions, fostered distrust in "racial" based medical research. Now, it's stuck in a bind, as a direct consequence of its actions.
Totally agree, "bucketing" is certainly hard, but to define every possible bucket would have me writing an entire book. This piece is meant to get the discussion started and open peoples eyes to the existing problem and consciously start to work on solutions. My African ancestry is all sub-saharan African (at least according to my 23andMe) so I'm quite familiar with those statistics you're providing.
I brought this up in passing and was summarily ejected into oblivion.
Thank you for posting in detail what I didn't have the patience and energy to. (shrug)
Yes, but in the context of upholding traditional Christian moral standards that's not an option that's on the table, and neither is using contraception. Celibacy, or to be more precise, abstinence, is the only option.
You're talking about a very specific "Christian" society, which, you should bear in mind, has very few things in common with other Christian societies, like the orthodox for instance.
I know the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox do in fact practice things like abortion and contraception, but they are still highly controversial subjects and far from universally accepted in the hierarchy.
I still think it's a pretty fair generalisation of traditional Christianity and the vast majority of Christians (liberal western Protestants are a minority on the global scale, and even they don't universally accept abortion and contraception, take for instance Pastor Anderson)
Then perhaps I'm biased. Where I was raised (eastern orthodox), preaching in favour of contraception and abortion
as divine mandate was/is seen as crazy. I certainly don't have numbers to compare.
Those that hold two mutually incompatible ideas. "Taxes are evil" - "Don't take away my medicare".
My point is that the choice will be easy for some to ignore their dictates that "abortion is abhorrent" and might choose to abort a "gay baby" because they fear homosexuality more than keeping their ideals.
Then again if you have to use accessors in the first place you have already committed the crime and exposed the internals and might as well just go with the simpler syntax instead of trying to fool yourself with a bunch of getFoo()s and setFoo()s.