I don't need to read an article to know that "no" is the correct answer the question in the title.
this post was submitted on 12 Feb 2025
82 points (80.6% liked)
Technology
62853 readers
4150 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Baldness doesn't need to be "cured". There are many many actual diseases where people need real help.
Unfortunately capitalism completely degrades and perverts science/technology in order to make a quick buck, rather than actually helping humanity escape impending doom.
Through UCLA’s Technology Transfer Group, which transforms brilliant research into global market products, the scientists have co-founded a medical development company called Pelage Pharmaceuticals
In case you were curious how this publicly funded research is going to be turned into private profits.
I don't think UCLA is going to produce retail products themselves.
They could always make the research and processes public domain, so no one person can unilaterally profit.
But that's not what they did, and that's the problem.
load more comments
(10 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Hair loss is caused by a multitude of factors, including aging, stress, hormonal imbalances and bad genetics.
“Bad” genetics?! Damn, that’s a little fucking judgmental for what is ultimately just a cosmetic issue.
It just means you have too much testosterone.
If the topic is undesired head hair loss, "bad" appropriately describes the genes that may contribute to that. The discussion is limited by the context to avoiding hair loss, it isn't a universal conversation on cosmetics
Yes if you 100% swallow the cultural requirement to have a full head of hair, then not having one is bad. But I don’t expect a journalist or academician to write from such a culturally specific point of view.
It's an article about curing baldness, all context is pre determined.
Like sure, if we're just bringing anything up, why care about baldness when I can't breathe underwater, or if I can't raise the dead?
If scientists came up with a new treatment for multiple sclerosis, and an article mentioned “bad genetics” as one of the reasons people develop MS, that would be shitty, wouldn’t it? How is this different? Obviously in the context of that MS article, it’s “bad” to have MS and we want to cure it. But you wouldn’t shit on people who suffer from it by saying they have “bad genetics.” So how is it any different? It seems just as unnecessary and disrespectful here as it does there.
I mean if it's a damaged or failed it's a bad gene. It caused ms!
It's not shitting on a person, it's discussing a condition.
I can understand that discussion can lead to eugenics style thoughts.
"Oh that person has tons of bad genes, they therefore are bad". That's wrong though, a person can have a super fucked up body but it doesn't change their value or goodness.
When discussing a condition, the genes that improve or cause that condition can be described as good or bad.
Context matters.
It’s judgmental language and totally unnecessary.
It's a bad gene. It's literally the contextually appropriate description of a factor involved in a situation.
Sorry it hurts your feelings
We've both made our points and opinions known here.
Oh the last resort of he with no other leg to stand on: the hurt feelings bullshit. I’m not bald and my feelings are not hurt. I do care about quality writing though and this is not that. Your gyrations of justification have ceased being fun to watch. You believe you’re laying out some kind of hard logic progression but it amounts to: if one accepts a long string of assumptions, then naturally the word makes perfect sense. But that is not the tidy “if / then” mathematical proof you think it is but a bald declaration of your cultural values. I’m sorry that you think people suffering from diseases are bad. I’m not surprised to hear that you have eugenics notions in your head.
You think a person's worth is tied to their genes. Pretty yuck. I disagreed and explained how.
For the record I was calling YOU out for linking a person to their genes, just not directly, trying to be courteous to the conversation.
Keep replying now, and you're just slapfighting. Not worth it. I said in the last comment our positions are well known and the conversation is functionally concluded.
PUT ON THE WIG DEGENERATE
Better watch out, when the king of the US government is done with all the queers and chronically ill the baldies are next.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I think people forget that not all populations benifit from more hair
load more comments
(7 replies)
I started losing my hair when I was a teenager, so I’ve been bald for most of my life. I’ve been shaving my head for decades because it’s the only way my head and face don’t look absurd. I’m totally used to it, and long ago accepted that I’d never have hair on my head again.
But I’d be lying if I said I didn’t want my hair back.
If this turns out to be legit and works on most people, there could be a worldwide explosion of self-esteem in adults.
As someone that has also been bald since I was a teenager, I've also gotten used to it. I've accepted my fate and I'm fine with being bald.
But at the same time do you ever have those dreams where you have hair again and get super excited about it? Like straight up Jesus hair.
100%
I’ve had dreams where my long locks were dramatically blowing in the wind, only to wake up and run my hands through my…well shit, that’s just my scalp.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Answer: kind of, as long you keep applying the substance you will regrow all the hair that you have lost and maintain it
That's the problem I've always had with baldness remedies. Shaving my head every other week takes less effort and saves money. Plus I've been bald since highschool so I'm kinda used to it at this point.
Saves money sure, but every other week? I have to buzz it twice a week to keep it short enough to not look terrible. That's enough effort that I'd rather apply a regular treatment.
Not like a daily "keep doing it or you lose all progress" treatment, but maybe like a "use it more or less daily and it'll grow back" treatment.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
No
Is Betteridges Law dead?
no?
They didn't and this doesn't work as intended. They did however create a company to cash in on desperate people.
Reminds me of the time Vivek Ramaswamy bilked investors for over a billion with a phoney Alzeheimer's drug
he helmed the leadership of Roivant, a multi-billion-dollar American pharmaceutical company he founded, and gallantly relinquished his CEO role in 2021 due to his unwavering stance against ESG principles, despite facing opposition from his liberal workforce. While this narrative might seem appealing, it is akin to the endless "flip-flops" that have plagued his campaign—an elaborate work of fiction that unravels upon a modicum of scrutiny.
Let's start with the basics. Ramaswamy has funded his campaign through the sale of over $32 million in Roivant stock options in February of this year. This could lead one to believe that Roivant, based in Bermuda, is thriving and that Ramaswamy is a great entrepreneur. Except the company reported staggering losses of $1.2 billion in its financial report of March 2023. This isn't a one-time slump: In March 2022, when Ramaswamy was still Roivant's chairman and a major shareholder, the company reported an annual loss of $924.1 million.
Ramaswamy's defenders may argue that Roivant performed better during his tenure as CEO in 2021, but alas, the numbers tell a different story. The reality is that Roivant's finances were abysmal under Ramaswamy's watch. During his tenure in 2019, the company's net operating loss exceeded $530 million. By 2020, the losses had doubled to over $1 billion, accompanied by a 65 percent decline in revenue.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Cool, but if this does work maybe in 10 years it will be easily accessible , Iam already going bald right now, sure it would be nice to have an option down the line.
One thing to keep in mind growing up in this age, a lot of things being developed or in the news now, simply won't be accessible or relevant within my lifetime.
load more comments
(4 replies)
I'm bald and started shaving my head as soon as I noticed it was thinning (19 yrs old). I like the lack of maintenance and I think I look good with a bald head. \o/
Wouldn't change it tbh.
load more comments
(8 replies)
view more: next ›