Actual link (full text article available for free)-- https://www.nature.com/articles/s41366-022-01211-2 .

oa.mg appears to be some sort of search aggregator that wants you to buy the article for $17 even though it's open access (freely available).

It has now been re-submitted with the nature.com link

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32643396

Comments moved thither. Thanks!

Sounds like a good reason to perhaps literally ban links to oa.mg on HN?

Lol, is that even legal?

Yeah, unfortunately.

Repackaging and selling free stuff is a business model that is hundreds of years old.

Occasionally, it's worth it, as the repackaging may come with some help understanding the material, or help in organizing it.

I had the same reaction when I saw this:

https://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=sgfgross

Well, water is free, and yet it's sold in bottles.

And I can sell you any GPL program I got for free, if you're willing to buy it...

The link should be changed to the DOI or a direct link to the journal article:

- https://doi.org/10.1038/s41366-022-01211-2

- https://www.nature.com/articles/s41366-022-01211-2

Not sure why OP linked to this index. The article is Open Access, yet this intermediary site has a prominent "Buy article PDF →" link at the top which tries to sell it for $17. OA.mg seems like some kind of scam.

89% of the OP's comments contain a link to oa.mg

So do most of their recent submissions. Presumably they have a vested interest in oa.mg selling access to papers.

They previously linked to citationsy.com which came from the same team.

One would think the guideline applies here:

> Please submit the original source. If a post reports on something found on another site, submit the latter.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I would think so. And as far as the way this user is using their account and HN

> Please don't use HN primarily for promotion. It's ok to post your own stuff occasionally, but the primary use of the site should be for curiosity.

(Of course by saying so, I'm breaking the guideline on insinuating the user is shilling.)

For such cases, just email HN and describe the problem. It's both more effective (dang is guaranteed to see it) and disrupts the thread less.

This might point as BMI not being the best metric to define obesity.

I bet people with high BMI but low fasting glucose and low c-reactive protein are mostly athletes, people who weight a lot due higher muscular weight. It wouldn't be surprising they are healthier.

I have a weird feeling that the vast majority of high-BMI people somehow don't really fall into the athlete category.