1e-9

Study Conclusion: Mouse brains track eye direction during REM sleep.

Who cares if a social media site is offline for a day? Society will be fine. Users will be fine.

Not just fine... better off.

You can control the side effects you may get from a medication you take?

You can eliminate unneeded medication to eliminate side effects.

You can reduce or change your needed medication to control side effects.

You can change your lifestyle to eliminate the need for medication.

Even if there is no way to eliminate your need for medication, you still don't necessarily have to accept bad side effects. Doctors make mistakes and the standard treatment doesn't work for everyone. The first medication a doctor prescribes is often a poor fit. Doctors sometimes need to be prompted to look for better alternatives.

I get that most people on HN, can control the air they breath as they have the means to decide where they want to live, this isn't the case for most of the people.

Even with very limited means, there is still likely to be something you can control such as: how close to major road traffic you live, how well-ventilated your home is, whether you allow unnecessary particulate or VOC sources in your home, whether you exercise outdoors on days with higher than normal pollution levels, or whether you go running near a highway or at a park. These simple things can have a significant effect on one's air quality.

Cancer is literally just a numbers game, people in perfect health at their PEAK get diagnosed with cancer.

Cancer has controllable risk factors. There is overwhelming evidence that we can take reasonable actions to significantly reduce our risk of getting cancer.

I agree that the father appears lucky to have avoided issues such as debilitating disease due to random genetic mutation. Even the father acknowledges that "lots of good luck" was involved. The article does not appear to overstate the significance of this single example.

Anecdotes are not useless. They can be inspirational and they can help illuminate possibilities and methods that are otherwise opaque in large-sample statistics. Anecdotes that are consistent with our best scientific understanding are powerful ways of communicating knowledge and providing inspiration for change to those who don't have the ability or inclination to evaluate the studies. In this case, the father is doing several things that large studies tell us are beneficial to health. These unmentioned studies suggest that the father has probably improved his quality of life. Most people I know are far more motivated by such anecdotes than they are by credible statistical analysis.

I disagree with your list of uncontrollable variables. All of them are largely controllable. Much of the medication consumed today is either outright unnecessary or can be reduced with lifestyle changes. You can control the air you breath by controlling where you live and when/where you are most active. You can lower your risk of cancer and many other diseases by lifestyle and environmental changes. The fact that complete control and certainty are impossible is no reason for inaction.

If you want to reason about the real world, then a top-left origin will typically be better as it aligns with a right-handed coordinate system of Forward-Right-Down; where the Forward dimension aligns with the range to an object in the scene, the Right dimension aligns with the pixel column, and the Down dimension aligns with the pixel row. As a result, vector operations are more intuitive and there is less mental translation required when mapping between image space and real-world space.

As the author mentions, the original moniker for Excel was VisiCalc

VisiCalc wasn't actually a moniker for Excel. It was a predecessor. It was the first spreadsheet program, which was made by a different company, VisiCorp, and released in 1979. Excel was developed by Microsoft and released in 1985. Prior to Excel, Microsoft had released an earlier spreadsheet called Multiplan in 1982.

Humans have an instinctive drive to optimize genetic survival. Without it, we would not exist. One of the control mechanisms for this is our instinct for reproduction. We constantly access future availability of resources, attractiveness to high quality mates, and probability of a new child surviving to bear children of their own with high quality mates. The industrial revolution, with its massive increase in productivity and technological advancement, dramatically altered the survival cost function that humans must now optimize. A measly 200 years has not been enough time for our instinctual optimization algorithm to adapt. As a result, I believe we are seeing over-compensation for higher resources and lower mortality, which is most apparent in countries with the highest per-capita GDP (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate#/media/Fi...) where parents are over-delaying childbirth because they perceive an opportunity to improve their economic standing, improve their mate selection, and take better care of a smaller number of children. We even see this happening with immigrants from low-GDP countries who move to high-GDP countries and converge towards the lower fertility rate of their new country. I expect we will eventually adapt, but it will likely require a conscious override of instinct if we want to avoid a massive population decline in the process.

Higher prices will result in increased production. We don't need to motivate producers beyond that. There's plenty of potential from non-Russian sources. It will take months though.

I think the biggest motivational issue will be expectations for the duration of any oil sanctions. If producers think it is likely to only be short-term, there won't be as much motivation to bring extra production online.

It makes you look like a genius rather than like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHFB40WOMOo

Constricting the pupil can certainly reduce the effect of defects in the eye lens by reducing the amount of lens used; however, it won't work well in dim light.

Alternative: Increase environmental lighting and use bright, high contrast displays with dark text on bright backgrounds (no dark mode). This will not just constrict your pupils (as the eyedrops do), but also increase the rate of photons reaching your retina in bright areas of the scene relative to dark areas (in other words, improves contrast, which the eyedrops won't do).

Previous related discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27299363

...doesn’t have to be...

That argues that there might be a first.

To be clear, I’m not saying there isn’t a first. I’m just saying this particular argument doesn’t support the assertion.

In math there is the concept of having a first element...

There is also the mathematical concept of not having a first element of a sequence, where each element has an infinite number of elements indexed before it.

You seem to be arguing that the existence of a mathematical concept implies that the universe must follow it. In this case, you have one concept that implies a first element and another that implies no first element. They can’t both be true.

Previously discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28717961

Similarly, periodical cicadas synchronously emerge in great numbers (more 370 per square meter) every 13th or 17th year.[1] This overwhelms predators and it's thought that the prime-numbered intervals prevent predators from synchronizing their reproductive cycles with that of the cicadas.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodical_cicadas

In my experience, 100x absolutely exists. It can be sustained in areas where someone has considerable amounts of closely-related experience; however, when innovating, it is only sustainable for up to a few months at a time and with great sacrifice in one’s personal life.

Some very young children just absolutely do not want to be messed with. Even brushing their hair with a soft brush can be a major struggle no matter how clever you might be at distracting, comforting, or convincing.

If you have one of these children, then you know what’s coming as soon as the hairdresser touches their hair and there isn’t much you can do about it. It’s quite reasonable to decide it’s better to let the child know what’s about to happen rather than let them be surprised. A haircut takes time. It’s not like a shot that’s over in an instant. Holding them might be the only way to prevent them from swatting the scissors away and jerking their head in an unsafe manner.

After a few unsuccessful haircut attempts, you’ll likely find yourself considering a child-bun or just allowing their vision to be impaired until they are old enough to understand better.

Yes, I also strongly advise not riding dirt bikes either.

With that said, over countless hours of riding the ‘burbs, rural back roads, and trails; I never had what I considered a near-death experience on a dirt bike versus having at least three on street bikes. I was undoubtedly lucky, but if you avoid competitive motocross, don’t try stupid stunts, wear a full complement of protective gear, and limit your time on the street, I suspect you are safer on a dirt bike than a big street bike. Even so, I wouldn’t do it. I’ve seen dirt bikes put friends in the ICU and I now realize there are better ways I could have spent that time.

Here are a few leisure experiences from which I have received greater fulfillment with far less risk:

- Volunteer to help someone in need.

- Actively support a cause that makes the world a better place.

- Learn a new skill.

- Backpack remote areas with interesting geology, wildlife, and skies that are so bright with stars at night that it is difficult to find the constellations. Study the route beforehand to fully appreciate the area and know where to look for fossils, prehistoric artifacts, interesting minerals, geological formations, plants, and animals. For an extra challenge, pursue ultralight backpacking.[1]

- Travel to places with unique cultures. Hang out with the locals and get to know them. The lowest-profile people tend to have the most surprising and interesting life stories. Learn some of the local history and language beforehand.

- Learn to sail. With sufficient qualifications, you can rent sailboats all over the world. Fly to a beautiful location, rent a boat, island hop, travel the coastlines, and explore.

Even better for me was to start a family and focus on giving them a wonderful life.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultralight_backpacking

I grew up riding dirt bikes. Later moved on to street bikes. Wandered many miles of beautiful deserts, mountains, plains, and rainforests. Had truly awesome experiences. Also had a few truly perilous experiences where the difference between life or death was razor thin. Fortunately, I escaped without major injury, but I’ve seen others not be so lucky.

My strong advice is to never ride motorcycles. There’s plenty of other wonderful experiences to be had in this world without taking such risks.

No, there is no survivorship bias apparent here. The samples appear to be representative of the populations they were investigating. They were looking at the risk of infection. Dead people don’t get infected, so they were not part of the populations studied.

It is a positive feedback loop, not a negative feedback loop. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_feedback.

The Project Zero stats imply three times the rate of detected zero-days versus last year. Apparently, this is largely due to the increasing output of private companies finding and selling exploits. Three of the four exploits discussed in this article were developed by the same private company and sold to two different government-backed actors.

I think the underlying reason is when you have far more experience than your future boss they are intimidated by you.

That is so true; however, they tend to be weak managers with delicate egos and poor vision. Count yourself lucky you didn't waste your time.

There are plenty of managers who highly value experience and capability regardless of age. They are worth searching for. Such a manager's project is probably also more challenging and interesting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_arbitrage

Not just that, but also a guarantee of no compromising bugs in either the cryptographic API or the application code that calls it.

Yes. If you want your data protected, it always matters where you store it.

This is extremely unlikely.

AES-256 was broken in 2011.[1] While only four times faster than brute force and thus not a practical attack, it suggests that compromise is possible. The Snowden documents indicated that the NSA was working on breaking AES-256. It seems unlikely they would waste effort on a task they considered impossible. Whatever they achieve will be achievable by others eventually.

On top of that, no implementation is perfect. Bugs are discovered in cryptographic APIs on a regular basis. Even if your API is perfect, the application calling the API can have bugs that allow compromise.

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20120905154705/http://research.m...

Raising the possibility of political timing constitutes conspiracy theory nonsense? That seems extreme given the long history of state-sponsored attacks.

a couple blows with a hammer

First, put it in a heavy-duty freezer ziplock bag and then place on concrete. This allows you to nicely pulverize the chips into many tiny pieces without making a mess. A hammer works well, but a few taps with a sledge hammer is even better and somehow more satisfying.

I agree with a number of your points:

1) Many people already live in high-CO2 indoor environments. Please see my earlier comment elsewhere in this thread where I relate how my own home quickly shoots up to over 1300 ppm if I turn off my ventilation system. Most people don’t even have ventilation systems.

2) People should monitor their indoor air quality. Consider giving a CO2 monitor to friends and family who don’t have one.

3) We can draw no conclusions from this paper. Please see my earlier comment that the statistical analysis is flawed and the methods could have been better.

4) There is a serious problem with the motivations, execution, dissemination, and interpretation of research today. This has been a problem for as long as scientific papers have existed. Einstein once told Norbert Weiner that he deplored the flooding of the literature by immature, idea-less papers. I don’t think the situation has improved since then. Recent politics haven’t helped.

5) Animals, even mice, should never be harmed without strong justification.

Here’s where we disagree:

1) The fact that people already live in high-CO2 environments does not imply there are no ill effects. There have been multiple studies indicating that high CO2 environments significantly degrade cognitive performance by large amounts. This implies some plausibility for developmental effects in children, which we have seen with other pollutants.

2) Although your outdoor CO2 measurements are not individually unusual, you should generally see an average below 500 ppm unless you live near an unusual outdoor source of CO2. Even next to a busy road in a highly polluted city, the average should be below 600 ppm. I suspect there is either an issue with your monitor or your breath may be sometimes drifting to the sensor. Your own breath can cause errors of several hundred ppm. Be sure to keep the sensor at arm’s length and stay downwind. Even better, get a unit that will record a history and step away from it for awhile.

3) You imply the paper makes extreme claims that it does not actually make. You are probably right that others will make extreme conclusions, but that is different.

4) A study does not need to reach a valid conclusion to have value. Much of science requires eliminating dead ends and finding potential hypothesis for follow-up. It is not economically feasible to study all possible hypothesis. We must make some advancements through incremental trial and error. This paper serves an exploratory function. The methods are reasonable enough to propose hypotheses for a couple of developmental effects. This was really more of a pilot study, although I doubt that was the intent. I’ve seen worse pilot studies that were still useful. To reach credible conclusions, other studies would need to be performed using a larger number of subjects and/or fewer tests along with better statistical analysis.

5) For the past 10,000 years, outdoor CO2 levels averaged around 280 ppm. Tripling that over a few hundred years is an extreme event. It is vital that we understand the potential consequences as soon as possible. I believe mitigations are possible if we develop sufficient motivation.

Yes, it’s not valid to reject a null hypothesis involving multiple tests without using a multiple testing correction. The simplest conservative approach would be to use a Bonferroni correction and check whether any of the M tests has a p-value below alpha/M. Clearly, these results are not that significant. The study suggests a couple potential effects. To credibly evaluate them, the study needs to be repeated with more mice and/or fewer tests along with appropriate statistical analysis.