HN user
Turns out, it’s just sleepwalking
The piece explicitly states that it is not sleepwalking:
Not all nocturnal behaviors are RBD. Sleepwalking and sleep talking, which occur more often during childhood and adolescence, take place during non-REM sleep. This difference is clearly distinguishable in a sleep laboratory, where clinicians can monitor stages of sleep to see when a person moves.
Didn't expect most of this thread to be people whining about being blocked on twitter. What the hell has happened to hacker news?
While there might be overlap, the sims offered players status/career simulation, the option of mating and killing the sims, and a whole host of other things that represented departures from someone's actual life. I'd guess the appeal of the sims was more down to simulated optionality of lifestyles and relationships (+ obvious destructive fun through fires, grim reaper etc) than it was about doing one mundane task.
Or developing a sense of humour. Going by your comment apparently there are still some roadblocks on that journey.
https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/french-president...
Jean-Luc Melenchon, a far-left politician running for France's presidency next year has suggested that a jihadist's 2012 murder of Jews was part of an elections conspiracy.
But you see, even if I did agree that that was the case that all exchanges are rotten, you originally said any crypto business. You think the various businesses that focus on staking, or cold wallet businesses for example, that focus on consolidation and/or security are 'rooted in scams, greater fool schemes, or ponzi'? How?
I'm not sure either of your comments are productive here. You assert that it would be hard to find any crypto business that isn't 'rooted in some kind of scam'. But where's the evidence that coinbase for e.g is 'rooted in a scam, greater fool scheme or ponzi'? There are scammy activities in so much of crypto, but what is pointing to the most visible, normie-facing, publicly traded and regulated American crypto company, being 'rooted' in scamming or ponzi schemes? Because this post suggests a bad actor within or close to the company, or at worst the company knowingly associating with sketchy tokens, rather than the entire company's activities being fundamentally rotten. I know HN likes to be extremely skeptical of crypto, often rightly so, but your comment isn't exactly nuanced.
This was fascinating, thanks for sharing.
More nuance needed here. The UK has failed terribly when it comes to opening its borders to Ukrainians. But it has very much been world leading when it comes to other aspects of this crisis. Britain sent arms to Ukraine well before the war started, was training thousands of Ukrainian snipers back in January and February, and was the first country to send arms to Ukraine. Ukrainians on the ground therefore see Britain as their closest ally, regardless of its shameful stance on immigration. https://twitter.com/OzKaterji/status/1500927139570401283?s=2...
I know I am not the only one doing this. I can't think of any video game / movie that has been so inspiring to so many people.
I think the Zelda franchise has similar if not greater cultural impact in some of the ways you're talking about.
Most of the newer research on this topic suggests that it's neural connection complexity, and specifically frontal lobe volume, rather than overall brain size that determines intelligence or brain power.
https://neuroscience.stanford.edu/news/ask-neuroscientist-do...
Luckily, there is much more to a brain when you look at it under a microscope, and most neuroscientists now believe that the complexity of cellular and molecular organization of neural connections, or synapses, is what truly determines a brain’s computational capacity. This view is supported by findings that intelligence is more correlated with frontal lobe volume and volume of gray matter, which is dense in neural cell bodies and synapses, than sheer brain size. Other research comparing proteins at synapses between different species suggests that what makes up synapses at the molecular level has had a huge impact on intelligence throughout evolutionary history. So, although having a big brain is somewhat predictive of having big smarts, intelligence probably depends much more on how efficiently different parts of your brain communicate with each other.
reply
Volume != neurons
Exactly. Most of the newer research on this topic suggests that it's neural connection complexity, and specifically frontal lobe volume, rather than overall brain size that determines intelligence or brain power.
https://neuroscience.stanford.edu/news/ask-neuroscientist-do...
Luckily, there is much more to a brain when you look at it under a microscope, and most neuroscientists now believe that the complexity of cellular and molecular organization of neural connections, or synapses, is what truly determines a brain’s computational capacity. This view is supported by findings that intelligence is more correlated with frontal lobe volume and volume of gray matter, which is dense in neural cell bodies and synapses, than sheer brain size. Other research comparing proteins at synapses between different species suggests that what makes up synapses at the molecular level has had a huge impact on intelligence throughout evolutionary history. So, although having a big brain is somewhat predictive of having big smarts, intelligence probably depends much more on how efficiently different parts of your brain communicate with each other.
You were the one who claimed to be able to find anything on google
I did not in fact claim that. You are confusing me with someone else in this thread. I agree that some things are hard to find on google, but I reject the notion that anything with a financial element is fundamentally corrupt in terms of intention.
I updated the post with several examples of the type of content I want you to find.
The point I'm making is that I think your underlying premise, that all sites which have any kind of monetary element to them are fundamentally corrupt in terms of intention or conflict of intention, is flawed. I've now read multiple reviews on https://www.mechtype.com/category/reviews/ that are quite clearly the work of a keen mechanical keyboard hobbyist with sufficient details, knowledge and effort to lead me to believe the work is genuine and useful rather than merely financially motivated alone or spammy. There are many examples of what you suggest, and I agree that many sites with affiliate links and ad popups are disingenuous and fall much closer to the spam end of the spectrum. But there are still useful results if the user is remotely competent at parsing information. If your argument is that users shouldn't need that competence, and search engines should be kinder to less competent users in that regard, then that's a separate (and probably more interesting) conversation.
That site also has a clear affiliate disclosure along with this:
https://www.mechtype.com/disclosures/
Paid Reviews/Sponsored Posts. MechType does NOT accept paid reviews or sponsored posts. All thoughts expressed within our reviews are our own opinions. However, MechType may on occasion accept product samples for review. When a product sample is provided for review it will be clearly and fully disclosed in the post along with the company/persons who provided the sample.
They have links for every single mechanical keyboard they review or list. What is their incentive to give better reviews to some than others?
This is probably a better example: https://www.mechtype.com/xiaomi-yuemi-pro-mk02-review/#more-...
There are some basic economic realities underpinning why most people take the time to create content like this. I don't think it's reasonable to assume that just because someone expects to make a small amount of money from creating a review like that (with either affiliate links or buy links), that that person's opinion is inherently at conflict with honesty just because there's a monetary element. It may be true for many sites and many people, but it's pretty straightforward to parse whether someone is writing a review earnestly and passionately rather than for $.
Seems pretty useful and non-spammy to me:
Edit: This is a better example: https://www.mechtype.com/category/reviews/
That sounds like an incredibly outdated mindset tbh. Would be very surprised if that was still generally true.
hopefully the US and other sovereign countries stand up and help against that when the day comes.
Genuine question, what do you think that help would look like? Because every time I try and game out scenarios for China re-absorbing Taiwan by force I come to the conclusion it would essentially be an unwinnable 'war' by western nations and likely a further erosion of the United State's position as the global military superpower (on the back of the Afghan pullout). China can afford to play the long, slow game when it comes to their proximity and civilian toll in/around Taiwan, much of the West can not.
Neither offer any vitamin D benefit in most geographies though.
Hunch is that the fashionable advice to cover yourself in sunscreen every day regardless of how long you'll be in the sun or how sunny it is will be looked back on as insane in a few years. It's amazing how many SPF products are now included in people's daily moisturisers regardless of time of year, proximity to the equator or life-style.
A large portion of what I refereed to "the rest of the world" is as distant from us as the middle ages. Sure, you could argue that billions are poured into bridging that gap but the simple truth is that never works.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-of-population-in-ex...
While I get your point and would agree for some stories, I also don't think that's always necessary or even productive in a bigger picture sense. Sort of excusing away accomplishment by listing every advantage someone has or doesn't have is a good way to prime society to over index the effect of advantages/disadvantages and under index the effect of hard work.
Actually talking about the risk reward analysis in the media and general commentary reaction to the AZ vaccine rather than by nations. Think it's perfectly reasonable for nations to conduct safety checks and research on new vaccines
but I pity the ones they go first and suffer from overzealous cheerleading of a particular vaccines efficacy
Given the incident rate and the growing COVID swells in a few european countries (France and Italy especially), the slow vaccination progress, not helped by hesitance over AZ and surprising prevalence of vaccine hesitancy in general, you could just as well argue the opposite. Nations that are overcautious may lose far, far, far, far more lives thanks to covid infections than an extremely rare handful of blood clots which haven't even been tied causally to the vaccine yet. The risk reward narrative on this topic has been really bizarre so far.
Seems far from definitive, especially given the scale of the claim you're making, to be quite honest. I'll do some research of my own and link back if I find anything more substantial as I'm actually sympathetic to your original point even if I think the evidence you provided is weak at best.
the UK used to be a major world advocate for human rights
Yes, but we aren't any more
Have you got a source for this?
Don't worry, we're talking at cross purposes and don't seem to be understanding the others point. Let's leave it here.
Oh and btw...
If you take the purely metaphysical approach, there is a maximum capacity for intelligence that any one individual has. Evolutionary biology has told us, thus far to our understanding, that this is brain size.
I don't think these days that it's accepted that 'brain size' necessarily determines 'maximum capacity for intelligence' for the record. My understanding is that this is a rather outdated way of thinking about the brain and intelligence.
https://neuroscience.stanford.edu/news/ask-neuroscientist-do...
Luckily, there is much more to a brain when you look at it under a microscope, and most neuroscientists now believe that the complexity of cellular and molecular organization of neural connections, or synapses, is what truly determines a brain’s computational capacity. This view is supported by findings that intelligence is more correlated with frontal lobe volume and volume of gray matter, which is dense in neural cell bodies and synapses, than sheer brain size. Other research comparing proteins at synapses between different species suggests that what makes up synapses at the molecular level has had a huge impact on intelligence throughout evolutionary history. So, although having a big brain is somewhat predictive of having big smarts, intelligence probably depends much more on how efficiently different parts of your brain communicate with each other.
No, I get all that. Just wondering why you wrote this in the wider context of your comment:
Additionally, it belittles the consistent effort and energy spent by these individuals to train their minds
Additionally, it belittles the consistent effort and energy spent by these individuals to train their minds
Not following this logic and this seems to be at odds with the rest of your comment. You seem to be saying that the idea of 'nurture/environment' being more or as important than 'nature/genetics' belittles the effort made by individuals to train their minds? Isn't the complete opposite actually true, ie acknowledging the importance of 'nurture/environment' or epigenetic enabled knowledge/skill acquisition, would actually be to recognise rather than belittle the 'consistent effort and energy spent by these individuals to train their minds'?
It's almost as if becoming a superpower corrupts nations