If you describe our society in the tone archeologists describe old societies it would be something along the line like:
"The rolex watch was an instrument to calculate the time of the day and time of the year. It was worn to ritual conventions, dances and mating rituals. Thus it's rather primitive workings compared to the electronic and quantum technologies this civilization had access to it's value derives from the precious metals used and in the craftmanship needed to create this artifact which is in its working on par with the high technologies of this era. It was also worn by James Bond."
Also would like to know this. Currently have over 10k notes in Evernote, looking to move elsewhere but Electron makes me worry about poor performance with such a large data set.
Defining what represents a change-of-control is probably the trickiest part of moving this from an interesting idea to a real proposal. Probably, the key factor should be whether or not the senior management and/or the board membership stays essentially the same; new management should be required to earn their own trust from customers that might not follow company news.
Realistically that means no brand lasting longer than about ten years, and the total elimination of lots of century-old brands that people have fond relationships with. It's a stupidly excessive hammer that fails to address the real problems. And it's probably going to suffer the obvious free speech challenges.
> lots of century-old brands that people have fond relationships with.
That's the problem being discussed--the fond relationships are built with entities that no longer exist, and it is argued that current brand practices are deceiving for the consumer side of the relationship and abusive on the producer side.
"Free speech" is a ridiculous charge to level at this. The concept of a government-protected trademark is itself a restriction on free speech in the first place, as are all consumer-protection labeling laws.
As soon as you try defining "small changes" and the period of time on which they can occur, it is arguably a problem that will lead to loopholes easily abused by the legal departments of any big corp.
The purpose here is also likely to be very different for different use cases. You might not want the Apple trademark to be transferable as the management changes because you care about their approach to privacy. On the other hand, a consumer who thinks Diet Coke is tasty probably doesn't want to have to look up what brand name they were forced to change to when the CEO quit just to keep buying their favorite soda at the grocery store.
I plan to use it alongside Toggl time tracker. Toggl desktop client has a "Record Timeline" feature but it syncs the data to the cloud while I'd rather store it locally.
Is it really deterministic mapping from input to output, for given configuration options? I imagine you can build different algorithms that choose what data can be removed, with different tradeoffs between encoding time, decoding time, memory consumption, output file size and experience of quality.
Decoder is completely deterministic. In fact the normative part of most MPEG standards is implementation of the decoder in C-like pseudocode (which is horribly slow because it is not optimized in any way and mostly deals with discrete bits).
On the other hand how encoder works is not specified at all apart from the obvious requirement that it has to produce something decodable by the above mentioned decoder.
"In a murder case of 1235, a villager was stabbed to death and authorities determined that his wounds were inflicted by a sickle; this was a tool used for cutting rice at harvest time, a fact which led them to suspect a fellow peasant worker was involved. The local magistrate had the villagers assemble in the town square where they would temporarily relinquish their sickles. Within minutes, a mass of blow flies gathered around one sickle and none other, attracted to the scent of traces of blood unseen by the naked eye. It became apparent to all that the owner of that sickle was the culprit, the latter pleading for mercy as he was detained by authorities."
"Compared to students who reported sleeping eight hours at night, high school students who slept less than six hours were twice as likely to self-report using alcohol, tobacco, marijuana or other drugs, and driving after drinking alcohol. They were also nearly twice as likely to report carrying a weapon or being in a fight."
Have they established causation? Or could it be that lifestyle including alcohol and weapons also happens to involve less sleep?
"Compared to students who reported sleeping eight hours at night, high school students who slept less than six hours were twice as likely to self-report using alcohol, tobacco, marijuana or other drugs, and driving after drinking alcohol. They were also nearly twice as likely to report carrying a weapon or being in a fight. Researchers found the strongest associations were related to mood and self- harm. Those who slept less than six hours were more than three times as likely to consider or attempt suicide, and four times as likely to attempt suicide, resulting in treatment. Only 30 percent of the students in the study reported averaging more than eight hours of sleep on school nights."
Seems like a lot of data mining to create correlations (hence the use of the word "association" a lot). This kind of work can be good for problem finding and hypothesis generation. It's unfortunate that we live in a world where:
- news outlets publish research that is meant to stimulate discussion + hypothesis exploration
- readers are unable, undereducated, and / or disempowered to discern the level of rigorous science examination done
EDIT: The funny thing is that I predict that this HN thread will lead hundreds of folks to tell stories of confirmation bias.
Nearly every morning one of our local radio station gives "fun" "facts" and always start with "Scientist say " and end with something ridiculous like "dogs can't look up", or "purple is the best colour", or something equally bizarre, and they treat it like because "scientists" say it it has meaning or value, and then they both discuss it as a fact, and have people phone in and talk about it. We utterly fail at scientific education and communication in North America.
I’m not sure if it’s only NA though... just read the chapter 6 “Authority” of Cialdinis book “Influence”. People take stuff that authorities like scientists say as given. It’s human nature. The example of how this can be abused as outlined in the book are quite bizarre.
I wonder if this is CBC Radio 2 Drive. If not, there must be a daily syndicated list available to radio stations to have for banter between actual content.
> EDIT: The funny thing is that I predict that this HN thread will lead hundreds of folks to tell stories of confirmation bias.
Good reply, but why rush to label potential replies as confirmation bias? That simply makes your reply more subjectively problematic. For all we know, the causation is really there. We just have no idea, for the exact reasons you've posted. It's ok to throw potential causes around.
The leverage point in a reply like yours is in getting people to interpret those replies with more clarity, which should not be confused with getting people to label a bunch of personal anecdotes as confirmation bias.
I might recommend using a word more specific than "problematic" if your goal is to communicate your criticism. It's about as specific as "bad", and seems to form an in-group out-group dynamic for readers who get to fill in the gaps.
I agree with your point, so I've read your comment as "it makes your reply more biased than necessary", whereas people who disagree with you might read it as "I don't like your reply because it hurts my feelings" or some other uncharitable interpretation.
Hope this came across as a friendly recommendation! Communicating over text has so many pitfalls.
> The funny thing is that I predict that this HN thread will lead hundreds of folks to tell stories of confirmation bias.
Confirmation bias looks like on-topic content, and often spurs copycat posts that look like engagement. It's one of the faster ways of growing the number next to your user name in the upper right, which causes a dopamine release in most users.
>Those who slept less than six hours were more than three times as likely to consider or attempt suicide, and four times as likely to attempt suicide, resulting in treatment.
Considering that insomnia is a common symptom of depression, this really shouldn't be remotely surprising
Edit: I'd bet you'd find a similar correlation with students that sleep more than 12 hours a day too
Not to mention that depression often makes people feel physically tired all the time. I don't think someone with normal neurochemistry even could sleep 16 hours a day if they wanted to.
Another way of wording the finding is "students who engage in activities that adults don't approve of found to also go to sleep at a time adults don't approve of."
Based on nothing but my own personal experience when I get tired I get cranky and more truthful, so the sole factor could be nothing but more people filling out the survey honestly.
There is also the possibility that a third variable contributes to both. Like maybe a stressful family life or living in a city (louder at night, more access to drugs) causes teens to be more likely to use drugs and to sleep less.
I would think that fighting, alochol and other drugs are being consumed by 6 hour sleepers during the two hours that the 8 hour sleepers are... asleep.
Hmmm. As a former grades 8-12 educator, if I were to observe 'risky teen behavior' I'd first want to talk to their parents and to ascertain their (compulsory) school environment.
Adolescents have enough to worry about (which they're good at), and their need for a caring support structure is a paramount concern. Experimentation is natural and healthy for them, within limits.
Well, there's pretty good controlled experimental evidence that lack of sleep causes impulsivity. But obviously causality works the other way too and this study doesn't help us know how much of these effects would go away if, say, high school start times were pushed back and how much would persist which is what we're really interested in.
The confusion of causation and correlation is often presented as a bug in the human operating system. It’s definitely a mistake here and you are right to point it out. But I sometimes wonder if the bug in the human cognitive process is (not mistaking causation vs correlation) but actually that we attribute greater weight to conclusions presented as science, even when they are bad science. We - rightly - trust the scientific process, more than for example testimony or hearsay. Disreputable scientists hack this heuristic to pass bad science as fact.
It could be cortisol. I've been researching the effects of this hormone and it's kind of crazy. It's the hormone that regulates stress, fat deposits, memory and a lot of other things.
YouTube, Facebook and others are basically social cancer.
Remember when they thought putting asbestos in everything and smoking everywhere were great ideas? This "social all the things" strategy reminds me a lot of 1950s America where plastic, fiberglass, and pesticides were going to cure all problems if only you used liberal amounts of it in everything.
"The original ECD program, which lasted two years, enrolled 127 stunted children aged 9-24 months. Researchers randomly assigned these children to one of four groups: a psychosocial stimulation intervention, a nutrition intervention, both interventions, or neither intervention (the comparison group)."
That was my first thought too: the positive results could be effect of special attention and expectations (placebo effect). However comparing "both interventions" group with each single intervention group should address this.
On the other hand I have found it immensely useful to form a habit of refusing to respond to accusations, demands and threats immediately. Instead I (try to) listen, maybe even ask some questions, retreat and then respond. This did not develop intuitively like mastery of computer UIs – it required retrospecting on certain situations many times over and promising myself on how I will act in similar situation in future.
This sounds like (one component of) non-violent communication [1]. I myself found that reading about NVC quite enriched my perception of interaction with people. It provided me with some more concepts and framework to understand what is happening while also giving me more options for responding.
It is one of those compact books that are quite effective. Other books are a bit heavy and you almost feel like you have to memorize flow charts. This book is fairly formulaic, but with easy to remember formulas. A lot of the book may seem a little too soft/touchy, but fortunately when I read it I was reading other books that go into the details of the psychology behind communications (which this one doesn't), and there is a lot to back up the advice in the book.
Mind you, if this isn't your default style of communication, it will take a lot of practice (and perhaps years) to get there. I think for me it was about a year of trying before my first successful use of it in a hostile conversation. It's hard to stick to trying something if you don't see signs of success inside of a year.
