skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Until they have a bunch of bruises on their foreheads from low door frames! Cancels the effect.
The National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC) is a federal agency of the United States Department of Health and Human Services responsible for providing the most up-to-date clinical guidelines to physicians.
The NGC also removes clinical guidelines that are no longer relevant, that do not meet the Institute of Medicine’s standards for clinical practice guidelines, including a systematic review of the evidence, or that have not been revised in the past five years.

In January 2016, the NGC removed the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) guidelines on Lyme disease for these reasons. In a scathing report on the standard of clinical guidelines in North America, the Institute of Medicine specifically referenced the IDSA guidelines on Lyme disease as a prime example of what not to do.
Now, the only evidence-based, peer-reviewed guidelines on Lyme disease that conform to (and exceed) the Institute of Medicine’s clinical guideline standards and are available on the NGC website, are the International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society guidelines for Lyme disease (ILADS). ILADS guidelines recognize persistent Lyme and have cured thousands of patients.

Meanwhile, the CDC is still promoting the ISDA guidelines that deny the evidence of persistent Lyme Disease. The CDC claims that these 2006 guidelines represent the "best science" and "the best synthesis of the available evidence". They do not provide the reference or criteria to substantiate this claim. And they are ignoring over 700 peer-reviewed articles that support the persistent Lyme theory.[1]

[1]https://www.ilads.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/CLDList-ILA...
True. I guess my point is that intelligence being heritable in individuals does not directlt imply that we can now use genetic techniques to improve the average IQ. Inheritability is perfectly consistent with the group average (modulo the environme t) already being as high as possible. 'Too many people with eidetic memories and the group looses topological intuition. Too many Gauss level brains and we lose the ability to do carpentry or CSS.' Maybe not but the evidence needs to be shown. Extraordinary claims and all that.
Whooaaa haha what?!! OK, I edited my original comment to remove that link - I guess their site got hacked or it's not the original author of the content
I was more bothered by the primary claim in the article: "Wounds closed halfway in less than 5 days versus a week or more for untreated wounds, the team reports today in Science Advances." There's a number of issues here.

The first --- which isn't unclear in the article but bears repeating --- is that the study was only done with mice. The new dressing helps artificial wounds in mice heal faster than when the wounds are untreated. The effect on humans (or maybe it's for veterinary use?) is implied, but untested.

Next, what's with the "less than 5 days" versus "a week or more" part? If the goal was accuracy rather than advertising, wouldn't it be better to compare a range against a range, or an average against an average, rather than an average against a worst case?

Finally, why is a comparison against an untreated control even mentioned? Presumably no one thinks that "no treatment" is the best treatment, so why not compare against something real, preferably the state of the art?

On the bright side, the actual paper (which to their credit is linked from the article) actually does this, and the apparent benefit gets smaller. Eyeing up the relevant chart in the paper (https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/advances/5/7/eaaw396...), it looks like 50% wound closure is obtained in 4 days with the fancy dressing instead of 6 days with a version without the special ingredient. This is a perfectly respectable increase, which makes it even more disappointing that the article uses the "a week or more" phrasing.

Seemingly less reasonable is that the same chart also shows a chitosan treatment that has an even shorter time. There are some caveats that the measurements were done differently (no splint to retard skin contraction), and there are probably lots of reasons this might be better than something derived from shellfish, but the lack of mention of this in the article makes me conclude that it's an advertising fluff piece rather than a genuine attempt at accurate communication.
The elephant in the room with these prototype systems is that they currently leverage the excess capacity of existing industrial infrastructure. The chemistry involved has unavoidably high power generation requirements because you are fighting a very steep thermodynamic gradient. At anything beyond prototype scales, the industrial infrastructure to provide the raw materials for these prototypes would need to be purpose-built at astronomical scales, including countless terawatts of power generation capacity that does not exist today.

The only scalable sequestration technology is biomass for the sole reason that it is the only method that does not require creating new power generation facilities to feed industrial chemistry plants at an unprecedented scale. Sequestering CO2 requires application of energy and mass on the same scale as the energy that was released by putting it into the atmosphere in the first place.

You can't cheat the laws of thermodynamics.
Yeah, I forgot that we aren't allowed to have opinions without doing the hard work.

So now I have to go out and do benchmarks across all these implementations just to prove they aren't the same?!?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Java_virtual_machine...
> Having the thought that the other driver is an asshole is the first obscuration that prevents omniscience

You know what else prevents omniscience? The second law of thermodynamics. So what?

> It’s not that “you” don’t exist. It’s that the conditioned and conventionally accepted ways that we think we exist (and by extension the ways that we project that others exist) are ultimately false and don’t correspond to reality.

Again, so what? Even the simplest biochemical processes inside my body are so complex and astounding, I have no hope of ever truly understanding even a tiny part of them. I have no issue with this. I have no issue with not truly knowing "reality", or with the prospect that understanding it is literally impossible.
Wasn't the EPA a Nixon thing?
As the author mentions at the bottom of the article, the title is a reference to the book "Metaphors We Live By" [0], which essentially lays out the idea that a very significant portion of modern language is really just metaphors, even when we don't realize it. Super interesting book, for anybody interested in those kinds of things!

[0] https://www.amazon.com/Metaphors-We-Live-George-Lakoff/dp/02...
If the US wanted to take the cyber battlefield seriously they would recruit all these kids and put their skills to work.
What is the basis for creating a peer group (dubbed FAMGA) or unrelated businesses? Comparing Facebook’s growth (a social media platform) to Amazons (retail and cloud computing) seems pointless.
I don't have a problem with the requirements. I'm just saying that if passing the requirements is so time-consuming and expensive that companies start cutting corners to get around the approval process, the approval process just became worthless.

I'm pretty sure the requirements are fine, but the process is not streamlined and hence avoided whenever possible.
The ego: indestructible, why fight?
On the other hand, isn't it obvious that we should be cultivating more than one interest/hobby and tool for life-fulfillment beyond programming?
Good luck getting it out...
Very true. Luckily in every place I've ever been, they seem to follow proper queuing and have a single line for all the self checkout, so the wait usually isn't very long.
Ask HN: Can/does Google track users on sites using “Workbox”?
That is what I would have thought, but apparently the controllers at Boeing thought otherwise.
Thank you for the reply. Won't do it again.
I think it has been suggested lasers can work, don't know how realistic this is.
I've fallen into the trap of similar thinking as the author, and I agree, the main issue is believing that mindfulness is a panacea. The more we suffer the more we hope for simple solutions. I really wanted to believe that meditate more == be happier. For my neurotic and driven personality, this meant obsessively meditating, and I began deconstructing and disidentifying from every negative emotion using mindfulness. I got to some interested states from that and felt like I could "overcome" any negative emotion, but my general sense is my practice was imbalanced and I don't feel like I'm much better off... maybe a little disassociated from reality. Most serious meditation practitioners are aware of pitfalls like this though, it's known as "spiritual bypassing".

Meditation is just another tool, although a very powerful one. Use it wisely.
Death: inevitable, why live?
There are certain pieces of classical music I cannot hear without immediately thinking of the product it was used to advertise.

It's maddening that advertisers can be allowed to destroy culture like that.
Just another few thoughts on this: this new browser could support a much more limited and high performance default protocol. For example, markdown. Media and applications could be attached to links, but carefully controlled -- for example only displaying or loading media and applications when the user switches to that tab and launches them.

Attached applications could be web assembly with I/O abilities such as a simple canvas-like UI.

If you can find or create a suitable and high performance p2p system (or group of systems) for enabling people to load and publish these lightweight links, you could provide a useful and viable alternative to the traditional web that would be approachable by small development teams.

Built in p2p search could be a killer feature for such a system.

EDIT: made a github for it and submitted to HN https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20544892
The Repressive, Authoritarian Soul of Thomas the Tank Engine
> Gossip and petty politics is not important.

Robert Caro's experience in uncovering the watershed moment in Lyndon B. Johnson's career might change your views.

"The Secrets of Lyndon Johnson’s Archives" https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/01/28/the-secrets-of...
Hah great tip..ty
Regarding the fish comic in the article: it's how David Foster Wallace starts a 2005 college commencement speech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CrOL-ydFMI
99.9999999999% of species go extinct because evolution didn’t and inherently couldn’t prepare them. Evolution has all the flaws you ascribe to mankind and more besides.
That’s not really addressing the issue though, it’s just passing the potato so the developer can decide what to do with it.
I'm more supportive if they say no moral issue because they deemed stealing is morally right.

Moral is subjective so if they said that then to me there is no issue with the reasoning.
Enlightenment.
There are other links to porn sprinkled in there. It this an elaborate art hoax site or something?
تحميل Call of Duty Mobile APK للاندرويد برابط مباشر شرح التثبيت والتشغيل
> That means removing burdensome and ineffective regulations and having efficient and effective ones.

When we're talking about human lives, there is no regulation too burdensome or inefficient.

And your argument about there being too little competition is a little odd since hundred have been killed in two crashes because of competition.

> It came about because Boeing was trying to avoid the high costs of recertification, so they didn't change things that could have made the plane safer because changing them would have required recertification. So we have "safety regulations" negatively impacting safety by making it move expensive to improve safety than not.

That's absurd! The safety regulations were good, and the reason they didn't work is because the FAA hired Boeing to enforce them and Boeing didn't do so. Boeing only managed to flout the regulations because they fraudulently signed off their own planes as being airworthy. And the only reason Boeing got away with this is because they controlled the people in the FAA.

Your argument appears to be that Boeing cheated to get around the regulations, so it would be better if there were no regulations, because then Boeing wouldn't have to cheat. American capitalists are truly a special breed of human.
One could say there are plenty of people on earth who practiced mindfulness, had feelings and shaped the world.
I'm in favor of both. There are lots of very stable locations in the US. Far from flooding and earthquakes that are suitable. Similar for wind. I think solar should be limited to existing rooftops for now though.
Yeah, there is an explanation, but it's well hidden:

https://b612foundation.org/ever-wondered-where-the-name-b612...
I can think, I can wait, I can fast.
I won't. You don't know what you're talking about unless you have this illness and have a minimum of PhD level of understanding of biochemistry and enzymology.

I've cured myself. Who have you cured? No one I'm sure.
The main reason for high education in the modern US is crime prevention, not any kind of achievement. It's known to any competent public school teacher in say Watsonville, CA or in Baltimore, MD that the majority of their students cannot learn. But keeping them in school prevents crime.

Your mere attemt at argument with the OP is ridiculous. He is of Chinese descent. They have won, and you with your policies have patently lost the game already.
If they monetize ig the way they monetize Facebook, they’ll wreck user engagement there, too.
To this day, airplanes carry a tiny fraction of the world’s freight. Trucking, rails and ships won.
Just plant trees.
Germany isn't the EU? What?

EU has 30 of the top 50 places....US has 6...come on now.
Evan Spiegel has been turning down Facebook for a few years now. Snapchat's strategies are kind of different from Instagram's and Facebook's, and I'm curious to see how things work out.

https://www.bizjournals.com/losangeles/news/2018/12/24/snap-...
FYI, The title doesn't suggest one to stop blocking ads, but means the opposite.

> When you visit a site, the deal on offer is, "Let us and everyone we do business with track you in every way possible or get lost" and users who install adblockers push back. An adblocker is a way of replying to advertisers and publishers with a loud-and-clear "How about nah?"
His premise is that social media companies either grow or they die, and Fb is running out of growth. The follow-on to the premise is that the delay between growth falling and revenue falling can mask the signs of impending doom, at least in the eyes of “the market”.

I’m not trying to claim that the premise is correct, but I would say that there is some evidence to support it.
34 kilograms
We really have figured out health for the majority of people and even people on the fringes have enough options close enough to them to make it possible.

If you dont live next to a grocery store this is a good thing. Because you get to exercise and get fresh food every day.

If we could cure lack of discipline and laziness then we would be good. But we cant (challenge placed) and there will always be people that are looking for a trick rather than putting in the work to be healthy.

When watching Game of Thrones is more important than your health (exercising) then health is not something you get to have. Its not a mystery.

Articles like these suggest you can be healthy without being active. This is false (challenge placed).
When it comes to children's programming...it shouldn't be based on who's watching, it should be based on if the content itself is designed for children or not and serve ads accordingly.

That's what every advertising platform does...
>When you block ads you are explicitly signalling that you are receiving something of value by visiting the website.

This is not the case. I have visited thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of websites in which the content was not valuable to me, and I blocked those ads, too.

When I block ads, I send the signal that my attention is not for sale, and moreover, the content creators' business model is not my concern. Eventually, if they get the enough of these signals, they'll find a new way to make money.
It seems like the author may have fallen into the common trap of the nonexistence of self, which can lead to feelings of nihilism. When I first encountered meditation as a teenager I also wandered into this trap and subsequently stopped a daily meditation practice for maybe 10 years. Buddhist teaching is very explicitly not nihilistic though.

In the Prajnaparamita literature of Mahayana Buddhism the teaching is the emptiness of self and all phenomena, not the nonexistence of self and phenomena. There is a difference. Thich Nhat Hanh’s translation of the Heart Sutra explains it very clearly, and he argues that a lot of the confusion comes from an unskillful translation of the sutra. I’d recommend it to anyone that might be struggling with feelings of nihilism in their practice and is working from the wrong understanding of there being no self.

Edit: I realized there are a couple publications of Thich Nhat Hanh’s Heart Sutra, but the one I’m specifically referencing is published under the title The Other Shore. I’d suggest getting a copy of the book in order to get the full commentary, but the sutra and some motivation for it looks to be on his website: https://plumvillage.org/news/thich-nhat-hanh-new-heart-sutra...
In March I started swimming much more due to injury. Swam 250k yards in 3mo. One session was 10k in the pool.

Getting past the boredom is a skill. In my experience it’s mostly a symptom of not focusing on your form. Don’t use a watch and count yourself to stay focused. Break it up with challenging blocks to force you to focus. For ex: 50yds on 1min will force you to move and then focus on recovery.

I now really love swimming, which is a shock.
The complex system argument is a strawman.

It’s well understood that complex traits are polygenic (no single gene or sets of causal variants) but quite easy to predict such traits when looking at the full genome (I agree the resolution of prediction is still not there — but we are in the infancy of this field).

I recommend learning more about some of the polygenic risk scoring methodologies that are popping up in research:
https://www.broadinstitute.org/news/giant-study-finds-rare-i...
“When we're talking about human lives, there is no regulation too burdensome or inefficient.”

I recommend we ban all travel over five miles. This will eliminate all danger from air travel and substantially reduce traffic fatalities.
I think that may have happened to me accidentally once: a couple years ago I was sick and unable to sleep, so I went to a grocery store at about 1 AM to buy decongestants so I could maybe get some sleep. Most of the lights were off inside and I didn't see another person there, it was sort of creepy actually, but I figured, meh, 1 AM. I bought my pills with the self checkout and left.

About a week later I was at the same store and saw a sign on the door that said they close at 11...
What I'm getting at is that the types of regulation don't really have anything to do with it. It's not that all safety regulation is good and all economic regulation is bad (though if you wanted someone to disprove "all economic regulation is bad" you might be in for a wait). You can screw up safety regulations just as bad if you're not careful.

It's also difficult to evaluate these things based on statistical trends, because it's easy to pass a safety regulation that e.g. mandates a specific safety method, and then you get an immediate safety improvement by making that state of the art method universal, but as time passes that ossified requirement becomes stale and prevents newer, better methods from replacing it. And all you see in the numbers is the improvement from the original mandate spreading through the installed base over time, not the comparison to what would have happened when something even better was invented a year later but was prohibited by the rule from being deployed. (As evidence for this, the original 737 was introduced prior to the moon landing.)

It's also problematic to look only at the one target. If we improve aircraft safety per mile but only by making aircraft more expensive (or destroying competition, which does the same thing), that makes flying less competitive against alternatives that are much more dangerous, like driving. So you can get a safety improvement on paper even though the result is more people are killed.

That doesn't mean you can't make a rule that actually improves safety, but it's harder than it seems to get it right.
Evolution is largely a winnowing process. What doesn't die before it can successfully reproduce "wins."

This is the explanation behind genetic disorders being more common in certain populations. Sickle Cell Anemia (2 copies of defective gene) is terrible, but Sickle Cell Trait (1 copy) protects against Malaria. Having one copy is advantageous in areas where Malaria is endemic.

But I wouldn't go so far as to say evolution isn't even trying. Bacteria apparently produce more mutations than normal in hostile environments, apparently a form of gambling on anything being better than what we are d meoing currently.
I love (and I mean LOOOOOOVEEEEE) food, eating and feeling full or even overfed. So doing straight multi-day fasting is extremely hard for me, psychologically / motivationally.

However, I'm quite lucky in that I don't really get hungry very soon, if I don't eat. It's quite a weird effect; if I eat in the morning, I'll be hungry throughout the day, but if I skip breakfast (or even lunch), I'll only get hungry towards the evening.

So I just skip breakfast (almost always) and lunch (when I want to lose weight). Greatest diet hack I've ever discovered (actually, psychological hack).
> Boeing’s customers wanted the Max to be built on the 737 platform.

You say that as if that's an excuse. What Boeing's customers wanted is irrelevant, but in any case, your claim is incorrect.

Airlines just want a plane that can make them money. Boeing could have build them a plane much better than the MAX, but they chose not to because if they had done so, then the airlines would have the option to switch to Airbus.
The Airbus option would not be on the table if Boeing was just selling them another 737 variant.
I'd say India is closer to that goal than Africa. Whilst the chinese investment in Africa has been substantial, it isn't free. With that, any advances in Africa might happen, the cost may equally help China.

That all said, climate change is a huge factor that cannot be discounted and will be more impacting than is currently factored in business and with that, countries economies.
It seems like only a handful of people ever made them and it probably didn’t even last for very long after Archimedes died. It was essentially an extraordinarily expensive toy.
The group is suggesting that its members will make some of their products unavailable to Australian users if regulations they deem unacceptable are imposed.

It's plausible. Australia's population is about 25 million. Assuming 90% of the population uses Facebook, they're under 1% of Facebook's userbase. That's enough of a loss to care about, but not so much that the company couldn't consider it as an option.
I would recommend David Sinclair and Jason Fung in terms of resources for this to understand first why intermittent fasting is good for you but of course appropriately applied for the individual. If you start to understand the whys and stop listening to specific people's testimonials or crazy routines in some cases (from your perspective), you'll tailor it appropriately to your life if its something you want to do. Personally, I found it quite easy to incorporate and with great benefit.