chansiky

I rather liked the near campy look of some of those puppets. I thought it helped create subtle nostalgia for the original trilogy.

Bingo. Effectively the only message I can take away here is that some organization funded "science" to prove their product is better than their competitor's.

Which is not news to me... nor science for that matter.

Yeah, don't bother with too much technical reading without practicing whats inside. It won't get you that far. Its much better to slog through problems yourself. As an example, following directions from GPS reduces the spatial comprehension because it diminishes your experience of navigating through a space.

A big part of why memory works the way it does is because experiences are what get processed and catalogued when you sleep. If that experience is lacking, i.e. simply reading by itself, then the only thing you get are the words-"memes" running through your brain. What you need is that lived physical experience to be imprinted into memory.

Circular dependency?

I tried it for a short time, but given the ubiquitousness of vi/vim, I just couldn't get myself to commit. I want to keep my muscle memory intact for when I have to ssh into a remote computer somewhere. Which, I guess what I'm saying is, it looks like I'll be attending mass this Sunday.

I've gotten a lot of productivity out of todo lists.

I've tried Cal Newport's calendaring system as well, which is more or less a bullet journal + timeline and I thought it was somewhat helpful, but in the end it was too tedious.

The thing that doesn't work for me is that If I don't finish something within a timeframe, its not worth context switching. Other times it made no sense to take on a task at a specific time.

Sometimes its just better to have a simple list and wing the rest of it. Don't overcomplicate your life if you don't have to.

Based on what one of the engineers of edison were saying, if they could acquire more than a "drop of blood" for analysis, they would have been able to get more accurate results.

You might be able to consider that a pivot, since she had been saying "drop of blood" the whole time.

It was Holmes' unwavering attitude to imitate Steve Jobs that got in the way of her decisions, and I think more than a pivot of product, that a pivot away from this ideology could have saved Theranos. Willingness to give up on perfect design in order to acquire a working engineered product could have made a world of a difference.

Thanks for the write up, just wanted to note that I read through all of this. I get what you're saying about the meta now, clearly I didn't fully understand why that was bad thing.

Speaking of meta though, I have to say, I still stand by my initial thought that an alternate rating mechanic is at least worth exploring, as the upvote/downvote feels like a system from an earlier era before anyone realized how large its social impact could be. I'd be interested to know what the ideal system that promotes a healthy convergence to the center (rather than one that increases polarization) would look like.

I can't deny the effects of great moderation/cultivation, that they are the most important part, but being a technologist I still want to see what happens when the variables are tweaked.

Only the initial downvoting commenter would have to reveal his name. Then others can just bolster the downvote which harms the rating of the original comment, sort of like a "let him without sin be the first to throw the stone" situation. Then others can join in if they agree. And that might hurt if they're throwing stones at us but at least we get to see where the stones are coming from. Currently we dont, we just get stoned and dont know why.

My opinion is downvotes should require a reason for downvote. Upvotes imply aggreement of the original post therefore do not need further explanation.

Getting in the weeds here, but then if others agree with the downvote rationale, they can upvote the downvote which can be used as some metric. This already happens on HN and reddit - people downvote all the time then provide a reason, but not all people provide a reason for their disagreement, allowing for useless downvotes that dont help the community in any way - for example an "ad hominem" downvote. What this means is that disagreeing opinions are allowed attacks without any risk of retaliation, and in what game is that ever fair?

> From a population health standpoint it's clearly not a viable alternative to vaccination

But from a sociological standpoint there's a strong case for its inclusion.

The reason there even is a divide in politics is because people lean towards one style of thinking. To either stay cautious and follow historical precedence, or to believe change is needed and want to move on from it.

Vaccines are the new and most likely to be effective solution, but we don't know its long term side effects simply because it hasn't been around long enough. Ivermectin on the other hand has been around and has been used for many illnesses on many creatures, including people and horses, successfully and may potentially be effective against Covid for which the risks outweigh potential death.

Some people, due to how they think, will never be getting the vaccine short of being strapped in a chair and shot. And that's a good thing, the diversity of thinking patterns is what keeps our species alive. Disparaging them and labeling them as idiots for refusing it, then trying to force feed it to them is bordering on what we should expect of a dystopian government.

Again, its a good thing that some people are unwilling to try new things, it keeps things balanced, but what that also means is they will never be getting vaccinated until there is more evidence. Look further than the simple math of herd immunity, factor in the fact that we aren't cattle to be vaccinated by some statistician, that we all have individual rights and different modalities of making decisions, and suddenly the solution of using vaccination _along with_ alternative drug treatments should make way more sense than trying to replicate some statistical analysis. Vaccinate as many people as possible and for those more cautious with new things, provide treatments that show some promise for which long term effects are known.

But like you said, this whole thing is so politically motivated, I dont see either side giving up any ground.

In terms of agree/disagree, I'd want to add that unrationalized downvotes is not very useful to readers.

Someone anonymously disagrees with a statement - but why?

Upvotes, on the other hand, makes sense inherently. Someone agrees to the statement, which is rationalized by itself.