khr

Interesting idea, and it sounds like you like the results, so kudos.

My musical taste tends toward less produced, rougher/lo-fi recordings, e.g. Guided By Voices. So, it follows that I prefer the original recordings.

There is one aspect that I find slightly dehumanizing -- the AI changed the singer's voice so drastically that I don't recognize the original singer anymore. The uniqueness of the voice has been smoothed out to be much more generic. For me, music (and art in general) is in part an expression of one's identity, so I'd consider this a negative outcome. I'm sure similar things could be said of the instrument performances as well.

But again, this is all just my two cents, and it's a matter of taste. Ultimately if you're happy with the results, that's what matters!

I found out that the adhesives I've encountered from time to time that remain tacky and easily moved or removed are called "non-hardening" adhesives. This was after using E8000 glue for a headphone repair today.

You can, depending on your definition of "useful". You can buy a cheap laser pointer, take out its lens, and put it over your camera lens. Tape it onto the lens for a temporary janky version or make a 3d-printed mount for something much better that you can easily take on/off.

I've personally found this little hack useful, but then again I don't have a DSLR and macro lens!

Yes, on my Thinkpad I could remap it with Powertoys. It looks like the sibling comments have had issues though.

For me, the Copilot key outputs the chord "Win (Left) + Shift (Left) + F23". I remapped it to "Ctrl (Right)" and it's functioning as it should.

Thanks for making this! I'm very tempted to get one of these to do some ssVEP stuff.

Do you have plans to make a 16-channel (or 32-channel?) board in the future? In my area of research, 32 channels tends to be the recommended minimum for studies.

Not to take away from some of these comments, but the article does not mention anything about casual observation of the eyes signalling mental health issues. The article is highlighting research on diagnosing disorders of the brain using ophthalmological methods (e.g. optical coherence tomography to measure retinal thickness, electroretinography to measure electrical signaling in rods and cones, and angiography to assess retinal vasculature). Apparently, these non-invasive methods may be used as an additional diagnostic tool in diagnosis of a variety of disorders, and may even be early indicators of brain disorders that have not yet manifested themselves in psychological disturbances.

In that case, perhaps "A Book about Creating Aircraft Scale Drawings with Inkscape and Gimp" would be more appropriate?

I feel the same way. I think this explanation of the transition has been mentioned on HN before:

1) The Internet was created. Early adopters are generally optimistic about its potential to share knowledge and data, and form communities around mutual interests. 2) People begin to realize different ways to create money from this popular new technology, leading to very obvious attempts at creating revenue at some expense of users attention (e.g. advertising), followed by more hidden ways of revenue creation (e.g. selling data).

I also find it hard not to despair. There are still online communities that are still more motivated by communicating and sharing for their own sake (HN included), which I think should be the aspiration of online communities. Most people here have probably just settled into the online communities/blogs that serve these more optimistic goals. The unfortunate thing is that as soon as these communities become relatively popular in any way, other motives start to come to the fore to take advantage of that popularity. As those motives become clear, cynicism is inevitable. It seems to me that you might need something like benevolent community leaders that want to pour their own resources (time and/or money) into online communities without expecting anything in return.

I guess this comment didn't really offer ways to deal with cynicism regarding technology, if anything I justified the cynicism and suggested an option to create communities that would not breed cynicism.

My non-engineer guess is that a nylon brush would be shaved down pretty quickly by rail contact at typical train speeds, so that it would be ineffective at removing debris after a very short time.

Sure, there is subjectivity in the ways researchers operationalize the concepts that they study. That doesn't mean that their research is not "real science". If the study is of sound design and the result is replicable, it ought to be called science.

Regarding the self-measurements influencing the results: the wisdom in the participants' reasoning (the dependent variable in the focal study) was evaluated by two independent hypothesis-blind raters. This seems like a pretty solid evaluation of the participants which should be immune to anything but the manipulation the researchers employed (the diary conditions). I am not sure what self-measurement you are concerned about.