neuronerdgirl

Boeing is a word that looks like a proper noun and, more importantly, is a much more well-known company than DJI. Moreover, for those of us who don't know it's a company, DJI looks like an acronym, so the writer should have clarified, aka defined it.

Right but the salary ranges here are not that tipping point. Sure, a coke is a coke, but how many people can even consider the other options when it's 5 dozen for $10 for that or 5.99 for 8 Aura Boras? Having significant excess income allows you to stop making minimum choices and start choosing for quality, which leads to lots of benefits. For example, you may want to source your groceries from local farms and small grocers, which keeps money in the local economy rather than pushing it back to shareholders at kroger or amazon. You can afford high quality natural materials for your clothing a la the boots problem, leading to both greater longevity of your own personal wardrobe and also a reduction in microplastics down the road. You can consider the full range of brands of sodas, some of which are both smaller creators and perhaps zero calorie too, making you slightly healthier and at the same time pushing competition in favor of newer innovative companies.

I think what we are seeing in these data is that people with less than enough money to have even started to conceive of these decision points simply don't factor it into their perceived desires for more income at all, and that has a sort of cliff effect on desired salary increases that falls off once people actually get out of the rut of survival wages. No one at 200k is being forced to buy the cheapest everything and pinching the pennies, but theyre also in no way "set for life" unless they've indeed been doing so.

God I'm glad I'm not the only one. I'm working on getting a newsletter up and running and I'm so focused on best writing practices and these guys can't even remember to define their acronyms first?

Learning styles is bunk because it's effectively a practice effect that's self-reinforcing, not because we don't have preferences at all. So the fact that you have not found utility innately in those schematics (per this thesis, i'm just using it to illustrate the learning concept) would mean that you have not had as much interactive exposure with it, and you therefore decline to engage with them. The bunk aspect of learning styles is that you could deliberately engage with them and doing so (again, in a theoretical learning context, not doing work) in combination with other ways of engaging with the code stack would lead to better and deeper learning than just sticking with what you are comfortable with. Plus the added bonus of you improving your use of the schematics for future learning endeavors. So to your point, in learning, "different strokes for different folks" just reflects the methods of learning you have been most exposed to, and is quite malleable!

And smell and bacterial levels are absolutely correlated

Teachers don't actually get a 3 month vacation in summer, they just do a shitton of unpaid labor to prep for the next school year while being told they should be grateful

HN has a lot of people who are quite smart but have not been through graduate school or academia, so they don't realize just how niche the type of training and topic-specific knowledge you get in that world is relative to a classic university-to-industry track. I think that is true for the general populace too - it takes doing the depth of learning and research you have to do for a PhD to realize just how much there is to be known about even the narrowest slice of a topic even relative to the most intense casual enthusiasts. I suspect this is a major reason for the high levels of impostor syndrome seen in academia, but that is a tangent.

Neuroscience is also a field that mostly happens within academia, unlike something like computer science where a ton of work legitimately is being done at the types of companies many HN users work at, so where you can indeed get something approaching expert-level knowledge on the job in some cases in the latter, almost no one on the forum has enough exposure to be an expert in the former. Couple that with the previous thesis and you end up with a bunch of people who don't know what they don't know (I will not be engaging on Dunning Kruger in this thread). That plus, perhaps, a bit of hubris and you're gonna get a wonky comment section.

One small suggested addendum: 1.5) read the last paragraph or two of the intro. Most good papers spend these paragraphs laying out their study and their expected and alternate hypotheses. It's a quick way to go from the floaty higher order topics covered in the abstract and discussion and drill into exactly what the scope of the paper actually is.

You can't see the point of elucidating the nuances of the way the brain encodes the information around us? Surely even if you see no value in basic science of this nature in and of itself (in my opinion a mistake) there are myriad application-based reasons to understand how the brain works, including both medical progress and the brain's influence on artificial intelligence designs.

It does not, just that both dimensions are coded for in some way. Per the current article, temporal and spatial codes have been previously studied in isolation, so it was not known if or how they might be intertwined. This has elucidated new nuances of that relationship.

I truly have no idea what you are advocating for here.

That's certainly a potential follow up hypothesis. Surely this study can be improved, but conversely not every study has to answer every question or be perfectly ecologically valid before it is worthy of publication. For all its faults, the scope of these results is clear, and worth discussing. The authors have a hypothesis - women visually assess scenes differently to men when in the context of walking through them - and have chosen an operationalization that, while not literally strapping an eye tracker to someone while they walk through campus, is a reasonable proxy for it within the time, budget, and technology constraints of the research group. This effort has produced a clear result. Future studies can now be developed that improve the design methodologically and ecologically and dig into alternatives and further nuances.

An interesting off the cuff alternative hypothesis that could be tested in a future study for sure. Though if I were the authors before I did that study I would do a pretty big lit review of gender differences in foveal vs peripheral visual engagement. Is there any evidence that men might use their peripheral vision differently from women in the first place? (This is just a thought exercise, I don't have an answer and am not asking for one)