Hacker News Reader

Comment by anotherhue | Hacker News Reader

intra-neuronal communication, not 'talking to people' (tiring as that may be).

Thank you for this specification as the OP hasn't put it in the title. Before reading your comment I thought the article is about human interaction.

Maybe it’s because I’ve been spending too much time thinking about packets, but I thought it was “digital” communication.

I believe you mean inter-neural communication? But, in consequence, by “computation” they must mean intra-neural computation? Because otherwise (i.e. for inter-neural computation) the “communication” would be an integral part of the computation. Or do they really mean that most of the energy cost of neural computation must be attributed to inter-neural communication?

It’s crazy how I was willing to believe that this is what the article was talking about without even opening it. Authors should be more specific, a lot of misinformation could be spread through misleading titles.

"Communication in the human cortex" seems pretty clear. The abstract is there for an extended summary if one doesn't wish to read the whole article.

One cannot possibly understand the nuances of something without reading it; I do not feel knowledge gained through reading titles of articles is usable knowledge. Perhaps one should consider changing the habits of the reader rather than the author?

A lot of that nuance would be quickly forgotten, but the info from a good title could last a long time.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com