779 karma · joined February 14, 2018
Email: <1st remaining word>@<2nd remaining word>.com
Certainly possible, but it seems more likely that the control group would have been exposed to something harmful from the lab environment air versus the CO2 group that was getting medical air.
> And did they have a "good" fan, or a bad fan?
The cheapest 80mm fan I can find on newegg.com is a $3.49 Zalman[1] that is 20-23 dBA. That's comparable to the sound of rustling leaves and far less than the sound of a quiet whisper (30 dBA) or a babbling brook (40 dBA). Someone would have to go out of their way to find an 80mm fan that is so bad that it would be louder than a natural environment.
> The point of making the environment for the exposure and control groups be as near identical as possible is to equalize not only the factors you thought of, but also the factors you didn't think of.
I completely agree. I don't recall seeing a paper I couldn't poke holes in though. The fact that their methods were imperfect does not make the study worthless. They found a modest effect for the given methods. It suggests there may be merit to follow-on studies, which would likely use different methods. That's a useful result that has added new information.
[1] https://www.newegg.com/zalman-f1-led-case-fan/p/N82E16835118...
The paper states that the substrate and changing schedule had been shown to keep ammonia to low levels.
> There's no reason to think the difference in noise was negligible...
Actually, there is. A good 80 mm fan can push more than 10 cubic feet per minute at less than 10 dBA. That's far quieter than a human whisper or rustling leaves. It's comparable to the sound of a pin dropping. If mice are adversely affected by that, I don't see how they could survive the wild.
> Plus, there may well have been other effects of the chamber, such as different light levels, which could also have unknown health effects.
That seems like pure speculation.
I disagree.
They make a very limited conclusion that 890 ppm CO2 appears to modestly impair the lung development of female mice.
They did not observe an adverse effect on either male mice or adult female mice.
They make no claims about people dropping dead or ending up in the hospital with horrible respiratory problems.
The chambers had circulating fans and a medical air supply that prevented the CO2 level from rising above 890 ppm. The substrate and changing schedule were consistent with practices shown to keep ammonia levels to negligible concentrations. Their methods appear reasonable.
Your inflammatory mouse flatulence speculation seems less scientific in comparison.
1) Get a CO2 monitor and partially open a couple windows whenever the level is above 800 ppm. Cost: $60.
2) Get a good air filter such as an IQAir HealthPro+ and pair it with a ducting adapter such as https://www2.iqair.com/sites/default/files/documents/InFlowW.... This will allow you to constantly exchange your indoor air with filtered fresh air. If you don’t want to install a wall intake for the duct, you can connect it to a window adapter like what is used for portable A/C units. Cost: $1,500.
[1] https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/27662232/4892924...
A lower tax rate for corporations altogether would also incentivize the relocation of noncrucial capability. Limiting the incentive to critical capability is less expensive.
It was meant to. My intent was to stimulate thought, not to conclusively prove. There’s great disagreement among researchers studying fertility, income, life expectancy, and such. These are merely my conclusions, which differ from those of many others.
> Do people in America with one or two children really not have more because they think this is maximizing the expected number of grandchildren?
Yes, but my argument is that this is more instinctive than it is conscious thought. For example, women are increasingly having their first child after 30 because they know it is possible to do so successfully and it gives them more time to establish a career and find the best mate. This increases expected resources available per child and expected genetic fitness. In essence, they are instinctively trying to maximize their probability of having children that successfully reproduce, but it tends to lead to fewer children than optimal because our instinct is poorly calibrated to today’s environment.
> I think in American even the working poor commonly have children (often more than the wealthy).
Correct. They also have shorter life expectancy than the wealthy.
It’s a group survival thing. It’s helpful to have some reckless members because they discover solutions that others would never explore. In particular, young males have been prewired by evolution to generally be the most reckless members of a group because they are the most expendable. The number of young females determines a group’s reproductive rate and older members tend to have critical skills, knowledge, and wisdom. I speak as a former young male who explored more than his share of possible solutions for the group.
If we expect a longer lifespan and higher odds of survival for potential children, our instinct is to delay reproduction and have fewer children in order to increase resources available per child.
This instinct developed over a very long period of time, but our technological advances have created a degree of safety and abundance that our instinct was never “trained” on and thus I suspect it is over-suppressing fertility. A longevity breakthrough will appeal to this instinct even more strongly than living in one of today’s highly developed countries. Consequently, I think our instinct will then suppress fertility even further.
SADARM is smaller than a typical toaster and weighs 12 kg.
An even smaller micro-drone could just attack a tank's gun by setting a small charge or providing blockage that would be devastating when the tank fired.
1) Increasing the number of investors, increases a CEO’s effort required to maintain the same quality of investor relationships.
2) An investor doesn’t need to be malicious to be a major problem. Misunderstandings, misinformation, and disagreements are more likely with larger groups of investors. One disgruntled investor in a shareholder meeting can do great damage to perceptions, which can harm your chances of reinvestment from the other investors.
3) If you want to remain a private company, you must keep the number of investors below 2000.
I’m all in favor of constructive criticism that can lead to improvement, but I suspect this book may do more harm than good. Lewis has a history of taking a narrow point of view and inappropriately extrapolating it in a way that evokes strong feelings of misguided righteous indignation. A prime example of this was Flash Boys, which demonized an entire segment of the financial industry that significantly enhances our economy. I still encounter repeated echos of his sensationalized misperceptions coming from intelligent people on HN and elsewhere. I hope we don’t see a repeat with the CDC.
I doubt he would find things much improved in that regard today.
Of course in the meantime, safe browsing practices such as avoiding untrusted Javascript will provide protection. But then, we should always be doing that anyway, so it's not as if this should be changing behavior of the average, security-conscious person. It's just another in an unending series of threats.
China just launched its own digital currency.[1]
“In order to protect our currency sovereignty and legal currency status, we have to plan ahead,” said Mu Changchun, who is shepherding the project at the People’s Bank of China.
China isn’t the only major power that needs to monitor transactions and maintain control of its money supply. There are plenty of capable parties that could launch a 51% attack and they’re unlikely to take responsibility for it afterwards, so reputation is hardly a factor. The fact that another hash algorithm could be used later doesn’t matter. A government doesn’t stop defending its interests just because threats change.
Certainly, there may never be a 51% attack, but it will not be surprising if it happens.
[1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-creates-its-own-digital-c...
If only we knew this was true.
An increase in the number of people running nodes does not guarantee that the maximum trust assigned to any individual participant approaches zero. What is the size of the largest Bitcoin whale? What is the size of the largest Bitcoin cartel? How do you know that the share of the largest Bitcoin whale or cartel isn’t increasing? What prevents China from deciding to eliminate the Bitcoin threat to its control by taking over the Chinese miners and launching a 51% attack?
Even if you are willing to believe that trust is well distributed across many independent entities, you still need to have greater trust in your own security and IT skills. When your wallet is hacked or you lose your credentials, there’s no number to call to recover your Bitcoin.
Bitcoin still requires significant trust, which is often overlooked.
Or, at least not the same 3rd parties. Instead, it requires trusting a much larger host of other 3rd parties, many of which are anonymous, and likely none of which will provide recourse if you lose your bitcoin due to their failure or malicious intent.[1]
Bitcoin represents a shifting of trust; not an elimination of trust. That's not to say there is no value. It's just that there are significant risks involving trust that are overlooked by most holders.
[1] https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2019/02/blockchain_an...
Edit: Here is a more direct answer to your question:
1) Increased localized pressure from contracting muscle pushes lymph away through a vessel.
2) Reduced localized pressure from relaxing muscle allows new lymph to refill the evacuated vessel portion.
3) Lymphatic vessels have valves that keep all this flow moving in the same direction.
4) Given that the lymphatic system is connected to the central nervous system, increased muscular contraction could increase drainage of the brain.
This study appears credible for suggesting an association. The authors do not misrepresent this. They acknowledge it does not determine any causality or solutions.
Determining causality is expensive and time consuming. There is not enough research funding available to do that for every plausible hypothesis. We need retrospective studies such as this to determine where further funding should be applied.
...and located in a seismically active zone that experienced 97 major earthquakes over the last 100 years.
So, 81% of fatality descriptions that identify a breed list "pit bull."
That's a much higher rate of pit bull involvement than I had heard of in the past.
During the next three years, you keep evaluating the opportunities to reverse your transactions, but always calculate that you will make more by continuing to hold the short futures contracts and the copper. You thus end up in the arb for three years.