certmd

I also found her Introduction and Translator's note very good. She acknowledges her goal was not the most direct word for word accuracy but from what I remember more the general feel to how things would have been interpreted by the audience at the time. After all, these were oral works enjoyed by not just "intellectuals" in ancient Greece. The idea of having a single best translation isn't really the right goal to seek and it really wasn't her aim.

From reading her notes (and her twitter account) I've definitely gained an appreciation of how much an art in itself translation is.

Very much looking forward to Emily Wilson's forthcoming translation. She translated the Odyssey a few years ago, still in verse but with less stilted language, definitely makes it more accessible. Looking forward to reading it to my children when they're just a couple years older.

Probably the same way a medical article ends up on the front page of hacker news. People have interests outside their area of expertise. Which is good!

Love the first comment on the youtube video:

"RIchard Feyman's wife: "WHY did you not take the trash out yet?!"

Richard proceeds to go on a long tirade about electromagnetic forces, gravity, string theory etc. until the wife sighs in despair and takes out the garbage herself. Again."

From the article (as well as other places I've read similar things).

"Why did so many young adults die? As it happens, young adults have the strongest immune systems, which attacked the virus with every weapon possible—including chemicals called cytokines and other microbe-fighting toxins—and the battlefield was the lung. These “cytokine storms” further damaged the patient’s own tissue."

The more robust immune response was a large cause of the increased mortality.

His pieces are usually entertaining. He had a recent one about the Masters golf tournament that was hilarious.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/06/24/inside-the-cul...

By all means, massage your breasts, but I'm not so sure your hypothesis holds up. The paucity of cancers of skeletal muscle is more likely due to cell type (terminally differentiated without much turnover) rather than vascular supply. Carcinomas of the lung and colon are some of the most prevalent (probably still would be even taking environmental factors into account) and those organs get plenty of blood supply. Leukemias also aren't rare and are literally bathed in blood flow.

Matt Levine's take from a few days ago. As usual, humorous and insightful.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-09-24/don-t-...

C-section. n=1

My younger brothers are identical twins, one born vaginally and the other 20 min later via C-section. I've always said they'd be good data for these type of studies.

Anecdotally, they don't really have big differences regarding allergies or autoimmune disorders. Although growing up I always complained one stunk up the bathroom worse than the other.

I found the book "Our Mathematical Universe" by Max Tegmark, a physicist, a pretty good read. His idea is basically that the universe isn't explained by math, it IS math. To get to what he means by that he provides a good review of theoretical physics/cosmology/quantum mechanics. No idea how other physicists think of his work but for someone not in the field who has some interest I thought it was a good overview and even if his ideas are wrong gives you something to think about.

I think a reading of the relevant passage from David Foster Wallace's "Infinite Jest" (from 1996) re: video conversations is appropriate here.

http://declineofscarcity.com/?page_id=2527

Not so sure medicine is afraid to use the word "nuclear". Nuclear medicine a field that patients deal with regularly from getting bone density scans for osteoporosis, thyroid and cardiac imaging, etc. In the US at least the name of the department is plastered on signs in hospitals next to everything else. As for why "nuclear" was dropped from I don't know the exact reason.

Matt Levine on Slack direct listing from a few weeks ago...

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-01-11/direct...

While many on this forum may understand why what this analysis shows is not good science, the article does a poor job of explaining why finding positive results one wasn't originally looking for may not be reliable.

I can imagine a non-statistically minded person thinking "So what it's not what they were looking for originally? We're missing positive findings now. This is a terrible regulation." When in reality these "positive" findings were p-hacked to meet minimum criteria for statistical significance and likely arose by chance since luck would have it that in any study there will be some set of data that by chance is a statistical aberration.

Cannot strongly recommend enough "The Mind Illuminated" by John Yates.

https://www.amazon.com/Mind-Illuminated-Meditation-Integrati...

It's been discussed on HN before (it's how I found it a few years ago) and breaks down meditation in a systematic way while relating the phenomena described in Buddhist texts to current psychological principles. This "moments of consciousness model" of the mind is discussed at length and a short answer to you question is yes, different sensory moments are integrated in "binding moments".