- Vinay Prasad MD MPH ( https://youtu.be/NR_ZVzrTeYk?t=47 )
Source used by the video author from nature.com: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01630-0.pdf
146 karma · joined April 7, 2018
- Vinay Prasad MD MPH ( https://youtu.be/NR_ZVzrTeYk?t=47 )
Source used by the video author from nature.com: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01630-0.pdf
https://affinity.serif.com/en-us/
I personally like Affinity Designer and have designed quite a few things with it. They are behind illustrator on features, I can't deny that, but I've been able to find answers to everything I needed.
Also they have solid developers working on the app. Check out this technical explanation of performance improvements to their rendering pipleline:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnfxzknVK_0
For a photoshop replacement, however, I would say Krita hands down. Again, its not as polished as photoshop, but I prefer it over Photoshop at this point even with all its rough edges. I really need to make a video or something about how to set it up and use it correctly but I think its got a lot more going for it.
Which is not news to me... nor science for that matter.
A big part of why memory works the way it does is because experiences are what get processed and catalogued when you sleep. If that experience is lacking, i.e. simply reading by itself, then the only thing you get are the words-"memes" running through your brain. What you need is that lived physical experience to be imprinted into memory.
I've tried Cal Newport's calendaring system as well, which is more or less a bullet journal + timeline and I thought it was somewhat helpful, but in the end it was too tedious.
The thing that doesn't work for me is that If I don't finish something within a timeframe, its not worth context switching. Other times it made no sense to take on a task at a specific time.
Sometimes its just better to have a simple list and wing the rest of it. Don't overcomplicate your life if you don't have to.
You might be able to consider that a pivot, since she had been saying "drop of blood" the whole time.
It was Holmes' unwavering attitude to imitate Steve Jobs that got in the way of her decisions, and I think more than a pivot of product, that a pivot away from this ideology could have saved Theranos. Willingness to give up on perfect design in order to acquire a working engineered product could have made a world of a difference.
Speaking of meta though, I have to say, I still stand by my initial thought that an alternate rating mechanic is at least worth exploring, as the upvote/downvote feels like a system from an earlier era before anyone realized how large its social impact could be. I'd be interested to know what the ideal system that promotes a healthy convergence to the center (rather than one that increases polarization) would look like.
I can't deny the effects of great moderation/cultivation, that they are the most important part, but being a technologist I still want to see what happens when the variables are tweaked.
We've seen how the upvote/downvote w/ranking systems play, I'm not a big fan of what reddit has become lately, and I wonder where HN would be without great moderators. At the very least it would be refreshing to see how alternative mechanics lead to different communities.
Sort of related is this thought, Wikipedia is an MMORPG: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_an_MMOR...
Getting in the weeds here, but then if others agree with the downvote rationale, they can upvote the downvote which can be used as some metric. This already happens on HN and reddit - people downvote all the time then provide a reason, but not all people provide a reason for their disagreement, allowing for useless downvotes that dont help the community in any way - for example an "ad hominem" downvote. What this means is that disagreeing opinions are allowed attacks without any risk of retaliation, and in what game is that ever fair?
But from a sociological standpoint there's a strong case for its inclusion.
The reason there even is a divide in politics is because people lean towards one style of thinking. To either stay cautious and follow historical precedence, or to believe change is needed and want to move on from it.
Vaccines are the new and most likely to be effective solution, but we don't know its long term side effects simply because it hasn't been around long enough. Ivermectin on the other hand has been around and has been used for many illnesses on many creatures, including people and horses, successfully and may potentially be effective against Covid for which the risks outweigh potential death.
Some people, due to how they think, will never be getting the vaccine short of being strapped in a chair and shot. And that's a good thing, the diversity of thinking patterns is what keeps our species alive. Disparaging them and labeling them as idiots for refusing it, then trying to force feed it to them is bordering on what we should expect of a dystopian government.
Again, its a good thing that some people are unwilling to try new things, it keeps things balanced, but what that also means is they will never be getting vaccinated until there is more evidence. Look further than the simple math of herd immunity, factor in the fact that we aren't cattle to be vaccinated by some statistician, that we all have individual rights and different modalities of making decisions, and suddenly the solution of using vaccination _along with_ alternative drug treatments should make way more sense than trying to replicate some statistical analysis. Vaccinate as many people as possible and for those more cautious with new things, provide treatments that show some promise for which long term effects are known.
But like you said, this whole thing is so politically motivated, I dont see either side giving up any ground.
Someone anonymously disagrees with a statement - but why?
Upvotes, on the other hand, makes sense inherently. Someone agrees to the statement, which is rationalized by itself.
Narcissism/NPD is a result of the mind not being able to accept information that disproves their elevated sense of self worth. Anything that proves them wrong therefore is discarded before it can be processed internally. So when they speak with confidence, its because nothing in their reality can disprove what they are saying, even if what you're saying is true to our shared reality.
This 100%. Once you've interacted with one of these people, you realize how completely insane they have to be to spend as much time as they do doing what they do. All they want is internet power. In real life, they would be that crazy guy in the neighborhood who never shuts up that people just learn to ignore because they know the man doesn't speak with any rationality. Online, they become gods.
If free speech is to be free, then godly reputation internet people should not be allowed to accumulate power, because the personality required to seek it by itself speaks volumes of how opinionated, undemocratic, authoritarian, and morally challenged they are.
The entire family is like a bunch of Darwin's finches.
More like Darwin's finches if designed by H.G. Giger. Cant say that I'd recommend googling "sparidae teeth".What can't be faked is the experience their employees - the team so to speak - have working there. And if the team at large doesn't get along, doesn't believe in what they are working for, well, lets just say they aren't gonna win any championships.