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!
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.
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)
There is a pretty good argument to be made that asking someone to imagine walking in these scenes and click on areas of interest/concern is at least a partial proxy for where they will actually look when placed in that context. It is not reasonable to wholesale dismiss studies and their results simply because you think they could have operationalized their hypothesis differently or better. These undergrads did a pretty respectable job within the scientific resources at their disposal, and have presented a real result; now science must grapple with what that result is telling us and why these differences occurred. Moreover, one could argue that to your point, if clicking is not actually looking then why is there a difference at all? It's just clicking on a picture right?
It sounds ridiculous as well but neither are women. It's an interesting question to ask why we would see baseline gender differences in the implementation of these concepts. My back of napkin guess is a combination of women being socialized from a young age toward being accommodating to others and similar behaviors while men are less so, combined with the issues of consent and boundaries being a HUGE topic of conversation within women's spheres and again not so much for men. The latter seems to be shifting which may have an effect on the former in time but it's slow and there is significant pushback.
This is a rough take. Not every study has to be fully ecologically valid to show us something interesting about human behavior. The authors have presented you with a real, observed difference. What is your interpretation of that difference? Why do you think there is a difference? These people were ostensibly not told that the study was explicitly investigating gender differences, so why is there one?
Outside of real-world context, both men AND women will naturally focus on objects in a scene that are brighter than their surroundings. What's more interesting here is that the context of an outdoor real world scene with an instruction to imagine walking through it breaks this tendency more in women than in men.
Your peripheral vision has greater ACUITY at night but that doesn't improve its RESOLUTION. Your peripheral vision will be better able to alert you to movements at night. You will still be better able to identify objects - and threats - with your focal vision.
Their point is women largely WEREN'T clicking in the lit up center, even though the men were. Your counter only presumes that men would look more like the women's clicking in real life, but you havent explained the observable difference in clicking behaviors by posing that, it's a different question.
My first thought was the actual publication reads like a student paper, especially the methods. Lo and behold:
> Acknowledgments
The Skaggs Faculty Mentoring Award at BYU for its financial support to mentor undergraduate students in research.
Yea. Overall, the methodology itself appears sound, though this subject is outside my own wheelhouse and I don't feel like doing a full review. But stuff like this:
> Knowing the existence of statistical clusters naturally leads to seeking to discern between those clusters globally and locally, that is, are these clusters arranged in different places in the images between genders and if so, where at?
is really odd to see in a methods section. My biggest surface critique, though, and a knock on both the faculty advisor and the peer reviewers/editors for this journal, is that there is zero explanation of how the authors operationalized "entrapment" in their photos. Moreover, there was nothing stopping them from just explicitly excluding people who were familiar with their non-BYU locations (it's a simple Qualtrics option) which would have strengthened their operationalization of familiar va unfamiliar.
That said, it's an interesting study and a clever way to look at the question in a large group with limited time resources. I'd like to see a VR version with eye tracking for better real-world fidelity.
Imagine that your brain is a company composed of several different departments, each with a different primary function. In any organization, there has to be some communication between departments to get things done. So, for example, the devops department has certain people in charge of working with billing to make sure they can afford and purchase new equipment, the billing department has people that communicate with the accounting department to make sure the equipment requests are in budget, and everyone has an HR contact to make sure they can hire who they need. In a well-functioning organization, these points of departmental contact are typically limited to a few people who are well versed in communicating between teams so there's not too much cross talk. But in some organizations, maybe they have a looser structure, and suddenly devops is getting mixed signals from billing because bobby went ahead with the approval while daren checked with accounting and the budget is out of whack and accounting's oversight procedures fail or don't exist because HR didn't give them the right head count because HR solely consists of brenda who is overworked and underpaid.
So with the brain. There is an optimal number of cross connections between systems to balance flexibility (how quickly devops can get equipment approval) with stability (budget oversight from accounting). Sometimes there are too many connections (bobby and daren), while other times there can be too few (brenda). In ADHD brains, the overall connectivity between systems is higher that this optimal point. This causes a breakdown in this balance toward hyperflexibility (usually - the nuances there are best for another conversation) because target systems are receiving mixed signals a la bobby and daren.
You can't point to that in a vacuum. For boomers and Xs, it was literally less important to be rich, because you could still do quite well for yourself. Since about 2008 if you're not rich you are much more likely to be existentially struggling. So yea millennials think it's important to be rich because those are the only people who can afford houses.
Nobody CAN publish them. An actual criterion for most top journals is literally "novelty". Reviewers will immediately levee "this has been done before" as a damning critique in peer review. There is no replication because you can't currently share replications, let alone sustain a career on them.
Oh for the love of - no. They do not. As a PhD in psychology I am completely unhireable at these places except maybe as a data scientist because I can do basic statistics. This is completely baseless conspiracy thinking. The people doing the UI and UX work at these companies maybe took a couple courses in basic intro psych and marketing.
Oh look, it's the Matt Walker book that reference chains into nowhere and is riddled with errors [1]. Yea, we know about it, and your acquaintance is a massive pain in the ass barrier for us to actually clear out his bad ideas from the mainstream. And fun fact, despite his bad science he's still a tenured professor at UC Berkeley.
If you "legitimately" want efficiency then you support just giving people $250 outright in cash, not locking it behind food stamps. How inefficient is it to give people 250 that theyre locked to spending on only one aspect of their lives? I would posit, having done it myself, that you could easily feed yourself and probably at least 2 people on half that. If the people are left with 125 that they can ONLY use on food, of course they'll use it for junk - at least that gives them some value at least as far as life enjoyment even if it's bad for them. Give them cash and I would bet they'd put it to much better use on bills, outstanding debts, laundry, etc.