trentgreene

"Look. We’re not going to beat around the bush" during the _fourth_ meeting made me chuckle

I admire your tenacity -- after a certain hour on a Friday, I try to avoid other peoples diffs :)

This brings me joy -- a problem well expressed, and a quick and helpful response

Don't get me started on the loans either -- sometimes those incentives aren't just incentives, but necessary outcomes given your financial state exiting med school. I know folks who emerged from residency (where they moonlighted too!) with 500 credit scores and debt that can be described as multiple new Ferraris. They'd laugh at the idea of anything but practice

Yeah, this is the really hard part about medical research. At the individual level for those who are really qualified to do it, the incentives lean in favor of practice, where your comp is 4x-10x higher

You're correct, but also, "the pandemic" in that sense is so broad that it's not super helpful. It often feels equivalent to saying "the culture of the 60s produced Jimi Hendrix". What culture? What about it? Just artistic trends, or economic factors, or political factors? (which are themselves hand-wavy terms, and not all inclusive). It feels lazy

I have similar experiences to you to this kind of stuff, and will add to that another layer of analysis -- racking your brain for all the beliefs and experiences you have that contradict each other.

I have no belief in the supernatural, paranormal, or any hocus pocus. I don't believe in ghosts. But, conversely, I've had an experience that I've a hard time explaining as anything but a ghost. My dad lived in a house that once was used as a pheasantry, but no pheasants lived on the land for ~100 years. At night, though, I and many other folks would hear pheasants coming from inside the conservatory, where the pheasants used to be hung after slaughter. On many investigations, no source of the noise was ever discovered.

The only way I can harmonize the two is to just avoid thinking about it. If asked if I believe in ghosts, I say no. If asked if I've ever experienced a ghost, I recall this experience.

I don't mean this as some spooky tale or suggestion that anything mystical is possible, just one account of the weird ways evidence and beliefs work.

I'd bet that high number of households that have dogs is one reason we have lower rates of dog related injuries. Well fed pets behave quite different to street dogs

I'm an American dog lover, and was surprised when all of my Vietnamese-family-by-marriage voiced similar perspectives. Stray dogs were a serious, common threat that could kill you.

Because there are medications that "must" be administered intravenously or in the muscle. There's no test that can only be performed via canine.

I see your point about commenting on sentences, but would also argue that academic writing provides a better model for this via quotations and references

I’ve rearchitected my data flow for cycling multiple times now, and it’s frustrating to do it again

Descartes described animals as being basically machines without sensation, and I recall many college debates with a Kantian prof who towed a similar line (probs rhetorically, defending the text). More examples of this probably exist, the extent to which there were widely held beliefs pro or against I’m unsure. I don’t mean to be hand wavy maliciously, I just have distinct memories of some of these zany ideas from an almost degree in modern Phil

I don’t disagree with you, but to the parents point, there’s a pretty long philosophical -> scientific history which held that animals didn’t have emotions

“ Meetings would go phenomenally well.

VCs would get excited, and many even commit to term sheets.

Then, mysteriously, they’d back away. ”

I am but a lowly code slinging peasant, but my dad raised some serious cash in his day. I’ve heard this exact story more times than I can count.

The inflection however wasn’t conspiratorial; it’s that your idea / meeting / pitch was strong but not strong enough in the end, and a soft unspoken “no” helps maintain relationships (its a small world!)

Yeah... but that "eventually" is metabolically relevant. Anecdata, but 250g / day of complex carb felt very different to 125g simple carb + 125g complex carb / day. As an athlete, and at one point a keto based athlete, I'm confident that carbs per se were not the enemy.

I think op is referring to the article, which uses "Autistic" no matter sentence position. Strangely, they use "non-autistic", though I'm unsure of any hardcore style rules about this

The double contrast is a huge smell for writing. Consider the general form:

Proposition A

However, Proposition B

In Contrast (or any other contradictory linking phrase), Proposition C

Have you considered it? Now answer two questions: - Do you think Proposition C is in contrast to A or B? or neither? - Have you ever seen this general form in _good_ writing?

Dope! That is... older than I expected

IIRC, Wittgenstein describes the usage of type to create a smile face in one of his writings and provides an example (I want to say I saw this in Culture and Value, a collection released in 1970). He died in 1951.

This is of course, not to throw shade on the authors claim to original invention. I believe that without doubt :)

I wonder if the touch points of the old violin were modern — I.e new bow, new chin rest, strings. Really would just leave the thumb the the fretting hand on the old surface.

Note, am not an actual violin player. But can speak to the sax example, you’re hands are all over the keys, so a VI feels very diff from a VII or series III

TBH, having worked in big companies, I don't really trust the quality of their research without really thinking through it myself -- is there a non-paywall version of that article that has specifics about what the data showed?

More direct to your question: Not necessarily anything more than their research, but something that details what specifically their research shows and what those research methods were?

FWIW: I did end up finding a nonpaywall version, and the research wasn't super reliable / great. They asked people specifically how instagram made them feel, which is subject to a lot of biases and not a solid objective indicator. I understand it may be the best we do, but that's not a great reason to trust it.

Related: Does anyone know of any studies that actually isolates social media as harmful to well being? Time spent on social media is a poor indicator given that it could be valuable escapism. Like any comparison of kids who have _no_ exposure to social media, but share otherwise identical socio-economic situations?

Lukewarm take: It's hard to isolate FB as a major determiner in kids well being when its rise (and controversy) coincides with declining economic opportunities and massive political instability. Was Facebook the reason I was depressed as a teenager, or was it that my single mom was visibly living paycheck to paycheck? Hard to say.

In the UK, it's 99%, and I'd bet there's not a huge difference in talent

Correct -- so when thinking through your idea, be mindful of your dependencies.