waster

Some emigrated or fled; some (if they had leadership aspirations) were killed or imprisoned; and many may be keeping their heads low so as to avoid drawing attention from the current regime. Unfortunately.

They said “we compare outcomes for children who are similar across observable characteristics but differ in eligibility for intervention due to blood lead test results.” Economic status is observable, so ide guess it’s I caused; but I only read the abstract.

We previously knew about life in the hydrothermal vents. That was indeed the basis for the planned Europa exploration. but this is about life underneath the vents, and if I understand correctly, the way that life travels through cracks in the crust.

Oldest Homo sapiens remains are from much earlier, Morocco region, appx 300k years ago. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/essential-time...

If I'm not mistaken, protection of delicate environment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_on_Environmental_Prot...

Replying to one's own comment.

The most recent image is near-infrared light (per the captions), so the parts of the image that look brightest are where the most near-infrared light is. Also, it's a star nursery, so areas brightest are (I believe) where the new stars are forming. If they're the biggest source of near-infrared light in the area, that would explain the lighting angles.

This:

> Dogs can work through many samples quickly, at a low cost, with minimal or no interaction with patients. For example, healthcare workers can collect breath, sweat, urine, or blood samples for dogs to process, rather than having the dog examine patients directly. This allows the dogs to work with minimal environmental distraction, and bypasses the necessity to work directly with patients who may be uncomfortable around dogs.

I'm a Fiore scholar-level longsword practitioner and cannot say enough amazing things about learning to use weapons like this based on historic manuscripts. It's why my HN username is "waster" – we train from the start with wooden wasters (practice swords), as was done historically. If you're in the SF Bay Area and care to learn, check out swordfightingschool.com; or search for a HEMA (Historical European Martial Arts) school or club near you.

C-section can have its own traumas. For months after being born, my (c-section-born) son would startle and cry horribly at anything that made a snick-snick scissors sound, including certain doors/doorknobs, metal chopsticks, etc. And think of it from the evolutionary perspective and the baby-being-born perspective (vs. our external perspective, birthing or watching/helping), and maybe we can posit shock at the transitions that happen with a c-section (inside, cozy and familiar, and then BOOM: Cold! Bright! Lack of pressure! Loud!).

Except for service dogs.

I have had quite different experience. I have traveled a fair amount with my son and his medium-sized, and thus atypical-looking service dog. TSA has never given us any kind of special treatment, except once late at night in Denver when an agent allowed us to go through the pre-check lane and thus not wait in a long line. Even then, we still had to go through all the same procedures as the full lane: Shoes off, gear out and screened as usual, service dog gear off, me carry or walk with service dog through screener, swab my hands, and only with all-clear, be allowed to recollect gear.

This is a fascinating set of checklists; thanks for sharing it.

Yes, this. And 10 minutes a day may be more like 2 minutes or 5 minutes for some people, or like once a week. OP mentioned that you need to find a reason (paraphrasing, sorry); but with that reason, you can change something, and small changes really do add up.

There are actually specific terms to label intelligence based on the number of standard deviations from the norm (100 IQ). Two to 3 SD's is highly gifted; 4-5 is exceptionally gifted; and 6+ SD's is profoundly gifted. The numbers change depending on what IQ instrument is used, but the terms for those SD brackets remain the same. I forget what Mensa's IQ threshold is and what IQ instruments they accept as measures (I was a Mensa member for a year about 10 years ago, but they took my only available score, a GRE score, as proof), but it's possible that "exceptionally smart" is technically correct, based on SD thresholds.

How good you are at academics actually correlates with IQ only up to a certain extent. When your IQ is more than 3-4 standard deviations from the norm, academic high performance is less likely, most likely because thinking and learning patterns in that segment of the population are so dramatically different from how material is taught (and from how it is learned by everybody else). Source: I've worked with a lot of the nation's (and world's) leading specialists on profound giftedness and twice exceptionality, especially in kids. There is literature and research on this, but sample sizes are (obviously, for statistical reasons) small.

Agreed (smart person = smart no matter the activity), though that doesn't necessarily mean they will succeed at any given activity. I am always struck more by the connections that smart people make: The _really_ smart people often have this broad, even vast set of knowledge across many domains and can make connections across them that permit leaps of understanding that less smart people have a hard time following. Ironically, the really smart people are themselves struck by just how much they don't know.

To take an example, with a caveat because I'm only a small way in, _The Book of Martial Power_ by Steven J. Perlman looks at the underlying factors that make all martial arts function. He starts by identifying core principles they all have in common, no mean feat for martial arts ranging from tai chi to boxing and kung fu. He recognizes common elements, and does such a good job at reducing them to their core essence that it allows the reader to recognize how these could then apply to yet broader fields than martial arts, much the way people have both amusingly and annoyingly published books aplenty on _The Art of [Field Noun]_.

Could a persistent and only mildly smart person make these connections and recognize the commonality? I don't know. Maybe substantial persistence would allow someone to make huge progress, but I'm talking about mild smartness, not Einstein smartness. (Note that Einstein didn't self-identify as being brilliant, but did as being persistent. I'm not convinced about lack of brilliance, but he certainly was persistent. I'm also not sure I believe the estimates that his IQ was around 160, but that's the subject for many other conversations.)

Anyway, I think your (0xFFC's) point about being good at multiple fields doesn't conflict with this; in fact it is the recognition of the patterns across fields that allows smart people to be good at more than one/many fields.

I think the key takeaway that led to the title is that last quote from him, paraphrased: At 94, you don't worry about losing your job. Presumably he's saying he's taking huge risks/being bold/not worrying about following other people's advice or conventional wisdom? He can do this (again, presumably) because he can live off his retirement funds/investments for what's left of his life. And he's already got major success behind him that can continue to define him, even if he hadn't come up with this new promising battery now.

So from the perspective of younger (than 94) people, is there anything we can do to emulate his experience? Take huge risks/be bold/don't follow conventional wisdom? It's risky, if you have anything to lose. It's seriously impressive when someone pulls it off, though, and those are the stories we pass on in the media and over coffee or beer.

You take what you have (good or not), and make the best of it. That includes what you choose to do with your reaction to things. We all have emotions, and emotional reactions to situations. Recognize that, respect the emotion, and then move beyond it to something positive, productive, constructive.

It's not easy. With practice it becomes easier.

I see the date of the event is on your eventbrite site, but you might get more participation from HN readers by having the date right here -- readers may fail to realize this is coming right up.

Maybe too soon for me to be answering, but I'm running two now, though one is not-for-profit. The for-profit one I founded in part to generate a percentage of profit to seed the not-for-profit.

I say too soon because I haven't released the for-profit one to the world yet (still coding). The nonprofit has generated substantial interest in its field, despite minimal funding to date, and netted me one full-time job offer at the pinnacle of the field, and likely played a role in some other contracts I've had since.

But I don't know that two at once is right for most people. It's pretty insane, and probably only works for now because the nonprofit is in partial operation (advocacy) and the for-profit is in development. But then both are seriously big-scale in terms of their aims, so maybe that doesn't help, given that you said both of yours are small.

Interesting article. I've seen houses demolished by hurricanes in the Caribbean; I bet this could be adapted for that use, as well.

I'm getting a 404 - Page not found. Have another link? This sounds like a very cool project.

Yeah, uncomfortably close to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempeh.

I'd add that though we've adapted to the look of a cursor, the designer in me cringes at the thought of outlined text (though I'm willing to allow that there are probably applications of this that work elegantly; I just can't picture any).

Sometimes the answer might be yet a different color of text (not black or white), although that too has design downfalls.

But all that said, tools to help text and other elements adapt to background images are mighty helpful. I'd definitely consider using this, even as is.

Actually this seems ridiculously convenient, if I'm sitting at my computer (which I almost always am). Easier than picking up my phone and setting a timer, even.

A little late, given https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6427390.

I'd caveat to say Twitter, with a grain of salt. Calculate in sheer numbers, and heavily trending stuff tends to be really informative.

Ditto, but set not to U.S. For some reason (I could speculate but won't bother), the International BBC site has actual news, whereas the U.S. BBC site has, well, not sensationalist articles exactly, but certainly the mayhem/scandal angle U.S. typical audiences seem to eat like ice cream.

Also, Google News. No idea what their algorithm is (most clicks, weighted with trustworthiness of site, but not always?), but they usually have a good range of coverage, and beyond the initial three articles in any given section, can actually provide really interesting articles.

Edit: Actually, and also HN.

Though true for a certain subset, otherwise this is not entirely accurate. Impostor syndrome is common among those with extraordinarily high IQs: the highly gifted (3-4 standard deviations from the mean), exceptionally gifted (more so; 5-6 SD's from the mean), and profoundly gifted (in particular; more than 6 SD's from the mean). This is true even for children, who obviously can't be considered to have "made it" or not.

Impostor syndrome is insidious. You know what you know/are extremely fast to spot patterns others don't seem to notice, especially others of your age/experience. But you're just you, like you've always been; and you realize that at any time, someone could call you out for being just like anyone else, because how do you know how everyone else's thought process works? After all, you're just spotting patterns, accumulating data, and winging it. Little do you realize that that proficient/effective pattern-spotting is intelligence (or at least, one measure; measurement tools don't really count creativity, for example, which may be core to true genius, along with a host of other characteristics).