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.
You can do all of this stuff yet the small lot milk is only $8 and the smoothie at Erewhon is only like $10 still. This is what they mean by things being more expensive for poor people. Even with being choosy, prices can only realistically be so high. Say you are a working professional: the local economy by default has to price things such where they are somewhat affordable to a certain number of people to support the business. Unless you live in Monaco chances are you having a degree and using it in your work puts you at the elite end of the wage earning scale in your local city. Therefore to satisfy business cases, things are relatively cheaper for you and relatively more expensive for everyone else. This is true for coca cola, erewhon smoothies, local farmers markets, cars, plane tickets, and homes. Whatever it is. It's even more egregious for the filthy rich. How shameful we let someone like Lionel Messi only pay $10 for an Erewhon smoothie or only $100k for a mercedes considering what that relatively means to their bottom line compared to what it means for ours.
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?
> and these guys can't even remember to define their acronyms first?
DJI is not an acronym, it's the name of a company. And DJI is the most famous drone company; asking to "define DJI", on an article for a site about drones like that one, would be like asking to "define Boeing" on an article for a site about airplanes.
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.
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!
Maybe, but as I get older I find this sort of stuff increasingly unconvincing. I've had a lot of time to get a lot of exposure to a lot of different things now, and I have more faith in my own sense of my preferences than in "well you just haven't done the other stuff enough!" now.
I think people prefer different things because they prefer different things.
They are. But the solution to each might be different. And given the specific argument being contested here is whether beer was drank because it was considered safer, understanding their motives is pretty fundamental to that discussion.
The motives don't always have understanding of the root cause however. We knew that eating raw meat was unsafe even though we didn't know about salmonella.
That's exactly my point. This whole conversation is about whether beer was drank because water was unsafe. Understanding what their understanding of "unsafe" was, and what they considered the remedy, is central to this discussion.
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.
To clarify, I did my PhD in an immunology department in a top US grad school, and I attended the talks by the actual authors of some of these seminal works in the neuroscience department next door. My question was not an indictment on all basic neuroscience but a request for clarification on how this particular mode of questioning (pointing out that there are grid cells or time and place cells) is productive in us figuring out our brains.
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.
>Babies should be public property and let gov handle them when parents do not meet the intelligence criteria.
The lead was buried but it was there. While I - somewhat - agree with their notion/premise, it only works in governments with a modicum of socialism implemented.
I had the inverse experience from the original commenter: I was promised a test to earn the equivalent credit in school (and advance) but, after waiting and gentling prodding for over half a year, nothing came to fruition. I gave up. If no one else cared, why should I?
Depending on a mostly apathetic system can be as bad as apathetic parents - from first-hand experience.
I don't presume to have a solution, to be sure, but bad parents and/or bad systems aren't easily overcome.
I hope you don't mind the correction and apologies if you do, but it's actually "the lede was buried," where lede refers to structured writing in which the opening sentence of a paragraph summarises the most important parts of a narrative.
Here is another explanation that points to the telegraph being the origin, although they could only find one reference to it, while siting countless examples of it not being used outside of this very specific context.
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.