Anecdotal experiences are near worthless when discussing policies, though. Feel insulted all you like; statistically speaking, these resources are wasted. Chances are you'd be equally well off without them.
There's no reason to assume that they work to begin with; pretty much nothing ever does in education. But you can examine the failure of Head Start and the general trends in education costs vs. results to see that the room for improvement is largely used up.
Behaviorists have failed to explain a monkey using a stick to get bananas for the first time. I have little patience for antiquated baloney such as "Emotions are are momentary improvisations to bodily reactions". Do paralyzed people have no emotions now? What about locked-in syndrome?
His broader point about flatness may be justified, but his entire school of thought is no less nonsensical than Freud's, which acolytes also try to revive by sprinkling with modern research from time to time; so this "debunking" leaves me unimpressed.
I have mixed feelings about this. Flux team did contribute to the popularization of this trick, and they were of much help to me for years. But really, inasmuch as this is useful at all, this must be an inbuilt OS feature, so their project is kind of doomed.
Agreed. Can't see this being very difficult to duplicate for a skill say Windows dev. As they say in finance circles...it's got no moat to keep competitors at bay.
[Rumour time]
I've seen (unsubstantiated) rumours on the interwebs that people are seeing different blue light results between flux and (windows) built in when measured with hardware meters. Seems unlikely to me, but thought I'd throw it out there.
That's not it at all and nobody cares about "destructive potential" of screen-emitted photons, though. The actual reasoning behind shift to lower wavelengths is that our circadian rhythms are entrained by ambient light, with "blue" light being assumed as indicative of daytime and "red" tones – of sunset (ergo, time to ramp up melatonin secretion and prepare to sleep).
Ideology of independent working woman seems far more pronounced to me. We all are expected to work, which necessarily makes having children – especially early in life, when they have the highest chance to be healthy – a big bother for women, and feminism doesn't help here in the least, even if it slightly compensates for the issue of "ideology of male breadwinner".
"Ideology of independent working woman" is basically ideology of same expectation on men and women. It does not compensate anything, bias in who is expected to earn more goes other way. A single women does not need to earn more then non-existent husband to feel enough feminine.
In fact only the coastal regions will suffer from sea levels rise per se. But no height will be sufficient to guarantee your safety, sadly, because this is not about literal Great Flood. This is about climate change and hundreds of millions of deperate displaced immigrants from places like Bangladesh who will make everywhere more chaotic than today. We're not prepared for the human part of the catastrophe.
Just so you know, there's half a dozen of equally plausible hypotheses about REM function, and dozens more of more fantastical. Most amusing one yet is about synthesis of molecular chaperones that guard against aggregation of chains produced during NREM. But honestly we just don't know.
Personally I agree with Marcus Schmidt and his idea of "energy allocation function of sleep". Basically it says that distinct physiological states provide viable configurations of priorities for vital functions that allow for the lowest possible energy expenditure over the whole cycle. I.e. there's no single specific function of REM sleep, it hosts all functions that are too costly to prioritize during other states, and the same is true for NREM.
That means that biology uses the same idea of having "background jobs" and worker queues that get more relevant while the main function has a bit less to do: many IT systems will schedule some tasks during the night when there is not much going on, so they can prioritize them because otherwise they wouldn't get a chance during the day.
I wonder if there are universal laws that transcend biology and technology, all following the same rules that we haven't figured out yet.
Everything derives from the laws of physics (well as we understand it now at least; our understanding has and will change in the future) so its not that surprising that in aggregate they would result in similar systems.
I'm not saying its not fascinating though. It is incredibly fascinating, and this kind of research is exactly why we should be investing MORE not less in pure science.
Can you explain to someone without a graduate degree in biochemistry what about "synthesis of molecular chaperones that guard against aggregation of chains produced during NREM" is amusing?
It's not amusing in a bad way, it's not ridiculous. I mean to say that it's highly surprising and counterintuitive, like a punchline in a joke. Most theories about REM are focused on brain function, as is almost all research on it. Chaperone production, though, is a basic housekeeping routine. Saying "well, REM isn't about episodic memory consolidation or dreaming or wherever you might think, it's an epiphenomenon of a very low-level mechanism that prevents boiling alive" is almost as unorthodox as claiming that learning to code is about forearms' dexterity.
Certainly it isn't hardwired in any relevant manner, and people are in fact just fine not reproducing, see vasectomy.
Don't just repeat platitudes. People are killing themselves over not being able to have sex, or rather not being able to prove they're proper functional men. It has at least as much to do with social status as with actual sex.
Knowing you aren't held in respect by your peers doesn't cause depression because of culture or society - every single living organism with some sort of higher brain function gets "depressed" when its peers hold it as less valuable.
This isn't platitudes, this is science, and shows the solution likely isn't down the path of telling people 'losing your junk" jokes are harmful. Choosing to not have kids are far different than having that choice taken from you, and the most viable solution is likely chemical intervention.
E-readers also suck for figures and formulas which are indispensable for any comprehensive education. The most readable textbooks can only be rendered on a big high-res display, on iPad at least.
Cheap 10" tablets are definitely easier to make than cheap 10" E-readers, though.
