I used to also wait for all the data before I tried things like this. Then due to "reasons" I actually started meditation, daily, for just 10 minutes. I've now been doing it for 3 years and I have no data to give you, but the effects on me are subtle yet profound. If you can spare 10 minutes a day you still won't have any data, but you'll have an answer.
I am here to tell you the placebo effect is nearly impossible to spot from the inside out. Your brain is just not wired to pierce the veil of selection bias without a lot of effort.
You are saying, "Doing X made me feel good." But I am saying that nearly anything in that X spot might do the same. It's just the way the human mind works.
In testing out Piracetam on myself I've been especially aware of this, because even though I _know_ it can happen I still perceive effects that my testing strategy eliminates as just flights of fancy and imagination.
If meditation really is an amazing wonder practice you claim it is then it should hold up to scrutiny no problem. You can keep doing it, and I might even try it. That doesn't mean we should just pretend all the things this article are saying are true.
"Placebo effect has no meaning in this context. Placebo effects are caused by mind rather than a substance. In this case, the entire treatment is in the mind."
If you're a dualist, then okay. But I'm not. And since the mot compelling evidence of the effect of meditation so far presented involves structural changes to the brain, I think you just talked yourself out of a case.
"There are many, many, many studies on the benefits and effects of meditation. If you haven't found any, it's because you are not looking."
Within the context of improving your ability to withstand distraction? Most everything linked here is almost invariably about structural alterations which are surely significant, but not tied to any specific effect.
You may not be a dualist, but you sound like a negativist. It's nobody's job here to convince you of the benefits of meditation beyond the reams of research out there that for some reason you question.
Regardless, the structural changes to the brain are one of the effects, not the cause. The cause is of those structural changes is mental.
The goal here is changes that are highly subjective and personal. If meditation helps people, that is its goal, so to complain there is no evidence is nonsensical.
I guarantee you if you learn to meditate and master a form successfully, you will not be in HN forums demanding evidence.
Transcendental Meditation, as cultish as it is, is one of the most researched forms of meditation and there is a massive amount of research on its benefits. Go have a ball with that.
> You may not be a dualist, but you sound like a negativist. It's nobody's job here to convince you of the benefits of meditation beyond the reams of research out there that for some reason you question.
Likewise, no one gets a free pass on claiming scientific backing on National Skeptics Day without at least something to back it up. You can believe whatever you like! I'm just pointing out that the article does little to source its claims while making a lot of prescriptive suggestions.
> The goal here is changes that are highly subjective and personal. If meditation helps people, that is its goal, so to complain there is no evidence is nonsensical.
> I guarantee you if you learn to meditate and master a form successfully, you will not be in HN forums demanding evidence.
Yes I suppose I might be more prone to selection bias and personal investment if I sink years of my life into something. I'm pretty touchy about coffee that way, I suppose.
When you say stuff like, "You have to try it to understand," it's a huge red flag that suggests you're about to try and sucker someone.
I've learned to keep a log of all the work I do (so I can search for information on request or if I want to recall something months or even years later), but I just use a specially formatted vim file (that has references to other scripts etc. if needed). More recently I've started a personal version of this to keep me on track with my own app projects. I love the look'n'feel of a physical journal, but it's just not practical in the long run for the work I do.
I guess this would be useful in the case of an apocalypse scenario involving mass EM pulses (assuming anyone is still around to build new computers with OCR to reload the code). Better use good acid-fee paper stored at near-vacuum though.
If I can find a computer survived the EM pulses to scan the paper, then most likely I don't need this paper back up anyway. On the other hand if all my data is dead upon the EM pulses attack, I won't put too much faith on the chance of getting hold of any surviving computer.
And so with the RepRap (and some power source/converter) inside a faraday cage (with other physical protections as well), you're saying that this is the ultimate backup system for worst case scenarios? Do you have any links to provide more information about such a setup?
Regarding degradation: CD-Rs degrade because you write them by using a laser to effect chemical changes, and the chemicals can break down. Commercially-produced CDs, on the other hand, are pressed; they are physically molded by being pressed against a "glass master", and the physical pits are much more durable. Making the glass master is expensive, but the incremental cost of pressing is tiny compared to burning CDs.
So, if you could figure out a way to etch CDs instead of burning them, or make the pressing process cheap enough, you could make very durable CDs. Or if you want to make lots of durable copies of one CD, you can do that now with a glass master.
It sounds like it is possible to make longer lasting CDs using a glass master, but it is only practical if I am making lots of copies. So, for purely archival purposes, optical media doesn't really have a process for extending longevity.
Absolutely! Confronting the people who are abusing the system is much more effective and doesn't affect the group morale (the general email would effectively punish everyone because of those few). Managers should, y'know, manage.
Old pianos, or their parts, have been a part of foley for ages. Plenty of foley studios have parts of pianos lying around, for example, the piano harp.
Do you know the sound that the TARDIS makes when it materializes? Part of that sound is someone at the BBC radiophonic workshop scraping a wrench against the strings on a harp from a disassembled piano.
I wish it were so, but though I hate to be cynical, this has been going on (for me) since the early 90's (back then Microsoft was the one everyone connected to) so I doubt that anything is going to change.
Maybe it needs to get worse before the tipping point is reached though and API developers start genuinely caring for the wellbeing of their developers and acting with a greater deal of integrity and empathy.
Established businesses should feel less secure today as it seems far harder for one business to have a stranglehold on the market. Software distribution costs have been lowered by the internet. Development costs have also been lowered because we no need to push wheelbarrows of cash to Oracle, et al. We have better tools, better infrastructure, and shorter development cycles. Marketing is easier, cheaper, and more apt to give rapid feedback.
Network effects are still horrible barriers to overcome on social networks or phone platforms. Once a company has large numbers of active users they tend to win, and once they start winning they have little incentive to care about the well being of individual third party developers. Once they have the eyeballs the third party developers want access to, they can treat most of them like dirt, and they can still count on more lining up to use their API.
If a company like Google struggles to launch a new social network with their existing huge user base, you know its hard. Yes social networks and platforms do die, like MySpace and RIMM, and new ones burst in to prominence like Pinterest or Android, but for every new network or platform that succeeds, hundreds or more probably thousands fail.
Small third party developers have strong incentives to put up with the risks involved in using API's provided by dangerous companies like Twitter, Facebook and Apple because they have to if they want to get access to all the users those companies own.
We see turnover all the time. The network effect is interesting, but creative people can and do overcome it. reddit overcame it by faking user activity until they actually had a community. Facebook overtook MySpace with exclusivity combined with an exponential rollout. LiveJournal lived and died because of its community and the "network effect"; Tumblr has now achieved what LiveJournal had only dreamed about. The network effect is a difficult hurdle to overcome, but the best do and as a result we end up with a "new internet" ever 5-10 years or so. Craigslist might be the next giant to lose their golden star, and I wouldn't be especially surprised if they do.
Google failed in part because they never really communicated what Google+ is. I still don't really grok what it's for or why I should use it, and that's why I don't. They really just didn't produce a compelling product, brand it well, or market it effectively. For whatever reason, Google's marketers doesn't appear to be of the same caliber as their engineers.
Someone will pull Twitter's pants down and at the same time eat their lunch. I love Twitter, but I can't wait to see what cool thing replaces them.
"I still don't really grok what it's for or why I should use it, and that's why"
Uh, its for pretty much the same thing Facebook is for, except you can do lists and make them public or private, you seriously didn't get that?
Or did you just not use it because the people in your network weren't using it. If your friends are already on Facebook there is almost no reason for you to migrate to a new social network where your friends, or chosen thought leaders, aren't active. Maybe you will tack it on as a 3rd, 4th or 5th social network where it will mostly just consume more of your time.
As I said, yes network do rise and fall but it is enormously difficult to get that ball rolling and keep it rolling. FriendFeed was an awesome social network, with all star founders, but it never gained that critical mass, the founders gave up believing they could displace Facebook so they sold it down the river... to Facebook.
Don't count Google out yet. Just because it hasn't become hugely successful in it's first year doesn't mean it won't. How many users did Facebook have in 2005? Twitter in 2007? Google has put enormous resources behind Google+, and they don't show any sign of backing down. They're taking dozens of separate services that they provide and integrating them through Google+. In 5 years, that's going to be a very compelling platform.