EndXA's comments

I had no idea about this when I posted. Thank you for sharing.

Lay abstract of the original study:

> Research on neurotypical children with imaginary friends has found that those with imaginary friends have better social skills and are more able to think about how other people’s minds work compared to children without imaginary friends. Research shows that some autistic children also create imaginary friends. This article is the first to look at whether or not autistic children with imaginary friends have stronger social skills and an improved ability to think about others’ minds than those without imaginary friends. We asked parents to report about their children aged 5 to 12. Finding almost half reported their child had an imaginary friend, a much larger number than previous research with younger children. Our findings also suggested that autistic children with imaginary friends were better able to understand others’ minds and had stronger social skills than their peers without imaginary friends. The children’s language ability did not influence this. The findings of this study add to the evidence that with respect to the creation imaginary friends and their potential benefits, the play profiles of autistic children are similar to the general population. It also provides more evidence that the understanding of others’ minds is not all or nothing in autism and gives reason for researchers to investigate whether the causes of these differences are the same or different for autistic children.

Direct link to the study: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/13623613221092...

Worth pointing out something that they said in the post (emphasis in italics is mine, the full quote is given for context)

> Imagine you have a company that goes slower and slower every quarter, and then you confront the shareholders with the statement, that the way to solve it, is to do absolutely no new features for a quarter or two, refactor the code, learn new methodologies etc. I doubt that the shareholders would allow that. Luckily, we don't have any shareholders, and we understand the vital importance of this investment in the long run. Not only in the project, but also in our skill and knowledge, so we do better next time.

This isn't necessarily the full explanation, but it's certainly something to keep in mind.

Note that three articles were published in response to this one (linked as 'Matters Arising' in the top part of the article), and they all appear to criticize the methodology that was used here.

The key objections from the first such article [1] are as follows (quoted verbatim, though the article itself obviously contains more details):

> First, the use of transactions as the driver of future Bitcoin emissions is questionable, given the tenuous correlation between transactions and mining energy use...

> Second, all three Bitcoin adoption scenarios designed by Mora et al. represent sudden and improbable departures from historical trends in Bitcoin transactions...

> Third, Mora et al. applied outdated values for mining rig efficiencies and electric power CO2 intensities, which inflated their estimated 2017 Bitcoin energy use and CO2 emissions values considerably.

> Fourth, by analytical design, Mora et al. applied 2017 per-transaction energy use and CO2 emissions values in all future years, multiplied by annual transactions... This decision effectively held both mining rig efficiency and grid CO2 intensities constant for the next 100 yr... This unprecedented choice ignores the dynamic nature of mining rig and power grid technologies and violates the widely followed practice of accounting for technological change in forward-looking energy technology scenarios...

> Fifth, in constructing their scenarios, Mora et al. committed key errors when analysing adoption rates within their 40-technology comparison pool...

[1] 'Implausible projections overestimate near-term Bitcoin CO2 emissions', available at https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0535-4

An interesting AMA with the founder of Factorio from a few years back: https://www.reddit.com/r/factorio/comments/6e6tkw/im_the_fou...

The title seems very misleading to me, because much more than "regular meditation" was involved.

Here is how they describe the study in the article:

> The study was conducted at a resort in Southern California... The mindfulness intervention was an established meditation and yoga retreat consisting of 12 hours of meditation, nine hours of yoga, and self-reflective exercises over a week. The participants were divided into three groups of about 30 each: experienced meditators, women who had never meditated, and a group who simply “went on vacation.” The 30 “vacation participants” listened to health lectures and then did fun outdoor things for a week.

> At the end, all three groups (vacation, novice, and regular meditators) showed statistically significant improvements in scores of stress and depression, which were measured using well-established and commonly used questionnaires. If we stop there, it seems that vacation is just as good as mindfulness exercises for stress reduction and mood lifting.

> But what’s really striking are the result from 10 months later: the regular meditators still showed significant improvements on these scores, the novice meditators even more so. However, the vacationers were back to baseline. The researchers had ensured that all three groups were equal in average age, education level, employment status, and body mass index. This finding is in keeping with prior research showing that vacation has beneficial but very temporary effects, and that mindfulness therapies have sustained beneficial effects.

The original study can be read here: https://www.pnas.org/content/116/29/14677

Abstract:

> Domestication shaped wolves into dogs and transformed both their behavior and their anatomy. Here we show that, in only 33,000 y, domestication transformed the facial muscle anatomy of dogs specifically for facial communication with humans. Based on dissections of dog and wolf heads, we show that the levator anguli oculi medialis, a muscle responsible for raising the inner eyebrow intensely, is uniformly present in dogs but not in wolves. Behavioral data, collected from dogs and wolves, show that dogs produce the eyebrow movement significantly more often and with higher intensity than wolves do, with highest-intensity movements produced exclusively by dogs. Interestingly, this movement increases paedomorphism and resembles an expression that humans produce when sad, so its production in dogs may trigger a nurturing response in humans. We hypothesize that dogs with expressive eyebrows had a selection advantage and that “puppy dog eyes” are the result of selection based on humans’ preferences.

It seems that an update has been posted: "BHP agrees not to damage 40 Aboriginal heritage sites without consulting traditional owners" (https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/jun/11/bhp-a...)

The buttons on the bottom left corner of the screen also allow you to explore options such as changing the view type and selecting different floors.