shullbitt0r's comments

If I understood correctly, OP had leased a flat and rented out rooms at a surplus. Who's the leech?

But you are not factoring in the ongoing effort of preserving information?

catch 22; you need workers to make money, but you need money to make workers.

That should be "One question of an older version of the test they used".

They take a 12 question test, so 12 bits of entropy (asfar as I could see these are indeed yes/o questions) and were able to correlate that to gene code, which has orders of magnitudes more entropy (I assume)?

> For the general factor of neuroticism we identified 1,436 SNPs that were genome wide significant and formed 11 independent loci. [...] Again, these findings were comparable to those from the original study by Smith et al.

> We include them here in order to compare them with the first GWASs of neuroticism factors, which we report next. Four SNPs, all on chromosome 12, were genome-wide significant for the worry/vulnerability phenotype. These SNPs were located in one locus, spanning 219kb. This region contains the gene PPFIA2, which is known to be part of the postsynaptic density in humans [14,15].

And further

> The largest difference in the pattern of enrichment found was identified when examining which tissues showed enrichment. For each of the three neuroticism phenotypes, significant enrichment was found for the tissues of the central nervous system (general factor fold enrichment = 2.76, P = 1.35 × 10−4, anxiety/tension fold enrichment = 3.13, P = 1.90 × 10−4, worry/vulnerability fold enrichment = 3.57, P = 2.79 × 10−4);

> however, for the anxiety/tension factor significant enrichment was also found for the adrenal/pancreas (fold enrichment = 4.57, P = 6.52 × 10−4), cardiovascular (fold enrichment = 3.76, P = 0.004), and skeletal/muscle tissues

They actually had data quantifying the nervous tissue. Wow!

> The genetic variants associated with an increase in the general factor of neuroticism were also associated with a genetic risk for a lower household income (rg = -0.39, P = 2.67 × 10−16), and living in an area with a higher level of social deprivation (rg = 0.24, P = 6.95 × 10−5). However, both the anxiety/tension, and the worry/vulnerability factors showed significant genetic correlations in the opposite directions to the general factor of neuroticism for both household income (anxiety/tension rg = 0.25, P = 7.64 × 10−4, worry/vulnerability rg = 0.24, P = 3.57 × 10−4), and living in an area with a higher level of social deprivation (anxiety/tension rg = -0.31, P = 3.87 × 10−5, worry/vulnerability rg = -0.31, P = 5.02 × 10−5).

Amazing, but association is not cause. I can imagine living in a terrible neighbourhood can leave a person, well, terrified, not to say neurotic. One question of an older test they used was removed from the revised test ("do you lock the door at night"), because it didn't fit their P values. Whatever that means, the test seems like a very rough measure to arrive at any statement at all.

And the fact that two traits are inversely related means to me without giving it further due thought, that headline is largely misleading.

Because that's cheating! I'm half kidding but you are arguing about price, mainly. Not why the cheaper (free?) content is lacking. You could also just afford a personal teacher and taken to the extreme, a personal translator so you wouldn't need to learn the language at all, which would be cheating. Except that you might have a personal desire to speak the language. What's the problem with Chinese that free offerings are inferior?

It is just chaotic is all I could infer from a first look. I mean English can be pretty messy already and maybe a specific Chinese dialect will be more regular than the bigger picture of the whole language. It's not that your coeds were being cheap, perhaps, it could just be disappointment for something as basic to cost anything at all, and relieve that it's not their personal shortcoming, but just an externalized advantage. You seem to say not even $20 was low enough, have I got that right at least?

Your Brain? I know it deteriorates if not used frequently and especially if you can rely on look up tables, but really, there is no replacement. Only supplements. Collections of cards in shoe cartons are used by libraries.

What else do you need? A hypergraph of word-vertexes and relation-edges animated in webgl, layered by categories and streamed from an elastic back end? That's your brain.

There's more to it than the joke, because there's a thing or two to say about the use of articles. The "the" there is not incorrect in one reading, as the quote points out, the y combinator can be seen as a generic noun, like "the dog" as a species, or "the blood" as an organ; On the other hand, "the" is "used before an object considered to be unique, or of which there is only one at a time", e.g. "the Queen". So it's kind of contradictory. Just using an indefinite article or nothing at all, is still valid and shorter. People prefer shorter. I got into an argument before because "some" isn't a useful qualifier. It's perfectly normal to hold seemingly contradictory thoughts like "people like rambling about syntax" and "people don't like that" at the same time, because the meaning that each pertains to only some is obvious from the context. Yes, I'm rambling, and I clicked the article because I need to learn more, so I'm wondering how the y combinator (there, I said it) can illuminate this confusion I just elaborated.

Also, "the" is used to mark abstract terms, e.g. "I go on monday", but "I go on the next monday" (or just next monday).

Does that show why people care about the articles?

One explanation I found for myself why this is a problem is Normal Forms. A DB table can only have one primary key (definite). All else is secondary, n-ary or arbit-ary. The spoken language should be normalizing, too. Spoken lang... it doesn't make a difference in practice though, noone cares to be precise.

Can we talk about how real the perceived mismatch between other "social", "humanitarian" sciences and the "natural" sciences is?

Oops: I notice my mistake now, acceleration is the problem, not speed.

> As on object approaches a black hole, an outside observer will see that object's clock slow down and eventually stopping as it hits the event horizon.

So I had the idea that smaller black holes are at the center of the sun, the earth and so on, being the principle source of gravity and the "movement" that we see is just us falling into different black holes at the same time, which are also falling into each other. So micro black holes must be at the center of massive particles too. The world line of a photon on the other hand is just the intersection of two event horizons as they grow, so you get a wave model. And that's why you have entanglement: circles have two intersections, so if your model is two dimensional, you get two entanglements. But you can have vastly more complicated geometries and thus assembles of entangled particles.

I don't know the "standard model" well enough to take the analogy any further, not to mention string theory and all that jazz.

> Seeing the universe around them is comparing clocks with another frame of reference

So, if you don't sense anything, you don't sense time dilation either?

This is slightly more complicated. First of all, you haven't given a frame of reference. If you claim someone were moving at 0.99c then you have already set the frame of reference. And they would have to gain near infinite mass and would die. You seem to assume a restricted frame of reference though, inside the spaceship. So, a point of reference inside the spaceship would see light moving with c inside the spaceship. And would assume his own point of reference as the origin of the inertial frame of reference. So baring any outside measurement, how do you know the spaceship is moving with 0.99c and in which frame of reference?

For security, noise blocking, and public unreasonableness I have only HN allowed in my browser, that is, if a site doesn't work without js, there's a high chance I don't want to read it. My bank page luckily doesn't need js either, to function.

> including the water (space-time)

I think you meant to say ether.

First you have to define mass. It's currently "defined" extrinsically, by a piece of metal machined by the SI. That doesn't allow an intrinsic answer definition of a black holes mass.

The answer is kinda easy if I can make up my own intrinsic definition. The mass is the mass of the stuff around the black hole. A black hole is a singular point, it can't have mass, don't be silly.