4 ms·

No offense to everybody upvoting this type of thing, but claims like this seem to outweigh any actual tangible result by 100 or 1000 to 1. I think it's a bette

No offense to everybody upvoting this type of thing, but claims like this seem to outweigh any actual tangible result by 100 or 1000 to 1. I think it's a better use of everybody time to say "Well, let's just wait until it's replicated in humans until we share articles"

Jeff_Brown 3y ago
It's possible people vote up articles like these because they want skeptical readers to analyze them. (I don't do that, and I don't know anyone else's HN voting habits, but it seems at least plausible.)
mmcnl 3y ago
I'm more interested to hear what discoveries have lead to meaningful results. There are a lot of news articles on potential medical breakthroughs but I have no idea how medicine is actually advancing.
- hotdogscout 3y ago
  I've been reading gesture recognition papers that claim to be real time and I've yet to see one I can reproduce in real time or reproduce at all. The necessary hoops to jump when writing a scientific study seem to be very different from the hoops to advance a field.
hollerith 3y ago
Agree. Also, cognitive decline has been studied intensively enough that if there were a single mechanism responsible for most human instances of it, the science around that single mechanism would've been settled by now. Instead what we seems to have is a disease where toxins, chronic infections by bacteria, viruses and fungi, cardiovascular health, genetic variability (e.g., apoE4) and metabolic-lifestyle factors like insulin resistance and lack of sufficient exercise are all important. But HN likes to upvote these announcements written by PR departments at universities.
macintosh-hd 3y ago
Nah, surely we found a room temperature super conductor and solved one of the most major aspects of aging all in 1 week!
Zetice 3y ago
There is no world in which HN is not a “waste” of time. This notion that HN must only be for “serious” conversations about serious submissions is a wholesale misunderstanding of what HN is.
johnnyanmac 3y ago
I see it as progress, not a cure. Is there anything wrong with reporting progress?

Jeff_Brown 3y ago

It's possible people vote up articles like these because they want skeptical readers to analyze them. (I don't do that, and I don't know anyone else's HN voting habits, but it seems at least plausible.)

mmcnl 3y ago

I'm more interested to hear what discoveries have lead to meaningful results. There are a lot of news articles on potential medical breakthroughs but I have no idea how medicine is actually advancing.

hotdogscout 3y ago
I've been reading gesture recognition papers that claim to be real time and I've yet to see one I can reproduce in real time or reproduce at all. The necessary hoops to jump when writing a scientific study seem to be very different from the hoops to advance a field.

hollerith 3y ago

Agree. Also, cognitive decline has been studied intensively enough that if there were a single mechanism responsible for most human instances of it, the science around that single mechanism would've been settled by now. Instead what we seems to have is a disease where toxins, chronic infections by bacteria, viruses and fungi, cardiovascular health, genetic variability (e.g., apoE4) and metabolic-lifestyle factors like insulin resistance and lack of sufficient exercise are all important. But HN likes to upvote these announcements written by PR departments at universities.

macintosh-hd 3y ago

Nah, surely we found a room temperature super conductor and solved one of the most major aspects of aging all in 1 week!

Zetice 3y ago

There is no world in which HN is not a “waste” of time. This notion that HN must only be for “serious” conversations about serious submissions is a wholesale misunderstanding of what HN is.

johnnyanmac 3y ago

I see it as progress, not a cure. Is there anything wrong with reporting progress?