chr1

32 ms·

331.
by chr1 6y ago
You do not build a rainforest in a desert, you build a densely populated region with lots of agricultural land and some forests, so that people living there take care of enriching the soil and making sure that nothing collapses. To do that
332.
by chr1 6y ago
> But to propose it as an alternative is not helpful in the current political context Suggesting that we should keep silent about a way of solving the problem, so that other people don't get "ideas", is even less helpful i
333.
by chr1 6y ago
There is a joke that ticks and lice were crucial for human evolution, since removing them from each other helped to make monkeys spend time together:)
334.
by chr1 6y ago
There is a hope that gene-drive targeting doublesex gene can be effective in eliminating mosquitos (and likely other insect species if we want) https://www.nature.com/articles/nbt.4245 . There have been many articles a
335.
by chr1 7y ago
Government represents what the people want, just as much as a browser bundled with OS represents what people want. That is people do not have any way to say what they want and what trade-offs they are willing to accept, they have to choose
336.
by chr1 7y ago
With your criterion cities on mountainous regions have a bit of unfair advantage. Another Armenian city https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van,_Turkey , which is older than Yerevan, would match it too, but it's not incl
337.
by chr1 7y ago
The alternative of everyone staying at home has 100% false positive rate, so 10% is a huge improvement, not useless.
338.
by chr1 7y ago
Any physical theory that cannot be tested is a mathematical theory that can produce results useful in other places. In general all of theoretical physics is mathematics that takes inspiration from experiments, and takes shortcuts when provi
339.
by chr1 7y ago
Seven holed donut due to extra holes of nostrils and tearducts. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=egEraZP9yXQ
340.
by chr1 7y ago
That's a very interesting question. I would guess that if moving brain into software is at all possible, there will be very little reason to build anything other than huge computers, and maybe that's the answer to Fermi paradox.
341.
by chr1 7y ago
We can establish a colony on top of Mt Everest, it's just not useful or exciting enough to spend money and time on it. Mars is exciting and allows to start a new country, unlike Everest which already belongs to someone.
342.
by chr1 7y ago
Not having good lighting is indeed a dealbreaker, but there's no real reason why we can't make artificial lights that look close enough to the sun. Similarly if some caves are street sized, being there would not feel like being un
343.
by chr1 7y ago
You can tie a metaphysical issue to everything by asking if it "really" exists, or is it something else that is absolutely not distinguishable from the "real" thing. If by hard problem of consciousness you mean that kind
344.
by chr1 7y ago
In all cases it is a Math issue. Either there exists some effective computation that would produce behavior similar to the behavior of conscious being, and could be performed in VR world too, or computation would require exponential resourc
345.
by chr1 7y ago
You would do it in a controlled manner so that the amount of released gases from arctic is compensated by gases absorbed by greening deserts.
346.
by chr1 7y ago
"buying some time" would be the most underwhelming use of such a technology. If you are putting large enough sunshade to change the climate, you can use it to actually control the weather, make sahara green, make siberia warm, mel
347.
by chr1 7y ago
While i agree that shooting down any research with "think about poverty" is a bad argument, I think there are still much more important ways to spend money than this: anti-aging drugs developed by sens.org, gene drive to kill mos
348.
by chr1 7y ago
I do not feel that way, and was fascinated by the intensity with which some people on HN dislike metrics and adds. So I had tried an informal survey of people i knew, and out of 39 only 7 were somewhat concerned and some said they thought
349.
by chr1 7y ago
Advertisement works because most people do not feel this way and are ok with metrics and adds as long as they get something back. Is that ok, or is there a rational argument why everyone should feel bad about being subject to metrics?
350.
by chr1 7y ago
Stack overflow is a "popularity contest" and nothing has gone wrong with it so far, and science have always been popularity contest, i am just suggesting to give it better tools to measure the popularity.
351.
by chr1 7y ago
arXiv doesn't provide a way to review, comment, or rate papers which is needed to replace journals by a better process.
352.
by chr1 7y ago
I did not mean the existing scihub site, but simply something that would be github for science. It seemed to me amusing to reference scihub in the name, but unfortunately looks like it is confusing, and diverts attention from the content o
353.
by chr1 7y ago
Nature would not assign the same value to every star. Star from someone who works in a university and has large impact factor in the related field will have much higher value than a star from newly created account without any published wor
354.
by chr1 7y ago
The parent comment is not an empty accusation, but a truth known to everyone in academia. The publishers extort huge profit margins from libraries and universities without providing any useful service. See http://thecostofknowled
355.
by chr1 7y ago
I am genuinely curious why these comments criticizing the current process of peer review and publishing are being downvoted. In my ten years of working in academia i have not met anyone who was happy with the current state of things. So i w
356.
by chr1 7y ago
How does one "Filter for error and importance" without writing comments? I have been peer reviewer multiple times, and always had to write comments either to author pointing out errors and asking for clarifications or to the journ
357.
by chr1 7y ago
They should publish it only in electronic version.
358.
by chr1 7y ago
Publish your article with accompanying data and programs on sci-hub (github for science). Tell your colleagues about it if you normally hold seminars before publishing papers, or post to mailing list. As interested people read your paper th
359.
by chr1 7y ago
They are not about peer review, if by "peer review" you mean the abstract notion of someone reviewing your work. But peer review is a specific mechanism of getting comments about your work. And unfortunately it is a mechanism that
360.
by chr1 7y ago
It's indeed strange to see the parent comment being downvoted. Especially by people who know what github is. Current academic journals are harmful for science, the same way as trying to use Roman numerals would be harmful for math. The

More ›