tertius

57 ms·

601.
by tertius 9y ago
> I guess I should have added the caveat that I want to be getting eight hours fairly consistently. How often would you say you have less. Right now, I'm sleep training a baby, so less. My goal is 7 hours and I really enjoy 8. And I
602.
by tertius 9y ago
Like physical keyboards.
603.
by tertius 9y ago
Two questions. Why? And why don't you?
604.
by tertius 9y ago
> I'm assuming this is just temporary and eventually it's just smooth sailing and you get sleepy? No, you pick something you want permanent and just do it. Eating early after waking is helpful. I drink tea with L-Theanine befor
605.
by tertius 9y ago
I feel this way about getting up really early. It's a great feeling. And by around 9 I've made a LOT of progress. That feels even better...
606.
by tertius 9y ago
Pick a time and stick to it. Doesn't matter how little sleep you get. It also helps to have a meal as soon as you get up. And meal is anything with calories in it. I.e. a cabbage leaf is fine. This helps reset your circadian rhythm (gr
607.
by tertius 9y ago
For those looking for the RSS to add to your podcast player. https://rss.simplecast.com/podcasts/2725/rss
608.
by tertius 9y ago
> Maybe in future journalists will re-invent themselves as purveyors of pure factual reporting If you think this was ever the case, rose colored glasses are in effect.
609.
by tertius 9y ago
I didn't say that it was growing at some arbitrary rate. Something being well funded does not mean that that funding will improve over time. If R&D is 2% of GDP and declines slightly over time but remains in the top 10 we can still
610.
by tertius 9y ago
> I'm not sure it's survivorship bias. I'm referring to good ideas being underfunded for a time. Only good ideas survive. Bad ideas obviously don't get to a point where they turn into something accepted and widely app
611.
by tertius 9y ago
(this is getting a little long, feel free to focus on one or two items if you decide to respond.)
612.
by tertius 9y ago
> Advancing one funeral at a time... > This is not a good thing. That's my point, but it's not as big of a problem as blog posts make it out to be. Not small by any means though. > Biology skews female. Success in biology
613.
by tertius 9y ago
> Many breakthrough areas struggled along for years with little funding, while a ton of money went into dead ends. Eg immunotherapy in cancer, H. pylori as the major cause of gastric ulcers... This looks an awful lot like survivor bias.
614.
by tertius 9y ago
> What actually happens is you provide a research question and the way you intend to approach it. Which is what I described. Except that I'm comparing two identical candidates except that the one has better science than the other, w
615.
by tertius 9y ago
Yes, but they're at least adequate at funding good science. That is all that they are attempting. I did mention that there are people with salesmanship and that's an advantage that you really can't control for. Well except th
616.
by tertius 9y ago
I don't think you're required to no, but you can at least attempt an answer or cite someone else that has put thought into an alternative. And just because you fail at your attempt does not make your initial point void.
617.
by tertius 9y ago
Care to elaborate? To get funding you have to provide a hypothesis and aims to prove/disprove with a starting justification for said hypothesis. If your hypothesis is good compared to someone who has a poor hypothesis you should get th
618.
by tertius 9y ago
I meant to type "A better way to vet ideas?"
619.
by tertius 9y ago
My comment said nothing about "applied science" vs. "basic science." I'm actually talking about basic science. You can do basic science but have very bad ideas based on very poor data which you interpreted poorly. Y
620.
by tertius 9y ago
Science is very well funded in the U.S. Requiring selling your ideas is important to put funding where the good ideas are. Some are better at selling than others though. It's a competitive market as it should be. To weed out the ideas
621.
by tertius 9y ago
Google has already started working on this to a degree. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jasper_Solar_Energy_Project
622.
by tertius 9y ago
Yes! It's just a matter of time!
623.
by tertius 9y ago
Bankruptcy is the norm in the U.S. That's one of the reasons for the immense economic growth the U.S. has seen. Appetite for risk is good in the aggregate. PR will get downgraded for sure though.
624.
by tertius 9y ago
> A presidential candidate can win the election with only 21.91% of the popular vote. That's great and might seem scary to some, but nothing close to that has ever happened.
625.
by tertius 9y ago
Though if we look at where the majority of the population lives (NY/CA) and how blue those states are he has a point here. Speculation nonetheless though.
626.
by tertius 9y ago
Say the majority went up to 55%... We'd still need a lot more than that to change the electoral college. And honestly, having big states control who becomes president just because of their population, given how independent states shoul
627.
by tertius 10y ago
Because the market.
628.
by tertius 10y ago
No, I do not believe that there should be a linear relationship between compensation and stress. And no, I didn't make a an original post about the article. I'm just addressing compensation.
629.
by tertius 10y ago
As you saw I didn't say anything about insomnia. That was lazy reporting. I think we have a faulty premise at play (or just a disagreement.) > The main reason that CEOs have extra stress and get extra blame and get looked at to solv
630.
by tertius 10y ago
> I'd start by paying CEOs less. I would say that it's a good thing that you're not king then... And no, the stress of C level jobs does not compare to the mean like you would have it.

More ›