thimkerbell

Could it be built from an island off Costa Rica?

Is there an easy effective way to tell a company not to ask its customers' phone numbers if someone parked nearby can overhear them?

Blog post not found

Be alert for any recommendations to sound more certain than you are.

Though the sample tests there are behind a login page.

Is this a test whose abilities would survive being retaken periodically? Because having a baseline to compare against would let you know if your cranium was headed south, or if particular circumstances were contributing to that.

(my 2¢: avoid sugar, fast food& other carbs, nitrite meats)

Do they have anyone charged with security of mailings? Which seem tacky for such an organization.

"The psychological components of war have not gone away—dominance, vengeance, callousness, tribalism, groupthink, self-deception."

- S. Pinker (via Simone S)

Odd that Gemini claims to be unable to read it.

My opinion: The dominance theme comes across as overwrought, and makes it difficult to read the other content in the optimal state of mind. (Perhaps an LLMITM is crafting it as such?)

There's dark pattern behavior in the ad on that site, tricked me into clicking what I think was a cookies button.

"Book Review: How Not to Study a Disease. A comprehensive, yet accessible examination of Alzheimer’s disease"

(I should know better than to take the clickbait, but lapses do occur.)

Extra points for the HN user who declickbaits.

If you (or phys.org) are posting a rewritten press release for research results that have not yet successfully undergone peer review, you need to say so at the outset.

If this result is from 2020, there have been others since. With less rosy results, I think I recall.

What can we do about the tendency of research articles to get their big flash of publicity before undergoing peer review?

Podcast. There is a transcript, which is in fine print and not concise.

The Yale article says forest scientists warn that "failed afforestation projects around the world threaten to undermine efforts to make [tree] planting a credible means of countering climate change by reducing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere or generating carbon credits for sale to companies to offset their emissions."

We need an app to rate posts on how clickbaity their titles are, and let you filter on this value.

For reader clarification: accumulating carbon in soil from decaying plant matter still leaves it part of short term carbon cycling, not to be confused with geological-time carbon sequestration. As you know.

Can you have it do something good for the park when it's been running for x days? Or would that make it mundane (productive) and de-art it.

A separate section on how to find your people to work with or otherwise make stuff with would be good. What are the various ways to gather a pool of interested people who would get to know each other, post-college?

Which is easier in a denser population.

What happens to makerspaces, that goes wrong?

We don't have a culture of connecting people.

Well, I still don't know if they're credible.

How about regular drop-in library-sponsored tech help sessions where almost all the helpers are anonymous volunteers?

Nice.

Would you find a county website being at a .org domain credible? How about a county sheriff's website at a .com domain?

("nice" in the good sense, I mean)

Nice. On the virtue of silence: "in conversation [knowledge is] obtain’d rather by the use of the ears than of the tongue, ..."

I don't understand why an otherwise reputable forum (HN) would be so tolerant of meaning-uninferrable clickbait link titles. Sentience, posters, sentience.