> I find the breath work to be more useful than meditation. Now any time I find stress I immediately recognize my breath and start controlling it, almost sub-consciously.
I'd just like to note that you're literally describing mindfulness meditation and its effects, there. That's what interoceptive meditation is all about - focusing on your internal state - and breath is an excellent medium for that focus.
Anyone that believes that Wim Hof breathing is woo should literally just spend the three minutes to do a round of it and see the effects by themselves. It is immediately obvious that there is a clear effect on the body from just breathing the right way.
For anyone wanting to try, here is the video I used when I started getting into it: https://youtu.be/lwlEJ2O-6HM
(Don't necessarily pay too much attention to that creator's other videos, he's not very science-based overall.)
Just do the first round and you'll see an undeniable effect on your body and mind. I mean undeniable, not something subtle and small.
Now, the specific effects of it all can be debated. I'm rather doubtful of some of the claims made of it, and it's very clear that a lot of non-skeptical people flock to this sort of thing, so that's expected. But there's something to it, for sure. Try it the next time you're about to do something high-stress, such as public speaking. The difference for me is night and day.
It's a bit subtler, but there's a definite effect. Supposedly it has similar effects on learning as sleep. Whether that's true or not, it's a tool you can try out yourself and decide whether or not it's helpful to you.
I did mindfulness meditation for many years. The breathing is similar. Maybe the years of that and now the breathing are all tangled in my brain. But the Wim Hof Method stuff just feels different. I have been doing 10-25 minutes of breath work and 3-10 minutes of 4-8C water daily. It fixed a broken part if me nothing else has.
These sort of controllers have already been repeatedly attempted for use in gaming for the past decade or more. While working examples do exist and are sold commercially, they just aren't practical, so they haven't caught on.
So I wouldn't have high hopes for this yet, because clearly the technology just isn't there yet to enable high-fidelity brain noninvasive brain interfaces. But it'll never get there without attempts and funding, so it's good to see DARPA work on this.
Personally I'm more excited for commercial applications of things like the synchron implant (https://synchron.com), but those are pretty damn far from viable as well. And also I'm biased because I want to control everything with my brain at all times.
So I wouldn't have high hopes for this yet, because clearly the technology just isn't there yet to enable high-fidelity brain noninvasive brain interfaces.
I feel like denoising those types of signals would be a good task for AI.
ZLib was always just an interface for Library Genesis, which remains hale and hearty here: https://libgen.is
It seems like ZLib was seized mainly because they started running donation drives and potentially earning money on piracy, although that's just conjecture. Libgen does not do any such thing.
This is a flawed study by a Google's competitor (the for-profit organization called DuckDuckGo). FTA:
> Following the study’s publication this morning, Google told The Verge in a statement that it found the methodology flawed and the findings misleading. “This study’s methodology and conclusions are flawed since they are based on the assumption that any difference in search results are based on personalization. That is simply not true,” a Google spokesperson said. “In fact, there are a number of factors that can lead to slight differences, including time and location, which this study doesn’t appear to have controlled for effectively.”
> 1) Individuals start expecting positive reinforcement for everything they do. Doing it for the external reward instead of finding the intrinsic reward for doing the right thing on their own. This is probably extensively researched already, although i don't have sources handy right now.
I've read a book some time ago that mentioned something to this effect - motivating people with external rewards greatly lowers or straight out erases the intrinsic rewards from those tasks. To the point where people stop enjoying tasks they used to if you pay them for it.
This was based on a scientific study, if I recall - so well done on spotting this effect on your own.
I believe the book I got this from is "Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us" by Daniel H. Pink.
To the best of my knowledge, all violence hurts children, even if it doesn't damage them physically. There's a wide variety of studies I've seen over the years that suggest negative outcomes for kids due to corporal punishment.
Sounds like it's a machine learning based way to make it easier to design the guide RNA for the CRISPR protein used in gene editing, making it easier to target it the way you want to.
But that's basically all I know. It really would be nice to have someone actually knowledgeable describe this better.
Yes, this is correct. We developed a series of ML models to predict 1) whether a given guide RNA is likely to result in the knockdown of a gene 2) whether a guide RNA is likely to produce unintended effects somewhere else in the genome.
It's just that many people can afford to have hobbies, and hobbies do not have to earn money or be a good investment in order to be worth doing.