Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | possibilistic's comments login

I don't think this is correct. I've never heard of any evidence for pro-aging genes, but I have read molecular biology rebuttals against this theory (Stephen Jay Gould or perhaps textbook sources, though unfortunately I can't recall well enough to cite them).

You don't need extra genes or information to prefer organisms that age out of reproductive fitness. If advanced age during reproduction confers lower fitness, then the offspring are automatically less fit. While you could argue that there would be a competition for resources amongst the young offspring, this isn't much different than other scenarios that produce less fit or disabled offspring.


True, you don't need extra information to prefer organisms that age out of reproductive fitness, but you might need extra information to ensure a timely death. It remains to be seen whether aging is just due to entropy or that regenerative processes are programmed to stop after a certain amount of time. Programmed death confers very specific fitness advantage to one's offspring as you're no longer competing with them for resources.

The sharing of genes within a population creates a nice analogy between the population and a single organism. Programmed death for members of an organism is a standard feature of evolution. It's not implausible that such a feature exists at the level of population as well.


This Wikipedia article has a review of several evolutionary aging theories:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_ageing

None of these has been proven or widely accepted, and the entire class of theories has many rebuttals. They are interesting to consider, though.


Diamonds aren't worth much because they're actually not that rare. The only reason they command the price they do now is because of the De Beers cartel.

The "diamond alternative" meme is becoming increasingly popular with our generation, such that I predict that in a few generations nobody will care to buy "real" diamonds for engagement purposes. When this happens, the price of diamonds will fall dramatically (if it hasn't already by that point).

Diamonds are so overrated.


almost nobody cared about diamonds 3 generations ago too. marketing, nothing more.

when I see women boasting with their ground diamond jewelry they are telling me couple of things: a) they are a bit ignorant; b) they have sheepish crowd mentality; c) they put too much emphasis on what others thing about themselves, which just shows other personality issues; d) and most importantly they are willingly supporting genocide and enslavement for all above

which is OK, good to know immediately who you are dealing with


It was a movie reference though.


This feels like a straw man argument against static typing. No statically typed language I use suffers from this because they have great data structures and generics.

Languages such as Rust that lean on inference are an absolute joy to program in.


Actually, Rust arrays have the size as part of their type, and without type-level-integers, there is a lot of pain around them. :(

That said, there's the solution: type level integers.

(That also said, Rust's String type isn't an array, because it's mutable, so the size can't be a part of the type)


This is uncannily similar to my own personal experience with ADHD. Instead of words appearing scrambled, though, my focus during reading is drawn to random words within a text. I might skip to a new sentence or jump down a few paragraphs; it's entirely arbitrary. This process usually continues forward and back, resetting every few seconds. The longer I read something, the worse the effect becomes. It takes a lot of effort to get through things sometimes.

Whatever this effect is, it is somewhat lessened by adequate sleep, a low-sugar diet, and prescribed medication. It never completely goes away, though. I have good days and bad days; even at my best, though, working through long texts, papers, or technical literature will eventually cause my mind to wander. Whatever this is (I blame ADHD), it's prevented me from ever being able to enjoy reading literature or long-form journalism. It's a pity, too, because I enjoy the content. The task itself is just too mentally stressful. Reading is, sadly, a form of labor.

It's weird, because skimming comes easily. Visual forms of information are also incredibly easy to digest.

Do others with ADHD have a similar problem with this?


Wow, that sounds very familiar. I find that when I try to dive into long texts, even (especially?) those that I find very interesting and which I'm intent on finishing, my mind wanders off onto wild tangents within a few paragraphs. When I find something interesting that sparks another thought, I'll trail off on that thought instead of filing it away for later. I'll continue to read the words without even realizing that I'm not absorbing any of the content, which means that I'll sometimes need to re-read a passage three or four times. It's incredibly frustrating. You're right that skimming is surprisingly easier, though. I find that if I try to blaze through a passage and read only some of the words, my recall is often better than if I'd tried to read at my normal pace. Less chance to focus on something else.

I used to love reading books as a kid, but I started with the above somewhere around high school. I think that the steady stream of novel (and thus exciting) information available on the internet has had an detrimental impact, but of course that can't be all of it. Still, I've lately been trying to limit the quantity of information that I attempt to take in by, say, opening only one or two news articles or HN links (instead of every one that looks interesting), and I've felt more clear-headed since.

May I ask when you put a name to the problem and started with medication?


Exactly the same problem here as both you and GP comment: my eyes jump around paragraphs quickly scanning for keywords/phrases to hook into. And if it's an interesting passage, I can't get very far without my mind drifting off on my own tangent, and I end up having to re-read a few times like you.

I also find reading tiring even though I can read quite fast, because I want to read each sentence properly, so I keep going over the text. It's a little obsessive-compulsive I guess.

Is this common with ADHD?


Wow, my experience exactly matches you and the GP too. I've never been diagnosed with ADHD but I'm pretty sure I have moderate ADHD. The more interesting some text is, the more difficult it is to get through it, because I'm distracted by thinking along those tangents, and then I have to reread the next sentence 5 times to absorb it, and more times I have to reread, the worse the jumping around.


Same here (bugmenot account). I think its the nature of hypertext itself what catalyses an inherent condition. Somehow like the immediate feedback of slot machines contributes to gamble addiction. Has anyone tried nootropics or any other substance, to help keep focused on one thing? At least for as long enough to not be considered "binge learning"...


I can recognize the part about getting lost in reading, but it's mostly under control. And it happens to me when I read stuff I kind of don't give a shit about. It's like I get lost scanning for something to care about, and it can absolutely take forever before I notice that I'm off the rails. Luckily, I mostly get by reading interesting stuff I can hyperfocus on, thanks to my job.

I do have another, comparable problem with getting lost in text. Only it's with writing. I'm should be non-dyslexic because I generally don't recognize any of the symptoms. But I have diagnosis for the uh, lovely mix of ADHD/Aspergers.

I'm in my late twenties, so through my years in school we mostly wrote on paper. I never had any problems with writing - other than getting started with assignments in my own time, which is another story entirely.

It's when I'm typing work stuff in any kind of editor that it gets... interesting.

I have a job in what you'd call content marketing and I'm lucky in that I get to write about a lot of things I care about. I write in English, which is is a second language to me, covering IT, infosec, culture, movies, politics, history... I should be super happy!

But the more interesting something I'm trying to write about is, the more I fail at spelling and grammar. I change the structures of sentences mid way and get lost even more in thoughts that force me to write long rants that I painfully edit down, if it's paid work. This is especially evident when I'm trying to process material from several sources.

I sometimes let my ranting run free in that I allow myself to be something of a village idiot by dropping in to interesting discussions on FB and other forums. I assume no-one reads that crap, but I really like writing it.

It's absolutely more easy for me to write mundane copy on any random things than being focused and concise on the stuff I'm really passionate about.

Combined with my problems getting started, writing can really be a time consuming burden sometimes, which means I sit and stare at a screen too damn much. It's a shame because I really love writing.


I have ADHD PI and I definitely struggle with this. The worst is when I skip to a random word and completely forget what I was doing in the first place.


Out of interest, would using your finger to trace along the line you are reading help you to maintain your reading position? This is a well known speed reading technique, so I imagine many people would have this skipping issue when reading above a certain pace.


I'll occasionally do this with the mouse pointer on a screen.

No diagnoses, but I suffer the same symptoms other posters are talking about.


Yes, I can relate.


I'm singling out your post because of how "scripting language"-weighted it is. (Minus Swift.)

Ruby makes for a pretty slow server side language. It's appropriate when moving fast, but at scale it's rather icky. Your other languages seem to fill anything it can do.

Have you considered Go, Java, Scala, C#, etc.? None of these are "low level".


That's why I included Swift. Now that it is going to be open-sourced and available on Linux, it will - hopefully - become a good replacement for Go / etc. Will have to see how the community evolves, of course. Currently I use Go in certain situations but I'm hoping to eventually be able to replace it with Swift - will just have to see how things progress.

Disagree though about Ruby being icky at scale. Whilst some companies have moved away from it as they have gotten bigger, there are tonnes of companies that are still using it successfully.

I also disagree that the other languages cover Ruby's uses. It is an incredibly flexible and powerful language and has an incredible assortment of very well written and very well maintained libraries - far exceeding any other language I've used. Plus, having used many other web frameworks, I'm afraid nothing is as good as Rails. Some, such as Django, come close - but nothing quite beats it.

That said, it all depends on your use cases. I'm mainly a web programmer, building web apps, APIs and the occasional mobile app. I'm not dismissing other languages by any means, but these are the languages that I would personally keep if I had to throw away my knowledge of all programming languages but three.


1. Rust - Low level systems programming. It has a ways to go, but it is so pleasant to write. In reality this has started to replace my usage of C++.

2. Javascript - Both a scripting language and the Web language. If it weren't the lingua franca of the browser I would much rather choose Python or Ruby instead.

3. Java - A typesafe, managed JVM language perfect for writing microservices, Android apps, etc. For anything bigger than would be appropriate for a scripting language or that must be maintained by several people. Java hits the sweet spot.


Do you happen to have this one to five pages of QM equations somewhere as reference? I would be very interested in reading that.


No, it was a thought experiment I made up, not an exercise I've ever seen performed: how abbreviated a description of quantum mechanics could I get away with and still convey the idea to on-the-eve-of-QM scientists?

The QM equations are naturally very short, the stuff that I would worry about expressing concisely are concepts like what probability amplitude is, how it connects to prior-to-QM concepts of probability, the interpretation of what it means to make an ideal measurement, stuff like that. I don't know of any bright concise formulation of that stuff, and I'm not sure how I'd do it. I am fairly sure, though, that 5 pages could get the job done well enough to connect to spectroscopic observations.

Note also in the original story it was intended to be given to Einstein and Planck, deeply knowledgeable in classical physics, so it'd be natural to use analogies that would be more meaningful to them than to the typical CS/EE-oriented HN reader. For example, I'd probably try to motivate the probability amplitude by detailed mathematical analogy to the wave amplitudes described by the classical wave PDEs that E. and P. knew backwards and forwards, and I don't think a concise version written that way would work as well for a typical member of the HN audience.


Scott Aaronson has some good motivation for "QM falls out naturally if you try and use a 2-norm for your probalities instead of a 1-norm." See http://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec9.html


I believe he is referring to the 'postulates of quantum mechanics', you can find several formats from a quick google search.

Dirac, 1929: "The fundamental laws necessary for the mathematical treatment of a large part of physics, and the whole of chemistry are thus completely known, and the difficulty lies only in the fact that application of these laws leads to equations that are too complex to be solved."


I think you can do it, but you'd probably want to start with density matrices, or use the Heisenberg picture to keep your wavefunction super-simple. If we're talking to geniuses then maybe we can include a one-off statement, 'if det ρ = 0 so ρ = ψ ψ† for some "column vector" ψ, then the squared magnitudes of ψ's components are probabilities to be in that component's corresponding state.' to get the gist of it.


This sounds like a fantastic exercise to assign to physics majors in some sort of capstone class. What a neat idea. I may have to try this.


I do this rather frequently by mistake. I, like you, try to point out my error so the OP doesn't wonder why they are being downvoted.

Another problem is that I often upvote articles by scrolling on my phone. In addition to providing false signal, this has the unfortunate side effect of polluting my "saved stories".

I wish there was a mechanic to change votes after submission (even if the ability to change your vote was only momentary).

Do pg, et al. accept PRs?


ipilimumab, *-umab; hUman Monoclonal Ab (antibody)

These aren't cheap to mass produce.

Edit: Not the best source I could find, but this cites costs (not at scale) :

http://www.immunochemistry.com/services/antibody-development


>These aren't cheap to mass produce.

Even still, $25k/pill seems steep. That's roughly 10x the cost of pure plutonium.


There's an "ounce of prevention, pound of cure" joke in here somewhere

:P


Let's not forget some people look at curing people suffering form disease as just an Investment?

These biomedical companies are in business to make shareholders rich--it's just about the money. Maybe medicine has always been just about the money?

The prices most drug comapnies charge for their latest drug seem outrageous? Want a jaw dropper--look into Biomarin drug prices. Read their prospectus--it reads more like a hedge fund, rather than bio company. Oh, and one of their buildings is sitting on the San Andreas Fault. Found that last sentance interesting--I guess lawyers were being proactive?

But then again, I'm for government funded research, I would like to outlaw forprofit Insurance, and I have become a huge skeptic of modern medicine.

(As a side note; If you noticed your generic drug is not dropping in price like it did years past, you are not loosing your mind. Supposedly, large drug companies(companies whose drug patents are expiring, or expired) are buying smaller generic drug companies, and either shutting down the operation, or keeping the generic price, of the newly aqquireed company, artificially priced high. I believe congress, or the FDA is looking into this slick business tactic? It's completely legal now.)


How does this address the problem of not saving user-submitted data after informing them you've done precisely that? This seems _very_ bad.

I think we're debating the merits of different classes of update here. Some updates are not essential (UI preferences, etc.), but other requests by their very nature, are--billing, messaging, draft editing, etc.


It would be "very bad" for some types of applications and not for others. Clicking "Save" on some complex document is the type of thing where you probably want to report "saving..." and then "saved" only after confirmation back from the server, but for a lot of simple operations that you know should almost always succeed (especially if you're doing something with websockets and you are tracking connected state, so you have a pretty reasonable expectation that you're able to communicate with the server in the next 1s), the best approach is often to assume they're going to succeed, update the UI as if they've succeeded, then if they fail, make sure to call attention to that unexpected case and put the UI back in the right state.


This is just one of the default mechanisms of Meteor. You can also construct regular calls to the server which do not have latency compensation (specifically, by having your update code exist on the server only).


Consider applying for YC's Summer 2025 batch! Applications are open till May 13

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: