> 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.
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.
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.
> 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.
The largest benefit of Pomodoro for me is just starting things instead of procrastinating. It's a very "light" thought that I'll just spend a pomodoro on something, making it easy to get started. And once you get started, it almost always gets far easier to continue than to stop.
The only reason I suggested a tax break is because it would work as a good motivator for people to actually engage themselves a bit. They're paying the money anyway, why not do something with it?
The idea generally... in an ideal world where you simply could not fund campaigns from money except from public donations like this, it'd just even the odds a little bit for non-billionaires.
I don't know of a way to make the existing money and power of billionaires not matter in politics at all, though. There's always loopholes and workarounds.
That's been my impression as well. It seems like the same thing you see a lot of heavier people say ("oh, it doesn't work for me") except with more complex language ("oh, it's much more complicated than that. We understand nothing about this, this rough model is completely unhelpful!").
I really wouldn't have expected that sort of reaction on this forum ahead of time. It's a bit disappointing.
Here is a proposed mechanism: count calories as they are on the label, see if you lose weight. If you do not, lower them further, still counting by the label.
It doesn't matter if they are exact for a given person so long as the labels are consistent. They are sufficiently consistent.
I'm curious - have you tried losing weight, and is this from personal experience? Because I found it trivial by just counting calories and keeping a watch on my weight. I don't doubt that sometimes the calories I absorbed were less or more than what I wrote down, but that doesn't really matter in the long run - they're sufficiently accurate.
You're really making it sound more complex and difficult than it is.
Oh, sure, it's difficult to say with certainty that 100 calories on the label will be exactly 100 calories for every person ever - but there's really not a gigantic amount of variance. Certainly it's a good enough guideline for use.
It's a matter of thermodynamics more than anything else. You can't get energy from nothing. Quantifying the exact amount of energy you'll get from a food is difficult to do precisely, but the guidelines we have are good enough for use for the vast majority of people. You can be pedantic about it, but that won't change the fact that it is that simple to lose weight, as proven time and again.
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.