Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | troll_v_bridge's commentslogin

> What is meant by "robotically beating at 123.45 bpm"? Any fixed tempo beats robotically.

While a robot can keep beat at 123, most humans can’t keep 123.45. Art doesn’t have to make logical sense.


> While a robot can keep beat at 123, most humans can’t keep 123.45.

Isn’t it also true that while a robot can keep beat at 123.45, most humans can’t keep 123?

Apart from training, there isn’t anything that links human biology and psychology with the length of a second, is there?


Kinda ish. Healthy resting heartbeat is around 60bpm and comfortable exertion heart rate - like doing an indefinitely sustainable run, the kind of thing we evolved to do to run down prey - around double that. The most broadly popular styles of dance music tend to float around 120bpm. It just feels natural to humans. At a guess, some combination of biomechanics (muscle twitch speed, pendulum effect of limb sizes against their articulating joints), heart beat, what most people can manage in terms of sustained exercise (as mentioned above), and attention span linked to multiples of musical phrases.

Specifically about keeping tempo, human drummers don't really. They will move around a central tempo, slowing in verses and increasing tempo in choruses and as the song progresses. If you're hearing a fixed tempo in a song, it's because it was recorded with a click track in the drummer's ear. Super common these days because popular tastes for recorded music currently skew towards perfection.


Which would still be natural selection though.


Maltron is OG in the ergo keyboard space as well. Believe they inspired Kinesis, as I think Maltron may have been the first to use the well design.


[1] It’s based in China


Satire. He rarely criticizes apple directly, but I think he’s mindful that it’s required for Apple in the current politics to not become a target.


No US company got TikTok’d, and China doesn’t even allow US social media companies in its country.

China is notoriously middle management heavy, by definition that’s what communism is.


You can’t really say it does or doesn’t. Research shows stress can be a contributor though.

https://med.stanford.edu/survivingcancer/cancer-and-stress/s....


Main factors are sleep, sunlight, diet and exercise as well as stress. You can see her schedule here:

https://press.farm/susan-wojcickis-daily-routine-youtubes-ce...

Sleep about 6hr, which isnt ideal. Not much chance to get sunlight which significantly reduces cancer incidence. Not much relaxing time.

The question becomes, is the work worth it?


That's probably not her real schedule. It looks like clickbait and was probably invented by the author. (Who might be our prolific friend Chat-GPT.)

Besides 10:00pm to 5:30am is 7.5 hours, which is either optimal or (arguably) too much.

Lastly, there's no clear evidence tying sleep duration to cancer incidence. See, e.g.: https://bmccancer.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12885-...


She starts exercising at 530 and goes to bed at 10. Im assuming she wakes up 30 mins before, and it takes her an hour to get to sleep.


They weren’t arguing the specific times, but the article itself reads as if AI generated and not as a real report of someone’s schedule, by someone who would know that person’s schedule.

The follow-on conclusion from that is that the times are highly suspect.


Yes, i think youre correct. I cant find an original source.


Why would you assume an hour? That’s considered to be quite a long sleep latency. Your average individual is at like between 10-20 minutes.


Yes, me too. I was just referring to the time between entering the bedroom and actually sleeping.


arguably too much sleep? what world are you living in that seven and a half hours of sleep is too much?


6hr, as per my comment. Its enough for some people, but average is 7-8. I go to sleep 45-60 mins after going to bed, and i wake 30mins before exercising. Im assuming that is fairly typical.


Yeah, that article definitely looks like ChatGPT imagination.


Where’s your scientific report that says sunlight significantly reduces lung cancer?

We shouldn’t have people making such claims on HN without providing references.

She was also home having dinner with her family by 6:30pm.



This seems key:

“ Following sun exposure advice that is very restrictive in countries with low solar intensity might in fact be harmful to women's health.”

Thanks for the link. Now we know with certainty that lack of sunlight wasn’t a cause.


I think you have misinterpreted that sentence. It is saying that too little sun exposure is harmful to health in women. See also this study which found the same for men in Norway:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01695...


Yes, we agree. Very restrictive exposure in countries with low solar intensity “

Susan lived in Northern California. How’s the solar intensity where she lived?

“ sun exposure advice that is very restrictive in countries with low solar intensity might in fact be harmful to women's health


Oslo is about half the UV of SF, so you would need to spend half as much time in the sun for the same benefit. If you are not outside much during the day, its still a risk factor no matter where you live. This would apply to most office workers.


“ Research on a link between vitamin D and cancer is mixed. Some studies have shown a link between low vitamin D levels in the body and a higher risk of getting cancer or dying from cancer. However, it’s not clear if taking vitamin D or having certain vitamin D levels might help prevent cancer. It’s also not clear if vitamin D can help control the growth and spread of cancer. More research is needed to know what role vitamin D does or does not play in helping to prevent or control cancer.”

https://amp.cancer.org/cancer/risk-prevention/sun-and-uv/sun...


Yes indeed, it is sunlight that has the most evidence. Sun also releases nitric oxide in the skin, which reduces blood pressure, and high bp is associated with increased lung cancer hazard ratio, even for nonsmokers.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12936899/ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-13399-4


Funny that watching YouTube was not one of the things she did, whereas most people spend hours on YouTube/social media.


I’ve tried to google with no success but is it known if she smoked or ever did? Or is she part of the unlucky cohort (~12.5%) of non-smokers that get lung cancer?


Being on the wrong side of the wealth-gap can also induce stress ...


Well, yeah. For the sort of people who have "Title: CEO" on their Wikipedia page I suspect we're overdrawing from the pool of people where mission implicitly matters a little more than taking it easy. One way or the other you're going to die, but if your response to that is to relax and try to eke out a few years by keeping your stress down then CEOing is probably not for you.


You can change it if you want to. An extra 25 years seems worth it to me.


Let’s flip it, explain why US social media is not a national security threat to China.


From facebooks perspective it’s always been official


As long as US social media is banned in China, they don’t have much legal ground, as it can be seen as a tit for tat trade embargo / national security


I'm not finding a game theory exception to the first amendment.


A Chinese company, you just found one.


"Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Not seeing exceptions for a tit for tat trade embargo or a Chinese company here.


> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

> Not seeing exceptions for a tit for tat trade embargo or a Chinese company here.

It's not that simple. I don't see any exceptions for laws against defamation, child porn either, or limits on foreign ownership of TV stations, yet they're there.


Huawei is an example. Foreign companies don’t have the same rights, in large part because of national security concerns. For example is the concern is that a China is trying to infringe on American rights, such as using algorithms, then it’s a moot argument to say TikTok is protected by us law.


> China is trying to infringe on American rights, such as using algorithms

There is no constitutionally protected right for American citizens to not be subjected to propaganda. In fact, it's quite the opposite, since propaganda has been specifically identified as a form of speech protected by the first amendment.


You may not mean this, but this comment really comes off as racist to me. It takes conscious effort to read it through any other lens. I’ll consider that this could be a me-problem.


> You may not mean this, but this comment really comes off as racist to me. It takes conscious effort to read it through any other lens. I’ll consider that this could be a me-problem.

I think that's a you problem. I read "Chinese" as "foreign adversary company," and not as anything to do with race.


I’m married to an ethnic Chinese, I was referring to the CCP, which most people colloquially call “Chinese”. But agree that people will confuse this colloquial term for the Chinese government the CCP for the ethnicity. Most Chinese people outside of china despise the CCP.


Applying constitutional rights to entities you don't have the monopoly on violence on strikes me as suicidal.


Am I misreading this or did you just say 'cause government can always apply violence to you if they don't like your speech'.


IIUC, and I may be wrong, but the Meta/Google/et.al. aren't under a trade embargo in China, they can't do business there because they were unwilling or unable to follow all of the laws required to do business there.

Heck, Google's still trying to arrange the appropriate censorship and filters so they can do business in China.


Can’t reply to your other comment, too nested.

> There is no constitutionally protected right for American citizens to not be subjected to propaganda. In fact, it's quite the opposite, since propaganda has been specifically identified as a form of speech protected by the first amendment.

I would say almost anything can be classified as a national threat, and to consider an algorithms or technology that are limiting free speech or us liberties as propaganda would be a gross misclassification. The cia most likely killed a president under the name of national security, I don’t think a Chinese company has more rights than a us president.


Believe Facebook was banned for a specific national reason in 2009. Hard to do business with a country that doesn’t have something similar to the bill of rights. All Chinese companies are the same as government, meaning their companies don’t have to respect human rights either.


Technically that's exactly the same thing happening here, and under very similar requirements.

Apple played ball, and iCloud in China was handed over to a Chinese state corporation to run.


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

Search: