Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | jk7tarYZAQNpTQa's commentslogin

Like every Gore-Tex product.


Maybe billionaires should be forced to realize a fraction of those unrealized gains from time to time, and pay taxes on them.


Losing weight.


My wife has sleep apnea and her BMI is 19. So, not necessarily.


Congrats I guess? Your wife is an exception to a very well established norm. Losing weight is a treatment so good (as in, effective, safe, cheap) that most doctors will recommend it as the number 1 step in treating sleep apnea.

"What is becoming increasingly clear is that we need to continue to strongly advocate weight loss for all our patients, regardless of the severity of their OSA or adherence to our other therapies. The benefits of weight loss are, to a degree, unquestionable. This study highlights that tangible benefits can be obtained with weight-loss interventions. The challenge, as always, lies in the implementation of our lofty goals."

https://jcsm.aasm.org/doi/10.5664/jcsm.8384


Saying "congrats", whether ironic or not, comes off as insensitive at best.


That's only if your weight is the cause.


"Some 60–90% of adults with OSA are overweight"

https://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/31/Supplement_2/S3...


I don't see your point. Obviously, some of those folks are just technically overweight - BMI at 25 - and aren't going to get as much help even though most of us picture obesity when looking at this. And that still leaves 10-40% that aren't and still have OSA.


> some of those folks are just technically overweight - BMI at 25 - and aren't going to get as much help

Citation needed. They are absolutely going to be benefited from weight loss.

"What is becoming increasingly clear is that we need to continue to strongly advocate weight loss for all our patients, regardless of the severity of their OSA or adherence to our other therapies. The benefits of weight loss are, to a degree, unquestionable. This study highlights that tangible benefits can be obtained with weight-loss interventions. The challenge, as always, lies in the implementation of our lofty goals."

https://jcsm.aasm.org/doi/10.5664/jcsm.8384

"Results: Relative to stable weight, a 10% weight gain predicted an approximate 32% (95% confidence interval [CI], 20%-45%) increase in the AHI. A 10% weight loss predicted a 26% (95% CI, 18%-34%) decrease in the AHI. A 10% increase in weight predicted a 6-fold (95% CI, 2.2-17.0) increase in the odds of developing moderate-to-severe SDB. "

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11122588/


> what's causing this vast increase in myopia is not spending enough time in bright environments (i.e. outside) during one's formative years.

I'd like a source on that. AFAIK the leading factor is so called "near activities", or more specifically, lack of "far activities" (i.e. lack of looking at a distance, which makes your eyeballs get and keep proper shape and characteristics).

> In that regard cellphones (since they can be used outdoors) are a huge improvement over e.g. television.

Again, environment brightness, AFAIK, is way less important than the distance at which you are looking. Hence, looking at the TV is better than at your phone. And I suspect both are better than reading a paper book.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34142457/


> Parents nowadays blame screens for short-sightedness, but the truth is back then my classmates are almost all doing reading and writing all the time, and nobody was using screens (Symbian Nokia only took off years later).

Classic (i.e. in paper) reading/writing is much worse than screens.

> It's only me and the other two boys who spend all the time and money on online video games

the most important factor, AFAIK, is "outside time", i.e. the amount of "medium/far distance looking" that you do every day. A lack of it has been proven to cause myopia.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34142457/


> Are you implying that cell phones could be a factor?

And books, too.


IMHO Matthew Green often makes bold yet unsubstantiated claims. He also creates and promotes FUD. He may be technically good, but I don't trust his personal opinion, not even on subjects he presumably knows very well.


> if there was anything to remember from your dreams, you'll lose it by doing this. Dream memories are extremely fragile

I've always had a natural ability to remember my dreams. And one of the most curious things about my dreams is that I can recall (as in right now) dreams I had decades ago. I can often remember them until late in the day. I can also know when I had a dream I already had years ago (it happens often). It's almost like a deja vu.

I never had a dream diary, but I would like to make one just to find these repetitions, connections, relations, etc.


I thought this was common. I have a few recurring dreams I have had since I was a kid. I may have them once every two years or so, but since they are recurring I can remember them well. I never write down my dreams, though.


Are these algorithms even capable of generating noise images? And I don't mean asking them to generate "an image of tv static".


It's fascinating how my (our?) opinion on Google has changed since 2004.


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

Search: