In this view, what we're seeing is a power struggle for influence between the media who traditionally held the power to manufacture consent and the Internet-based newcomers.

In practice, this is better than someone getting the edge because of a medical condition.

More like end having a sustainable budget.

What's the author's interest in this pitch?

More research is needed (and not by journalists looking to capitalize on a popular story).

We can attribute any of it to "the Internet" or "Facebook" or "Twitter"... or to any other communication platform that lets people reach a wide audience.

If you want something to get your hopes up, look for stuff undergoing human studies. They're not new(s) -- in fact, it's stuff that is known and has shown promise for years -- but they're more likely to eventually work.

Do not get your hopes up just yet.

At least there's always the soothing "solution" of "regulating it". The people who get to "regulate it" are exactly the ones who will wield its power.

After some millions of us have died the other people who survive will eventually find a new equilibrium.

It makes sense from a political actor's point of view to push their message on whatever platform reaches the most influential people, and Hacker News was that platform once, but it destroys the platform in the long-term, and I don't think they care about people wanting a platform for discussing news for hackers.

In this article, the message being pushed is one of social change, and although I agree with the agenda, I don't think it's appropriate in Hacker News either.

One can argue that both almonds and cannabis take a harmful share of water in drought-prone areas and that both will be controlled.

It's more than possible -- it's well-documented with some kinds of meditative practice. [1]

The only interesting question this article raises for a knowledgeable person is whether or not the Sanskrit language _itself_ would have an effect on cognition, but it never succeeds to prove it would or offer a mechanism for how it would work, and instead asks for funds for more studies.

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/meditationpapers/top/?sort=top&t=al...

https://www.reddit.com/r/MeditationNerds/top/?sort=top&t=all

This quote, coupled with a lack of a proposed mechanism as to how the Sanskrit language would itself have an influence on cognition, means that as far as we know right now there is no such thing as the Sanskrit Effect.

It makes for a catchy headline, though, and the other stuff in the article speaks to my own successful experiments in memory training -- if interested, look up the books from the World Memory Championship winner.

The whole enterprise is sabotaged by the simple fact that the logical foundation behind that aphorism can be bluntly, but better, summed as:

"Choose the most adequate explanation."

I guess the answer is no.

"The hard-coded backdoor that was found can't be a hard-coded backdoor, because Western Digital would never be so crass and incompetent as to put a hard-coded backdoor hidden in such a way that a security researcher would find it and attribute it to them."

How can one argue against such flawless logic when it even has an aphorism to describe it?