I've personally found this little hack useful, but then again I don't have a DSLR and macro lens!

For me, the Copilot key outputs the chord "Win (Left) + Shift (Left) + F23". I remapped it to "Ctrl (Right)" and it's functioning as it should.

Do you have plans to make a 16-channel (or 32-channel?) board in the future? In my area of research, 32 channels tends to be the recommended minimum for studies.

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/373/6553/eabd0830/

The author builds up plots step by step, showing the changes to the plot along the way. It's really great at showing what each element contributes to the final plot.

The data are here: https://pastebin.com/HhWTKZRb

1) The Internet was created. Early adopters are generally optimistic about its potential to share knowledge and data, and form communities around mutual interests. 2) People begin to realize different ways to create money from this popular new technology, leading to very obvious attempts at creating revenue at some expense of users attention (e.g. advertising), followed by more hidden ways of revenue creation (e.g. selling data).

I also find it hard not to despair. There are still online communities that are still more motivated by communicating and sharing for their own sake (HN included), which I think should be the aspiration of online communities. Most people here have probably just settled into the online communities/blogs that serve these more optimistic goals. The unfortunate thing is that as soon as these communities become relatively popular in any way, other motives start to come to the fore to take advantage of that popularity. As those motives become clear, cynicism is inevitable. It seems to me that you might need something like benevolent community leaders that want to pour their own resources (time and/or money) into online communities without expecting anything in return.

I guess this comment didn't really offer ways to deal with cynicism regarding technology, if anything I justified the cynicism and suggested an option to create communities that would not breed cynicism.

The main results are an interaction between Time (pre/post) and Diary condition (3rd person/1st person), t = 2.65, p = .008. They followed this up with a contrast showing that the 3rd person diary condition resulted in more wise reasoning post-intervention (as compared to pre-intervention), B = 0.130, SE = 0.028, t = 4.61, p < 0.0001. And importantly, this same improvement was not seen in the 1st person diary control group: B = 0.022, SE = 0.030, t = 0.74, p = 0.458.

They didn't provide degrees of freedom for their t-tests, but given their sample size (N=298) they're essentially z-tests anyway.

Regarding the self-measurements influencing the results: the wisdom in the participants' reasoning (the dependent variable in the focal study) was evaluated by two independent hypothesis-blind raters. This seems like a pretty solid evaluation of the participants which should be immune to anything but the manipulation the researchers employed (the diary conditions). I am not sure what self-measurement you are concerned about.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18097690

Points: 3

# Comments: 0

If the original study was under-powered, the estimated effect size in that study will be inflated and any replication attempt that uses this inflated effect size estimate will be severely underpowered.

Plus, two independently conducted studies that are both powered at 80% to detect a true effect will both be positive results only 64% of the time (assuming absolutely nothing fishy going on, e.g. p-hacking).

Also highlighted in the press release is the fact that this was robust for unconsciously presented happy faces -- it is unusual for positive stimuli to have a stronger effect on most psychological measures. This is usually due to negative stimuli causing higher levels of arousal (as far as I know, though I'd need to confirm this in the literature), so it's really due to a confounding of valence and arousal.

My main question from this article would be how they controlled for low-level visual properties of the stimuli presented. The hope is that their upside-down face experiment was able to account for any possible confounding of face emotion with something like spatial frequency characteristics influencing the participant's subjective judgement of the neutral face, but there will never be a way to fully claim that it was the emotion of the face alone. If you fully control the underlying visual properties of the stimulus, you remove the emotion!