Thread

Surprisingly complex waves reveal the brain's inner workings

253 points · 98 comments · ibobev

rdtsc · 1790798732 · focus · HN ↗
> Surprisingly Complex Waves Reveal the Brain's Inner Workings
From my ignorant point of view I can't quite make sense of the title. Brain is probably the last organ one would be surprised to find complexity in. I can see "surprisingly complex wave reveal spleen inner workings" being a good title, like "wow, we though it was a dumb blood filter, but look what we found!" kind of a thing. But for the brain isn't the default assumption that has it complexity we haven't figure out yet?
1. teiferer · 1790800943 · focus · HN ↗
  [flagged]
  1. dang · 1790805484 · focus · HN ↗
    Could you please stop posting low-quality comments, such as snark, flamebait, and provocation? Your account has unfortunately been doing a ton of this lately. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
    If you wouldn't mind reviewing <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html">https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
    teiferer · 1790838507 · focus · HN ↗
    Thanks for taking care of this site and watching over posts not in line with the guidelines. I agree that I might have gone a bit too far lately and will try to improve. Starting by pausing for a week.
    I must say though that I'm a tad surprised that it was my posts in particular that got called out. I have been reading around a bunch earlier today and came across lots of posts arguably worse than mine. (Could this have to do with me having mentioned HN in a recent post?)
    Anyway, not an excuse, I should to some soul searching. Sorry.
    dang · 1790911247 · focus · HN ↗
    It's such a frequently asked question that, come to think of it, it belongs in the FAQ!
    The answer is (1) yes, there probably are lots of other comments breaking the guidelines much worse than yours were, and (2) no, the reason I responded to you-but-not-them is nothing personal to you (such as your having recently said something about HN). It's simply that I didn't see those other posts! and we can't moderate what we don't see.
    We don't even see 10% of what gets posted to HN; there's far too much. For that reason, it's impossible for moderation to be consistent in the sense of giving every post more-or-less the same treatment. We can only do that on the subset of posts which we do see—and there we do try to be more-or-less consistent—but since readers have no idea what that subset actually is, it ends up seeming super inconsistent and even unfair.
    Also, we read the site in all kinds of random-access ways, so even when other comments-that-deserve-to-be-moderated are proximate, we don't necessarily know about them. From a reader's point of view that's even worse: how can you moderate X, but pass over Y doing far worse right on the same page?
    It leads to feelings of being singled out personally, or of the moderators taking sides and favoring the comments they happen to agree with. That's why your question commonly arises: it's baked into the fundamentals. Unfortunately it's not so clear what to do about them; that's one consequence of their being fundamental.
2. panabee · 1790801796 · focus · HN ↗
  [dead]

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.