Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | bagels's comments login

Seems really dangerous to block the airway. If you get a runny, bloody, stuffed or otherwise blocked nose, seems like you can suffer some bad outcomes.

It’s normally a small piece of tape less than the width of your mouth. It’s more about keeping your lips together than creating an air-tight seal.

Is it an implanted device? The website makes it really hard to find out how it is worn, or if it is surgically implanted.

It is implanted. I had a consult to get one and decided without too much uncertainty that it was not for me. I like the other benefits (as noted in other comments) of CPAP that would be lost and my wife doesn't notice the little noise over the fan she runs all night anyway :)

Surgically implanted under the collar bone.

https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf13/P130008d.pdf


Different welding chemistry, different welding requirements (filler, temperature, possibly process).

As the GP points out, the chromium when vaporized is a lot worse for you than what's typically in plain steel.

Not just that, but, if you weld it, now you have exposed the plain steel and have invited rust inside the coating.


You wouldn’t be welding the stainless

Have you done much welding? I'd like to know how you imagine this is achieved.

I'm sure the governments buying bridges don't care, but 5% increased cost for a multiple in longevity seems like a good investment.

At least where I live the government is happy to spend a million euros every year to postpone a five million one time cost.

would more probably be around 15-20% extra price because of the relative price of stainless

We've replaced a $20 scale with a $1M robot arm and ai. Progress.


You might not understand it, but model predictive control requires a model of not just the robot, but also the payload.

This means that you have to hard code the mass and dynamics of the payload or use an algorithm to determine the payload properties automatically.

It should be blatantly obvious then how useless a robot that can only pick up a very specific object and how useful a robot that can pick up any object is.


"nearly cosmetic effect"

Do you have studies to back this up? I did a quick search, and the first study I turned up didn't agree with you.


What are you eating for 55 cents per meal?


https://youtu.be/sWoqj-JxwXo?si=IbC-MdVvmS9qpmch

Quite a few YouTubers out there show you how to do it


The answer appears to be beans and rice with a very small amount of vegetables and an American biscuit. If you buy at Walmart.


I usually have some mixture of rice, lentils, beans and (frozen) vegetables. I cook the rice and lentils first, and then add frozen vegetables at the end (and possibly beans). It's quite good, healthy, and cheap.


There are other ways besides seeing changes in orbits to confirm the existence of a body. Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn are easily seen with the eye, for instance.

Planet 9 might be confirmed with infrared surveys as a post from last week discussed or some other method.


You are right, I was only replying to the parent article, where the incorrect argument was stated, that the orbits pointing to an external attractor mean that it exists now in that direction.

There may be one or more big planets at great distances from the Sun, but not for the reason stated in the parent article, which is better explained by an ancient star flyby.


I thought the same, but amazingly, there are some early results that suggest a transit was observed in another galaxy:

https://science.nasa.gov/universe/exoplanets/exoplanet-disco...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extragalactic_planet


Doctors not too long ago would tell you that infants don't experience pain.

There are a lot of not backed by science beliefs in the medical field that won't die until the doctors that believe them do.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23548489/


'A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.' — Max Planck


Which is a funny thing for someone who lived through and contributed to at least one entire upending of paradigms to say.

PLENTY of science proceeds without anyone dying. Usually it just requires insanely entertaining loud arguments at large conventions. Go lookup the philosophical arguments about early thermodynamics and like statistical mechanics.

Science advances one unexplainable datapoint at a time.


Too much protein is bad for your kidneys!!!

PS: this has been debunked, still docs keep saying it.


I've heard there is good evidence that weightlifters eating an appropriate (high) protein intake for hypertrophy don't harm healthy kidneys, though the sources seemed biased.

But has that statement been debunked for sedentary people or people with kidney disease?


https://physiqonomics.com/are-high-protein-diets-bad-for-you...

Had a great overview.

> As long as you have don’t have pre-existing kidney issues, you don’t need to worry about high-protein intakes killing your kidneys, and it’s time to put this myth to bed.


Unfortunately most of the research cited there was in "resistance-trained" individuals (and one in nurses, who are far from sedentary). The meta analysis also included at least some research on active individuals. And the author is a bodybuilder and fitness coach.

The one study of overweight individuals mentioned found no adverse side effects but only lasted six months, which may not be long enough for clinical effects to become obvious.

Also, the author overlooked gout entirely.

Based on all that, I'm not convinced it is safe for sedentary individuals.

I think the author should have written:

> As long as you are highly active and have don’t have pre-existing kidney issues...


What convinces you that it’s unsafe?


I'm not convinced that it's unsafe either, but I'd like to see stronger evidence than a blog post citing selected research.


I don't think this has been debunked.

I think it's an omnipresent concern in people with 10-20% kidney function left, and outside that cohort, it's a concern if you're getting a supermajority of your calories from protein for a prolonged period of time (which is quite rare/expensive for most of us)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_toxicity

Most people who eat "high protein diets" are not actually eating all that much protein, because their food is laced with lots of fat and some carbs. The guy eating burgers and sausage all day long is actually on a high-fat diet. This fools people because fat is so nutritionally dense, and because lean protein is basically always chock-full of bulky water. The soy "protein" I'm eating still has fat and carbs.


I don’t think it’s relevant what we think on this matter. The studies have debunked this. See the link in my other comment for actual studies.

Re your link: Yes, most things are toxic if consumed in vast amounts, even water.


An example is that thin people cannot possibly have sleep apnea, it only affects overweight people. Overly-confident Dunning-Kruger doctors adamantly declared this as "truth" to me enough times that it stalled me getting properly treated at least a decade.


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

Search: