Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | aiCeivi9's commentslogin

> five minutes it takes to learn to using the billing console.

I spent hour or two trying to find anything running and didn't find a damn thing. Yet Amazon decided to charge me a buck or two every month for "storage" so I just canceled whole account. I mean, if I can't find what I am paying for when not using it, how am I supposed to understand the bill when I actually have a dozen of instances?


Looks ok for me, with adblock+umatrix: https://i.imgur.com/UABzai9.png


So far the best I have seen is https://thisstartupdoesnotexist.com/


Does aphantasia have any impact?


I have aphantasia and schizophrenia. I've never had a visual or auditory hallucination, but I have had plenty of delusions and cognitive dysfunction. Ever since learning about aphantasia I've wondered if it has protected me from these types of hallucinations. Maybe someone should run a study on this?

A common post among the people over at /r/schizophrenia is that the so called negative symptoms of schizophrenia (anhedonia, apathy, reduced social drive, cognitive impairment, etc) are just as bad if not worse than the positive symptoms (hallucinations and delusions). Unfortunately the negative symptoms are not adequately treated by any medicine and are in fact made worse (!) by medication. This is probably the number one reason why schizophrenics quit their medication - the medications are simply so shitty that people would rather risk the positive symptoms than experience worse negative symptoms.

There's no good research directions for new schizophrenia medications either. Schizophrenia research certainly isn't discussed (or have funds raised for it) as much as Alzheimer's research despite the fact that 3.5 million people in the US have it, and it affects people at a much younger age.

Edit: Before starting medication I noticed some visual disturbances related to schizophrenia often known as sensory gating deficits. I would get an overload of visual sensory information to the point where I would notice nearly every detail in my visual range simultaneously (that's the best way I can explain it). At times it was actually quite beautiful since the whole world would pop out in vivid color. However as soon as motion was introduced it quickly became overwhelming.


I have aphantasia and auditory hallucinations.


That would mean that you sometimes hear things in your head, but you have no control over what you hear?


That's an interesting thought. I (think I) have aphantasia and I could easily see how you'd be less inclined to hallucinations, intrusive thoughts and the like.


If you think you have aphantasia, you almost certainly do. I was in the same boat, but after conversations with a few friends I found that the ones which don't give very literal descriptions of their imaginations.

It isn't in any way an analogy, they literally do see the things they're imagining. It's like a hallucination, except with control and full awareness that it's not real.

It's easy to see how that could turn into actual hallucinations, I'll agree.


I do not have aphantasia. The way I think of my imagination is like a virtual machine running a separate reality I'm in control of. I can roll a ball around on a plane in space and still have awareness of "base" reality.

Other -non visual- sensations I am able to simulate: - Taste/smell, able to taste specific foods without eating them - Sound, able to hear conversations, music, etc. - Pain, able to feel the sensation of touching a hot stove or breaking my arm

If any people with aphantasia are in this thread, are you able to "simulate" any of these experiences? Also: are you religious in any way? There is an interesting history of religion and schizophrenia [0].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_schizophrenia


> If any people with aphantasia are in this thread, are you able to "simulate" any of these experiences?

No. Memories are like non-verbal propositional knowledge. You know what happened, you can articulate connected facts about it. But the idea of “hallucinating” a visual memory is absolutely foreign to me. You bunch of crazy people actually see things that aren’t there, in your mind’s eye?

> Also: are you religious in any way?

Strong no, but I fail to see the relevance. I’m atheist for entirely unrelated reasons.


> You bunch of crazy people actually see things that aren’t there, in your mind’s eye?

It's not so much that I "see" them -- it's very distinct from the visual perception. For me, actual sight is associated with some physical feelings - not only do I see objects/colors/etc but there's some degree of feedback from the muscles of my eye, best demonstrated by looking at bright lights vs dim surfaces. It's very, very clear when I'm actually seeing something.

Then, separately from ocular perception, there's an ethereal space inside my head where I can conjure up various "platonic ideals" of things, and the senses they generate. It's like a sandbox of sorts, or perhaps that loading scene in the matrix where Neo and Trinity grab a bunch of guns.

By platonic ideal, i mean that when I think "Apple", I sort of see an apple in that internal space, but it's neither red, nor green - unless I focus on "red apples" in which case it will no longer be green, but also won't yet be specifically a Fuji apple or a Red Delicious apple. It's just an uninstantiated class of "apple.red" existing in my headspace.

No matter how hard I visualize the apple, no matter how many specifics I give it (Fuji apple, small soft brown spot on one side, with broad color splotches rather than narrow bands)...it never activates the "feeling" of real sight. It very much feels like it doesn't exist, a temporary cloud of vapor that just "poofs" away instantly if it's not constantly regenerated.

For me, there's very little way I could see getting confused between my visual imaginations and my visual sight.

Generally when I conjure something up I don't just see it visually, potentially I also sort of taste or smell or can recognize the feel of its texture, and maybe hear associated sounds like the breaking open sound of the apple. Again, all of these are extremely non-tangible and generally would never be confused with real sensations. They occupy a different space.

It's like a simulation and modeling environment with a physics engine, more than anything else. It's a place to run experiments - with or without hypotheses.

Also, almost all my thoughts have a verbal monologue. There aren't "characters" in my head talking to me, it's usually my own voice, but sometimes I can use other people's voices to sound things out as well. Rather different from my internal monologue I can also pull up "recordings" of what other people said to me (which are really generative models, akin to a decoder in machine learning).


That was the best explanation I've heard about this, before reading this I was questioning if I had aphantasia


It's worth keeping in mind that, in the Extreme Imagination Conference 2019 keynote, Prof. Zeman described "about half" of over 2000 folks his team has studied as multimodal. So for roughly 50%, it's purely a matter of visual processing and doesn't apply to other senses (like your examples), while the other half include multiple (or all) senses.

That being said, I'm one of the folks who have to choose how to add spices when I cook based upon what I remember working together in the past. As I understand it, some (perhaps only a talented few and perhaps including some unimodal aphants) are able to use the same part of their brain that processes taste and smell to imagine the taste and smell of new combinations of flavors.

Another quirk: I don't think I get songs stuck in my head in the same way as others. I may have a particular verse or rhythm on my mind... but I'm pretty sure that I'm lucking out in this regard.

In all the cases mentioned, I'm reasonably capable of predicting or extrapolating outcomes based upon past experiences (I don't stick my hand on many hot stoves, for example). But my brain just doesn't seem to run through the process of recreating sensations to get there.


That's interesting. I think I have aphantasia (the way people describe their visualizations seems very strange/foreign to me although sometimes I think I can visualize some things) but I can hear music very well in my head. The other sensations I cannot imagine at all.

Particularly, the idea of imagining pain and feeling it is strange to me.


Well, I'm one so...

No, I'm not able to simulate any of that, in the way I think you mean. I can predict the outcomes, but I can't at all claim to be experiencing any of it. It involves no more sensation than reading words on a page.

(Which is to say, none. I understand that that can also vary. The only time that changes is when I'm dreaming. So I know what experience I'm not getting, I suppose.)

No, I'm not religious, but nobody in my family is. We used to be subjects of the Thunderer; that was a couple of generations back. Christianity managed to break us of that, but not to make us believe them.


This applies to me as well.


I’m not able to do any of these.


I had aphantasia until I had a drug (weed and shrooms) induced psychosis. During the psychosis I had constant musical hallucinations. Now, after recovering, I can now both visualize and have a clear inner monologue in my mind.


This is fascinating. I also have aphantasia and experienced psychosis with high dosages of those drugs, however the only lasting effect I received was a profound connection with all living things. I subsequently became vegetarian. Other lasting effects I have experienced from strong psychedelics are mostly social realizations—basically I have more/expanded empathy and imagination and am able to go far enough outside my own headspace to recognize how I differ from others. I envy people who claim that psychedelics have made them closer to cognitive normal; while they have made me happier in the sense that I have less internal conflict, they have never “fixed” my brain, only given me better coping mechanisms.


I wish that was a repeatable experience.


> If you think you have aphantasia, you almost certainly do.

I took the VVIQ online and it concluded that I "probably don't" have aphantasia (but merely "You do not have a vivid imagination"). Basically it seems that unless you're 0's across the board, you can form some part of some image in your mind, and thus don't meet their definition.

Then again, the only one I rated above a 1 was "gait", and that's as much auditory as visual, so I'm not sure I believe them.

I took another online test which asked me to look at a 3D shape made of blocks, and then later compare others (drawn from different angles) and determine which was the same, without referencing the original. It was an easy test, but to me it had little to do with visual imagery. I just remembered the original shape as sounds (far easier than remembering a shape!), and then picked which of the others sounded the same.

That's the fundamental problem I see with tests that try to figure out how a person thinks. You try to invent a test which you believe can only possibly be solved in one way -- but people who don't think that way already have a lifetime of experience living and thinking, so surely they've developed other mechanisms by now.

It's like saying "I know how to test if someone has two legs: we'll put the finish line 100 meters over there! Then anyone missing a leg won't be able to get to it." Just because you don't have two legs doesn't mean you can't get around just fine.

I'm absolutely sure there are people who solved the block problem visually, and tactilely, and other ways I can't even guess at. I think "aphantasia" is all wrong. It implies visual thinking is normal, and "non-visual" is the only alternative. We don't have a special word for "people who don't have blue eyes". We say directly what color we mean.


> Google

They are trying to kill URL, with AMP and hiding parts of address in Chrome bar. The perfect google customer never types any URL and uses search engine instead.


I have been hearing how great Thorium reactor are for last 15 years. Still not commercially available, almost as vaporware as fusion.


> alternate init systems

Yeah, I am just end-user and I don't really care what is under the hood as long as it works, but isn't the biggest complaint against `systemd` is that it integrates a lot of other functions/subsystems that are not part of other init systems? And you kinda have to take whole package?


The only non-init part of the systemd that is required is systemd-journald; every other part can be disabled at build time via configure switch, or at runtime by disabling the corresponding unit files. Whether optional parts can be disabled on any particular distro is the distro packagers' responsibility.


It does have a lot of features but my beef with it is how its integration into Debian still leaves all the misleading old cruft laying about. Take the MySQL server package. Suppose you want to change the limit of how much shared memory it can use. Well, the package comes with an init script, let’s put the ulimit statement in there. Restart. No effect. Ok, limits.conf. Restart. No effect. Ok, edit mysqld_safe script. Restart. No effect. Oh I figured it out, systemd ignores all these things and you have to set limits in its service file. But if you set it to ‘unlimited’ it silently ignores the statement. You have to say ‘infinity’ for some reason.

All this crud has just been left here to confuse users and I hate it.



Unfortunately, because twitter threads forces the user to dumb down their main points to a single, compressed sentence. It's a shame, since I like to read well thought out articles.

Twitter takes that away because it offers a UX that's makes publishing too easy for your random ideas. People with low self control will create threads like this. With hundreds of likes comes self validation so they keep doing this.


Well it is a self-reinforcing loop. Cites are not designed for walking, there are huge areas used for parkings, the own car is really the only choice when there is no huge public transport network. And there won't be one when everyone has a car.


Didn't they get rid of everything that didn't bring profit like JEE and NetBeans? The only part of Java that Oracle cares about is paid(supported)LTS versions, as there is no free LTS version anymore, with new quick release schedule. Well, that was the idea, some companies like Amazon ( https://aws.amazon.com/corretto/ ) want to backport fixes.


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

Search: