Viewing profile — lsparrish
lsparrish
HN member- Joined
- Tue, Jun 29, 2010, 10:37 PM UTC
- HN karma
- 115
- Public activity
- 93 items
- HN profile
- View on Hacker News ↗
About lsparrish
No profile information was provided.
Recent public activity
-
comment
Comment #30484729
It's just a bunch of automated drones flying in formation. Trying to calculate their orbits ahead of time in any kind of detail would be a fool's errand, instead we'd just use sola…
-
comment
Comment #16762510
Nobody is making use of this service yet. However, if they were, why would it be ghastly for them to voluntarily trade a small number of days worth of terminal decline for a substa…
-
comment
Comment #13455986
I'm not sure why people seem so convinced that MNT is a hard requirement here. To be sure there are some components that require fine micrometer to nanometer level precision, but e…
-
comment
Comment #11393901
You might find this interesting: http://gravitationalballoon.blogspot.com/2013/03/introductio...
-
comment
Comment #11077851
> Aldehydes covalently bond and crosslink the proteins and irreversibly kill all of the fixed cells. That is the textbook answer, however these bonds are only "irreversible" as a m…
-
comment
Comment #11077793
This technique is useful for general neuroscience purposes, yes. My point was just that it isn't what is critical to preserve for the sake of cryonics.
-
comment
Comment #11077782
> The bag with the remains of the watches gets carefully pocketed and some of the money goes towards ordering a round of drinks for everybody. I might have misunderstood this bit (…
-
comment
Comment #11075155
His criticism bad (as ever), since he assumes all information needed for nervous system function is the same as all information needed to replicate a given nervous system. Most of …
-
comment
Comment #11075138
Cool story, bro. Cryonics as it currently exists being profitable is 1) irrelevant to whether it works or not, and 2) a persistent myth.
-
comment
Comment #8243832
I should also mention that the wood frog is really more a counterexample of vitrification. It forms ice (which they are adapted to tolerate, unlike us), but the interior or the cel…
-
comment
Comment #8243735
It's interesting that the comments by cell biologist Len Ornstein in that thread completely omit any mention of high osmolality vitrification, which is what is practiced in cryonic…
-
comment
Comment #8243203
Um. You also stop poverty and wars. That is also your duty.
- story
- story
- story
- story
-
comment
Comment #5505738
Not at all what was said. In fact, the whole criticism you linked to is about structure, and ways in which it is supposedly altered beyond repair. The notion that we are transient …
-
comment
Comment #5502173
If you think the pursuit of immortality causes mental breakdowns, can you substantiate this with evidence from psychology journals? If not, this strikes me as unreliable folk wisdo…
-
comment
Comment #5496965
My gut estimate is that the chance is somewhere in the 1-10% range. I've been thinking about it for around 5 years. Part of why that number is so high is the relative lack of coher…
-
comment
Comment #5496772
Personally, I'm glad to see cryonics being given more attention and discussion. It is a subject not well understood, even among biologists. If you think people undergoing it today …
-
comment
Comment #5496726
By all means, please, show us peer reviewed sources that contradict it.
-
comment
Comment #5496369
> Nanobots cannot repair angstrom-scale freeze damages. Vitrification avoids ice. Nanobots could e.g. remove toxic compounds from extracellular areas and replace them with nontoxic…
-
comment
Comment #5496086
> Understanding "biology 101" means understanding that biology is about experiments, everyth is empirical (and will be for quite some time I guess), nothing can be said that "it wo…
-
comment
Comment #5493834
> (since you are dead). IMHO this is the cryo equivalent of an ethnic slur. Cryophobia, if you will. It meets the "you can't change this thing about yourself so we outsiders are go…
-
comment
Comment #5492935
Isn't this more a question of the relative strength of objective evidence? I have a problem with the idea that hope in and of itself is a bad thing.