Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The cognitive costs of air pollution

patrickcollison.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 300 posts

Re: The cognitive costs of air pollution

#61

Post by bearforcenine »

9dl wrote: post #58
PowerfulWizard wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone want to review this table and suggest a currently commercially available option in the $300 and lower price range? I may have time this afternoon but if anyone does go thorough it I'm interested to know.

>*Field R2 Under the table is definition of R^2 >The coefficient of determination (R2) is a statistical parameter measuring the degree of relation between two variables. .... The more - the better. Range [0; 1) More device in your area === better quality of measurement

Isn't the table sorted alphabetically?

Re: The cognitive costs of air pollution

#62

Post by 9dl »

bearforcenine wrote: post #61
9dl wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>*Field R2 Under the table is definition of R^2 >The coefficient of determination (R2) is a statistical parameter measuring the degree of relation between two variables. .... The more - the better. Range [0; 1) More device in your area === better quality of measurement

Isn't the table sorted alphabetically?

True

My bad

Re: The cognitive costs of air pollution

#64

Post by dmos62 »

bryanmgreen wrote: post #34

I wish the argument against pollution would be the simplest one. Go to a massively unpopulated area and just breath. Feel the difference? Isn't it intoxicating? Who gives a crap if umpires make worse calls? Just fight pollution because it's obvious pollution is bad for humans and the planet. Normally I'm all for extra evidence, but in a situation like this come on. It's basically like immaterial evidence against geno…

I like thinking of it as waste, as opposed to bad. Good-bad is the moral realm. Waste is the realm of practicality. The danger is in causing defensiveness, due to judgment, in people whose open-mindedness would be beneficial. I'm not being apologetic of anyone. It's just that this doesn't have to happen through a dramatic conflict of good v. evil (which probably wouldn't work anyway); there are much better alternatives.

I agree with everything you said. Just wanted to stack my rant on yours there.

Re: The cognitive costs of air pollution

#65

Post by fizwhiz »

Scene_Cast2 wrote: post #8

How do you all monitor air quality? I personally have a couple of devices (an Awair and a Flow). They seem to under-report PM2.5 compared to purpleair, airnow, and waqi.

Dylos AQM is the gold standard. It's pricey though and has an old school interface (no fancy UI, IoT or "AI").

Re: The cognitive costs of air pollution

#67

Post by [deleted] »

dmos62 wrote: post #59
rahuldottech wrote: post #17

This really bothers me. I live in a VERY polluted place, and unfortunately moving away won't be an option for me for at least half a decade. What can I do to minimise the health effects of such an atmosphere? I'm planning on getting an indoor air filter for my home.

I'm not sure what _VERY_ polluted means, but you might consider taking up more physical activity. On GCN youtube cycling channel they argued (including interviews with some health professionals) that even if you live in a city with considerable pollution, the positive effects of commuting on a bicycle outweigh the negative effects of air pollution. They were primarily talking about Britain-scale pollution of course.…

[deleted]

Re: The cognitive costs of air pollution

#68

Post by 9dl »

larnmar wrote: post #38
known wrote: post #13

Poverty also reduces IQ by 13 points https://archive.is/bmj11

Has this study been replicated? It seems a lot like one of those terrible “priming” studies that won’t. Statistics aside, the experimental methodology is terrible. You ask a bunch of people to think about being poor, or not, and that’s supposed to be a simulation of being poor or not?

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

> The replication suggested that economic background, rather than willpower, explained the other half

Yeah

And 250k/y "poor"

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/09/the-sel...

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/09/in-defe...

Re: The cognitive costs of air pollution

#69

Post by carapace »

4ec0755f5522 wrote: post #27
rahuldottech wrote: post #17

This really bothers me. I live in a VERY polluted place, and unfortunately moving away won't be an option for me for at least half a decade. What can I do to minimise the health effects of such an atmosphere? I'm planning on getting an indoor air filter for my home.

Find one that can filter nano particles. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20191113-the-toxic-killer...

That's brutal! We're poisoning ourselves.

Re: The cognitive costs of air pollution

#70

Post by koopuluri »

dmos62 wrote: post #59
rahuldottech wrote: post #17

This really bothers me. I live in a VERY polluted place, and unfortunately moving away won't be an option for me for at least half a decade. What can I do to minimise the health effects of such an atmosphere? I'm planning on getting an indoor air filter for my home.

I'm not sure what _VERY_ polluted means, but you might consider taking up more physical activity. On GCN youtube cycling channel they argued (including interviews with some health professionals) that even if you live in a city with considerable pollution, the positive effects of commuting on a bicycle outweigh the negative effects of air pollution. They were primarily talking about Britain-scale pollution of course.…

My hunch is OP lives in an Indian metro. I absolutely do not recommend commuting on a bike or exposing self to outdoor air in any way during a commute in an Indian metro.
Post reply on HN