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

Engineering Sleep

minjunes.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 205 posts

Re: Engineering Sleep

#131

Post by juliusgeo »

raducu wrote: post #108
rsyring wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As recent, on-patent drugs, they are very, very expensive ($360/month... Expensive is always relative to one's income. But, to put that number into perspective relative to another medication given for a good night's sleep: I'm the parent of a narcoleptic. The meds to get a good night's sleep, Xyrem, are in the $15k / month range. The recently approved generics are 1/2 that.

> Xyrem, are in the $15k. Xyrem is basically GHB? A 500 ml bottle of GBL used to be what, 50 euros? I know the medication is pharmeceutical grade, but are these people insane?

Xyrem is just the brand name for GHB. The company that currently owns the rights (Jazz Pharmaceuticals) pled guilty to felony misbranding in 2011, and in 2013 raised the price by 841%. More recently, in 2017, they sued multiple other companies attempting to produce generics, before settling on an exclusive licensing agreement with one of them. Ironically the headline on their website is "Improving Patients' Lives", but I imagine they aren't reducing the price because Xyrem makes up 74% of total sales [1]. The entire thing reeks of PE--tons of acquisitions.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jazz_Pharmaceuticals

Re: Engineering Sleep

#132

Post by baq »

quotemstr wrote: post #93
baq wrote: post #58

I’m not convinced we need to engineer sleep in the general population. Once shorter sleep times are available to everyone, they’ll be expected and then simply assumed just as cars are right now in most of the US.

Your argument works just as well for eyeglasses. Was inventing eyeglasses a mistake?

You’re confusing glasses with sight and besides the analogy would be not vs glasses, but vs some kind of cyber eye implant.

Re: Engineering Sleep

#133

Post by klysm »

iancmceachern wrote: post #130

The best advice I ever received, and will give again. It has really served me well. In the words of John Lennon, let it be. Sleep when you're tired, work and play when you're not. The constrination and worrying about it, how much time you have for what, etc. is the single biggest driver for the stress and loss of sleep. Let go of that, let if flow, it will.

Doesn’t work for me, my natural cycle would have me not aligned with the sun and the rest of the world operates aligned with the sun

Re: Engineering Sleep

#134

Post by consf »

stared wrote: post #44

> Familial Natural Short Sleep (FNSS), a benign mutation that allows them to sleep 1-2 hours less than the recommended 7-9 hours, without experiencing the negative effects of sleep deprivation. Sleep deprivation is one concern, but there’s a more subtle impact on cognitive functions (working memory, creativity, deep focus), overall health (particularly the endocrine and immune systems), and long-term health outcomes…

[dead]

Re: Engineering Sleep

#135

Post by consf »

Aurornis wrote: post #86
stared wrote: post #44

> Familial Natural Short Sleep (FNSS), a benign mutation that allows them to sleep 1-2 hours less than the recommended 7-9 hours, without experiencing the negative effects of sleep deprivation. Sleep deprivation is one concern, but there’s a more subtle impact on cognitive functions (working memory, creativity, deep focus), overall health (particularly the endocrine and immune systems), and long-term health outcomes…

> When I was younger, I was fascinated by various optimized sleep schedules. I was also fascinated with alternate sleep schedules when I was younger. Some of the books and biohackers of the time made them sound like magical ways to get more hours out of the day. Then every single experience report I found that was not coming from someone trying to sell me a book or get me to subscribe to their newsletter, YouTube, or…

[dead]

Re: Engineering Sleep

#136

Post by consf »

vacuity wrote: post #94
djtango wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is true, I was neighbours with one of the top mathematicians in my uni and he slept what felt like an excessive amount everyday. I definitely underperformed academically due to sleep deprivation and I probably benefited greatly during my revision period because I had a very strong sleep routine. That said, I entered my final exam having only slept probably less than two hours and that was 100% the right call bec…

Sleep deprivation affects many different things, some of which are salvageable with stimulants like caffeine, and certain functions are fairly unaffected. Exams that can be solved mostly with rote memorization are less impacted by sleep deprivation than exams that require spontaneous creativity. In any case, glad to know it went well for you!

[dead]

Re: Engineering Sleep

#137

Post by consf »

mettamage wrote: post #119
euroderf wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I noticed a stark contrast: many of my math friends consistently slept 9–10 hours a day. I'm curious, in order to reach this duration, did they need to do some kind of exercise at some point in the day, to gain physical fatigue ? Or could they sleep this long whilst being (I exaggerate here) couch potatoes ?

Being able to just sleep 10 hours every day seems like an unfair advantage.

[dead]

Re: Engineering Sleep

#138

Post by maleldil »

mettamage wrote: post #119
euroderf wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I noticed a stark contrast: many of my math friends consistently slept 9–10 hours a day. I'm curious, in order to reach this duration, did they need to do some kind of exercise at some point in the day, to gain physical fatigue ? Or could they sleep this long whilst being (I exaggerate here) couch potatoes ?

Being able to just sleep 10 hours every day seems like an unfair advantage.

Why would it be an advantage? Aren't you "losing time"?

I need 10 hours every day, so even if I go to bed at 10pm, I'd wake up at 8am, which is "late" for most people.

I'd love to be able to wake up at 6am, but just can't. It doesn't feel like an advantage.

Re: Engineering Sleep

#139

Post by joshdavham »

> What if they could keep sleeping less, but with no consequences?

This is a super interesting question!

I think one ironic possibility is that people would still sleep deprive themselves, but with even fewer hours of sleep.

Re: Engineering Sleep

#140

Post by blueblimp »

stared wrote: post #44

> Familial Natural Short Sleep (FNSS), a benign mutation that allows them to sleep 1-2 hours less than the recommended 7-9 hours, without experiencing the negative effects of sleep deprivation. Sleep deprivation is one concern, but there’s a more subtle impact on cognitive functions (working memory, creativity, deep focus), overall health (particularly the endocrine and immune systems), and long-term health outcomes…

> many of my math friends consistently slept 9–10 hours a day.

Anecdotally, I've noticed an association between long sleeping and math ability in particular, so this doesn't surprise me. I wonder if it's been studied scientifically.

Post reply on HN