[unit_circle]

I haven't seen a single top level comment that demonstrated a complete reading and understanding. Some even willingly admit an inability to process the information. Funny, because I thought this was actually remarkably good scientific journalism! I guess this demonstrates why this technical reporting is rare. It took my wife and I about an hour to read and discuss the entire article.

My main takeaway is the low fidelity of existing studies and methods.

I found it interesting how small the studies are. Maybe they are challenging to operate at scale? What is the point of even talking about a trial with 43 participants split into 3 groups? That seems little better than the anecdotes presented here.

Also interesting to me that cortisol level and wrist actionography are the only quantitative methods... As mentioned in the article (and intuitively) both seem deeply flawed! Perhaps new methods are the next frontier for this research.

[AYBABTME]

I quit midway because I found the article overly rambling and failing to get to the point.

Also the presentation is distracting. Various fonts, styles, mixed with pointless medias, large quotes, a very high noise floor. In the content, too much mixing of reported speech with data. It makes it a hassle to remember who is being quoted, what their role is, why they're relevant, what the data means in the context. Not enough summarized tabular data. Too much verbiage.

And overall I feel like I got the gist: crying it out is probably bad. The article doesn't motivate me to power through it and waste a lot of mental energy getting the finer points.

[TeMPOraL]

> I haven't seen a single top level comment that demonstrated a complete reading and understanding. Some even willingly admit an inability to process the information. Funny, because I thought this was actually remarkably good scientific journalism!

In defense of Typical HN:

- Usually, the submission itself isn't the topic, but rather it functions like a discussion prompt.

- As you've observed yourself, the primary thing the article tells us is that studies in this space are pretty much worthless, because the problem is incredibly hard to study. There isn't really much to discuss about the article itself.

But yeah, I also found the wrist actionography bit to be interesting, and quite surprising. My own takeaway here is that we might eventually get better studies, as wearable sensors become more and more ubiquitous, making it possible to do proper measurements where to date we have to rely on self-reporting.

[oaktrout]

I enjoyed the article but found it to be a little wordy and difficult to skim to find what I was looking for. Most systematic reviews and meta-analysis convey more information in less text. I personally prefer to get to straight to the facts, say more with less.

[alach11]

Collection and processing of audio/video data has become much cheaper, especially with advances in deep learning. Hopefully we can see some larger sample-size studies taking advantage of newer tech.

[metabagel]

Yeah, I think they should rather look for behavioral issues.