I think the point is to avoid roofs to fall at all: that's what anti-seismic regulations are for. They saved countless lives in places like Japan. They may not prevent all deaths, but can be an effective damage containment strategy. When an earthquake devastated the Italian city of L'Aquila, the majority of the survived buildings were those following regulations. Many houses built in the Middle Ages are gone.
Whenever I see these articles on HN, I'm now primed into thinking "it means rats brains" and I'm usually right. I truly appreciate the research in this and other fields (e.g. Alzheimer), but clickbait titles like those give false hopes to readers who may have friends or relatives suffering from real conditions. Please make it clear that we're talking about _rats_ and it may take years for those researches to be available to us _human beings_.
I have much empathy for your false hopes, given my own memory loss over the years (I am 69). That being said, I do not consider it clickbait to say "Scientists find ways to boost memory in aging brains". Anyone familiar with work in the field understands that if it is genuinely about "human" brains or even "hominid" brains, then that would be specified. To talk generically about "memory in aging brains" is not IMO misleading.
I feel much of your criticism rests with HN - the length of titles is quite restrictive and the initial post (which in this case specified "restoring memory in older rats") usually gets buried with more popular dominating comments. Don't get me wrong, I think the weighting of comments in HN is one of its best features. Other comment systems providing for the "pinning" of the initial comment by the OP - not sure if this is possible on HN?
I have thought that's the common definition and doesn't need much thought...
My dictionary absolutely implies that, it even claims that all the sciences were split of from Philosophy and that a common modern topic of Philosophy is the theory of science. The point of Philosophy is to define truth in all aspects, how is that not science? It's even in the name: "friend of truth". Philosophy is even more fundamental and formal than mathematics. Mathematics asks what sound systems are, what properties they have and how they can be generalized. Philosophy asks, what something truly is, what it means to know, what it means to have a system and whether it's real. The common trope of going even more fundamental/abstract goes: "biology -> chemistry -> physics -> mathematics -> philosophy"
I've been using a very similar convention for years (roughly a subset of markdown), never thought of giving it a name. My convention benefits from out-of-the-box syntax highlight, though.
