Re:Nike’s Two Hour Marathon Attempt
by strictnein on Friday December 15, 2017 @12:25PM
(#15933358)
That paper is referenced in this story.
Amazing how people don't even open the article isn't it?
edit: opening it is the easy part, reading however proves challenging for some
This comment breaks the HN guidelines in spirit. Probably also in letter. Please don't do this here.
what article? all i see are comments ... nice juicy comments
I'll often just read the comments, or read a portion of them and possibly even comment (if it's not entirely related to the submission, as discussion drifts), prior to reading the article. If what I'm commenting about is related to the article and I haven't read it (such as noting related info), I generally do a quick scan and search of the article to make sure I'm not repeating what it said.
I don't think there's anything wrong with reading comments first, and in some select cases commenting yourself. Comments are why I'm here. That said, it's worth keeping in mind whether you've read the article though and how that affects your interpretation of what you're reading, and what you want to say. Be signal, not noise (I think that's a perfect motto for HN and summarizes the rules fairly well).
Re:Nike’s Two Hour Marathon Attempt
by hjjiehebebe on Friday December 15, 2017 @03:09PM
(#15934644)
I upvoted you. Sometimes we need a laugh.
I found the topic incredibly interesting. In this paper (from 1991) the author examines the limiting factors in human running and tries to build a model that gives you a bound on how fast a human could run a marathon. The results he got is 1:57:58.
You can take a look at the paper here http://fermatslibrary.com/s/modeling-optimal-marathon-perfor...