HN user

Aethylia

55 karma
Posts0
Comments31
View on HN
No posts found.

I'm not sure this is true. In my experience a lot of people actually do think that it's case sensitive. Many times I've heard someone describe the capitals while verbally telling someone their addresss.

However it being insensitive has probably helped a lot of times where people make mistakes in explaining or copying those capitals.

This doesn't really make any sense. It's not just gmail that does this, dots are almost always ignored before the @.

Nobody else can register an email that is the same as yours but without a dot. So the only way you receive someone else's email is if they give the wrong address.

Did we read the same article? They aren't claiming those things at all. Those are the claims of the original study, which are being disputed by this attempt at reproduction. The writers suspect those claims to be false due to the choice of the original study to not remove likely intentionally non-random data.

I believe the 13% stat you saw is that your score had a higher random score than than 13% of other participants, so not very random.

Absolutely I think that they would commit the same atrocities if given the chance. Fortunately as you say their people hopefully don't agree.

That is what I was alluding to when I mentioned that they do not admit their wrongdoings even today. Disputes with e.g. South Korea prove that they still believe they own places they invaded during the war. Educating their citizens on the past and rebuilding trust with the countries who suffered under them would be signs they have changed as a government. Neither of those things take place.

It isn't more work for the maintainer to _not_ close issues purely based on time. This argument has been repeated often. And with the prevalence of lazily-used stale bots, it's not feasible for anyone to make all the forks necessary.

Discussion can eventually lead to a shift, repeating this argument can't.

I don't know of any particular studies on this, but in my own experience comprehension is changed by how quickly I read, not whether the voice is used. Learning this just raises the speed limit for when you want to read easily comprehensible texts such as news or comments.

This isn't directly related. It's likely a product of how you were taught to read. You can learn to read without it by trying to have the inner voice say something different like 'a, e, i, o, u' while reading. It takes practice but it increases your reading speed.