duwease

This is exactly the reason QAnon took off. It evolved from ARG-ish games without the goal of being persuasive about real-world things. But a participant back then realized how people enjoyed figuring out the 'puzzle', and how to lead them to the conclusion without telling them, and once you add political agendas we got what we have today.

But why is it OK if you dismiss someone's lived experience AND a few studies in favor of what is only your lived experience?

Given the demographics of the site and people's explicitly stated experiences, it seems plenty of the people disagreeing have had experiences similar to yours.

I want to bring a note of positivity here -- while most comments seem to be poking holes in the concept, all also seem to acknowledge the need for such a service to be successful.

This is a domain that I've also put a lot of thought into over the years, so I hope something succeeds. And some things do. Keep in mind that Wikipedia caught a lot of flak for being unreliable or impossible at first, but nowadays they have a robust editorial process for contentious subjects that I'd consider the gold standard for any such practical applications on the internet.

Yeah, I've never quite understood the value proposition of that fee myself. Between that and the gatekeeping that happens to become an agent, it seems like it's a bit inflated and held up by tradition.

At least the iBuyers like Opendoor provide a service whose value I can see, even if it might not apply to every individual. Having someone else take on the hassle of dealing with shady vendors and house showing, repair negotiations and flaky buyers, while letting me move out cash-in-hand whenever I want? I get that.. especially after experiencing my good friends hit every one of those nightmares themselves, ending up having to waste thousands on AirBnB's after contractor issues left them without either home for months.

It must be some subset of expressions (or I must have set mine up wrong), because anything that calls a function (vs a simple conditional statement) appears to throw an error for me indicating that it cannot execute.

It's really useful to have access to an eval() function when paused in a debugger. That alone makes this useful -- it'd be great to have IDE's like Goland take advantage of this to provide this functionality.

The way I read it is that they are using 'luck' and 'risk' in the colloquial sense, where 'risk' equates with 'danger' and 'luck' equates with 'good fortune'.

Basically they are saying that, in a probabilistic outcome, we are comfortable acknowledging that a venture may encounter somewhat random danger, but are uncomfortable acknowledging that they may encounter somewhat random fortunes.

Luckily for his point there are the other hundreds of millions of reliable cars on the spectrum between a broken one and a premium one!

I don't think this is new. 20 years ago, I loved game programming.. I even chose a game dev library in C++ as my senior (college) project. But my obsession also led me to read all I could about the industry, and the stories were the same. I got nervous about the 14-hour-a-day, 7-day-a-week eternal crunch time, the pay, the job security, the lack of prospects without moving around. I chickened out.

I still like my job, but it's nothing like the passion I felt when I built games. Still, I don't think that passion is enough to justify the strain it would put on my family through financial risk, not to mention my work/life balance (or in this case, work/slightly less work balance).

Since it was the same then as now, I suspect it may continue to be. After all, it's a job with inherent joy for people who want it, and those tend to have the luxury of materially rewarding workers less. Much as bars can basically pay bands little to nothing in order to have live music, because there's no shortage of people wanting it just for the inherent joy, I imagine game companies will continue to have a pool of creative technicians willing to work for less. Maybe the higher barrier of entry to learn tech work will change something one day, but it doesn't appear to have done so, so far.

You're in my state then. There is the one guy that's.. somewhat centrist, but he's pretty well back in the polling. SO now I'm figuring out what's the lesser of 3 evils that are competitively polling.

We really need Ranked Choice Voting, I really think these polls affect the actual vote tallies at the end of the day.

Exactly. I think there's a huge flaw in even the toned-down version of that that both sexes buy into -- making a dating profile (or just their public personality) as generically appealing as possible. Yes, highlighting your travel and exercise pics to the exclusion of all else will probably get you more dates.. but how satisfying will the connection generally be? "Likes: food, laughter, exercise, travel, dogs" tells me maybe 1% of the information I need to know to determine compatibility.. especially when most people are exaggerating the importance of the travel and the exercise in their daily life. So the 'matches' made on those generic terms, in my experience, are largely unsatisfying and based on physical attraction -- not exactly the recipe for a rewarding long-term relationship.

Meanwhile, the people who were bold enough to actually talk about their more individualized interests got my attention and resulted in some great conversation and dates, even if they didn't result in relationships.

I fell into the trap in my 20's of being generically appealing. I did very well in the 'dating' market, had attractive partners, married a particularly beautiful one. Then I realized that 'success rate' meant squat other than a minor ego boost, and I was stuck with a person attracted to generically appealing me and not ME. And physical attraction fades.

Luckily I got out of that situation, started representing myself accurately, and I live in a large enough city to be able to find at least some women online who do the same. The conversation, dates, and relationships have been SO much more rewarding, because the people connect with ME and not a generically appealing version of me.

I think being generically appealing does build confidence, and confidence is important. But hopefully redpillers and all the generic profile creators online can eventually see the value of specificity.. and attracting quality over quantity. I think it'll breed a lot more happy relationships.

Pied Piper has got some serious competition!

Used to play a MUD called 'After Hours' from 95-97. It was not 'adult-oriented', as the name would imply, although that may be why my teenaged self chose it in the first place. Good times back in those days when I could still stay up late and function during the day! Met cool folks, learned to code in a fashion, sometimes I'd get sent cool indie movies on VHS that I would never ever had heard about in my small town otherwise.

Nintendo is still the go-to for couch co-op, especially with players of varying skill levels. Between the flagship and indie games, their brand is still very much based around family and friends playing together.

There's absolutely a glut of throwback adventure games on Steam nowadays. Take a look!

Depends on the game. Nintendo has some great family games I've enjoyed with the little one, and it's a good opportunity to present him with problems, have him think about what to do, try it, fail, and fight through the frustration of failure to try again. There's a constant conversation going, and we enjoy overcoming a challenge together.

I do worry of course (because I'm a parent and that's what we do), that this time together creates a gateway for games that are less fun and productive.. the ones that mainly feed on compulsion loops. For instance, I picked up Pokemon Go in order to add a little fun to nature walks and park visits, but slowly the walking aspect has faded away and the compulsive collecting has stayed and that worries me. But again, everything worries me, who knows :) At this point I think just being sure to rotate activities regularly hopefully keeps any one experience from dominating.

VR is very much here and functional.. I've been playing a few hours a week for the last year. There are certainly less AAA games than the main platforms (which is expected due to the economics of having <5% of the install base), but the ones they do have blow my hair back. One of my favorite things to do with visitors is strap them in and hear them rave when it's better than they expected.. which it always is.

Wait, so following suit would then lower prices in the US and pass on the costs to the rest of the world?

..Sold!

Seriously. I'd like to share this, but with that picture attached it limits my ability.

IMO, the change has to come from the grant financiers, and a case can be made that they get a greater more bang for their buck by adding requirements such as pre-registration, open data publishing (so long as they don't want to keep the data proprietary, of course), and publishing guaranteed regardless of outcome. The fruits of what they purchased can be of more use to the field in this manner, and even they themselves may find they spend less money if the 'failures' are documented in such a way that they don't inadvertently repeatedly fund them due to the fact that the initial results were hidden away in a filing cabinet.

I think the same case could be made for placing more emphasis on funding replication -- instead of thinking 'we learned it, why revisit it?', you're checking if it's actually valuable information worth spending more on, or just a fluke.

They're still releasing some solid stuff -- but from what I understand there were some political dust-ups regarding which institutions got their priorities implemented first, which led to people dropping out, which led to a lack of momentum to draw in new institutions.

Those graphs don't show a prediction of an x% increase for a particular decade, however. It seems you're interpreting them as literal average temperature predictions for a decade, when they represent where a linear regression line would pass through when that decade's averages are considered alongside previous decades' temperature data.

In case you don't grok the difference, the difference is that a relatively flat decade followed by a huge temperature jump will have the linear regression line for that decade be higher than the actual temperature, because the of the later jump. This is what is (likely) happening now (and what happened in 77-86, and 87-96). The most popular theory as to this seems to be that the heat is stored in the deep ocean, and then releases in a burst into the surface atmosphere.

Which takes me to my second point, that even with your interpretation (which is generally the interpretation of the graphs used to make the 'no warming in 15 years' argument), the graphs being used are surface temperature, and don't include ocean warming. As I mentioned above, including ocean temperatures shows a rise even in static decade temperature, without even involving linear regression.

If you'd like a source, the intended interpretation of the results are all in the IPCC reports, most of which have (reasonably) short summaries. http://www.ipcc.ch/

I'm not sure how a Google search for a series of loosely related graphs addresses either of my arguments. I assume you are thinking that their existence refutes them somehow, but I don't see anything on the first page that contradicts anything I said.

The argument that climate scientists claim x% of warming every decade is a straw man.. that is not a claim they have made and then failed at. They have claimed longer-term warming with short-term fluctuations (considering that carbon emissions are only one factor among many), and if you pull out to a 100-year view, that claim has been maintained. In fact, when carbon emissions as a factor is removed from model predictions for the last 15 years or so, they predict cooling.. so the "flatness" in comparison indicates that carbon emissions brought the average temperature up.

In addition, the "flat temperature" argument itself only uses atmospheric temperature and not ocean temperature (which is another huge heat sink). Combined ocean and atmospheric temperatures still show a heat rise, even with the other natural environmental factors pushing a cooldown.

That's valuable work in my eyes.. a little effort helps a lot when returning to the code (or having someone else use it) later. Bad naming even causes unnecessary confusion once I'm immersed in the code base.. the fifth time or so I have to ask myself "Which one generated the view, 'processAnnotation' or 'handleAnnotation'?", I just spend the time to refactor.

Not nearly as much as you might think. Check out "Bad Pharma" by Ben Goldacre. It's a treatment of the statistical and legal tricks used by drug companies to overstate the efficacy of new drugs, without breaking any actual FDA regulations.

Even after using all the known tricks for cherry-picking results, p-hacking, and the like, there exist much-abused FDA 'fast track' options for getting a 'needed' drug out before the science is confirmed, and quite often the science never gets around to being confirmed. Even big-name drugs like Tamiflu have been shown later to be no better than generics at best and completely useless at worst.

I think it's just the headline that's misleading, the abstract says quite clearly: "Moreover, machine learning algorithms classified individuals as autistic or control with 97% accuracy from their fMRI neurocognitive markers."

The "or control" doesn't tell you exactly what the false positive rate is, but at least it sets the upper bound at 3%.

Has Amazon named this algorithm yet? I'd like to nominate "Proper English Diction And Nomenclature Tracker".

Row 5 has an uneven number of blue and red blocks.

It's legal because no major industry has turned their lobbying efforts on outlawing it yet. There's no clear philosophical line between gambling and, say, investing.. there's just (decreasingly) moral crusaders and (increasingly) interests who profit from keeping things illegal outside of their personal holdings.