Kaveren

> RF engineer if it weren't for a four year BSEE that focused heavily on DiffEq, Complex Math, Fields & Waves, and Discrete Systems

You can learn all of this by yourself.

> I'm pretty sure I would not have been able to teach this to myself with YouTube videos.

YouTube videos suck for serious learning of non-visual activities. Written resources, particularly books, are optimal. People like to pretend that it's hard to figure out what you need to learn, but just taking a look at syllabuses and assigned readings and what the "best" books in the field are will get you plenty far.

> access to patient and friendly (mostly) professors

For many majors you can find decent help online, but often crossreferencing between different books will provide just as good results as talking to a professor.

Lectures are extremely inefficient.

The hardest part is not being able to find answer manuals, particularly with graduate-level books. Usually you can find alternatives.

This is because most of the cheating bans currently are not human reviewed, it's technical evidence. Closest to this issue I can remember is that some pro CS:GO player was banned by the Overwatch program a few years ago and a fuss was made until it got fixed.

Trying to review a replay to determine if a player is using wallhacks? This would take intimate knowledge of every game the SaaS reviews.

Maybe this can work out and I'll be like the one 2007 HN comment about Dropbox, but it takes an average of maybe 5-10 minutes per case to review if you're not being super thorough. It could be an open platform where players can sign up, but at that point I think game developers would just implement it in-house. The harder part of this technically is the replay functionality in the first place, which they'd have to do anyway.

Public relations for a startup like this would be hard to manage. I can already see the front page Reddit post with 4,000 upvotes on the game's subreddit asking why they lost $400 worth of items because one of the outsourced employees being paid $3/hour illegitimately banned them. Easy target to blame a company like this.

Cheater effort and quantity scales roughly with game revenue and popularity. So the first tier of games, the most popular and long-term ones, like League of Legends, CS:GO, Overwatch, maybe Valorant, Apex Legends, Fortnite, can afford machine learning. The next tier down can afford to implement community review programs, where players earn in-game rewards and the satisfaction of improving game experience.

Doing something like this would probably be illegal if you want to connect to Valorant servers or distribute it, would be easy for Riot to detect and ban users of, and if it worked well it would be a haven for cheaters to ruin Riot games from.

I think a Riot employee stated that cheaters would try to start cheats before the anticheat starts, so the anticheat running at all times is trying to prevent this.

CS:GO has a lot more hackers than games with more intrusive anticheats like Overwatch in my experience. Only solution is an invasive anticheat, machine learning, and trust factor systems.

The hard work part is studying so you have a skillset.

Thanks, I'll look into the studies you mentioned.

Edit:

"CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:

"Among adults with chronic low back pain, treatment with MBSR or CBT, compared with usual care, resulted in greater improvement in back pain and functional limitations at 26 weeks, with no significant differences in outcomes between MBSR and CBT."

I don't consider this evidence in favor of mindfulness. The claim I make is that mindfulness is merely meditation. The benefits ascribed to it are, I claim, that of relaxation.

One other study compares physical exercise to mindfulness, but this isn't a comparison with non-mindfulness relaxation. Also not great evidence. Same with another. There's also one my IP can't access.

Also, I am aware that transcendental meditation isn't the same.

What would convince me mindfulness meditation may indeed have some unique positive property: Study or even better metaanalysis with good quality and reasonable sample size demonstrating that mindfulness meditation performs significantly better than other forms of relaxation. Costa's comes closest to this but the sample size is not very large. I do suspect there may be a placebo effect at play.

What quality evidence exists for a proclaimed benefit of mindfulness that is unique to it, and not standard for relaxation in general?

It's like a religious person asking you to prove God isn't real. The science favoring meditation in general is shoddy (such as [0]), when a metaanalysis shows no evidence of a key claimed benefit to something, you'd want to be able to demonstrate a flaw in the metaanalysis.

It's very much like acupuncture. Fake, but because it's steeped in tradition, people will fall for it. Many Westerners have really uninformed views about East Asian / Asian culture, which is why I believe that's the reason meditation has the sway with people who would never convert to something like Islam.

I comment about this all the time. Not once have I ever gotten a single good reply challenging my claims and providing any good evidence that mindfulness meditation is "real".

bonus: "Specifically, the moderation results showed that a significant increase in compassion only occurred if the intervention teacher was a co-author in the published study"

[0] https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/transcendental...

research does not indicate that [0]. mindfulness meditation isn't real, people only believe it because it comes from the Mysterious East and it's Ancient.

[0] https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/mindfulness-no...

I think they saw that it got a lot of attention on HN and weren't in a stage with the product where they were ready for the corresponding feedback.

For anyone who missed what it was, it allows you to derterministically record and replay your browsing for debugging purposes, and you can export these recordings to others.

protonvpn has its own servers in a former swiss army bunker. these are only a few of the many, but they offer routing to other servers through their swiss center which they market as "secure core".

I hear this every time TurboTax gets brought up. I think it's a lot healthier to foster good relationships between users and tech so that they don't have to distrust instantaneous actions.

As an aside, I'm also suspicious of research that shows ~100ms as the threshold for "instantaneous" action, because in video games like FPS shooters most players seem to dislike playing on ping that high.

This is one of the worst articles I've read in a long time. The author is able to weasel their way out of holding them accountable to their opinions when they say that if porn can "thrive" with such extreme moderation, social media can "thrive" with a lesser degree. The problem with this is that they don't specify what in particular social media companies should do.

The inability to post content without it being moderated beforehand is treated as if it's a good thing, suggesting it's something social media companies should do but distancing themselves from the implication enough to maintain plausible deniability.

Especially ironic is that many porn sites make much of their money through ads that harvest personal data or prey on male insecurity.

There are strong arguments I disagree with in favor of regulating social media. Those arguments are also prescriptive, not general "we should do something". This is a very weak one.

Downvotes are the single best indicator of the problem with volunteer content moderation. People don't just downvote for bad comments, they downvote for comments they disagree with. Good luck getting edgy content through YouTube's Volunteer Force, it'll hurt causes you may agree with.

i am compelled to bring up "growth mindset". the author of this article, Jo Boaler published this book [0] which is about as textbook Growth Mindset as you can get. the general idea is that there's very little real talent gap between people, it's all societal or whatnot.

Growth Mindset is weak scientifically. I believe that the belief in it drives articles such as this submission, so I think it is directly related.

https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/04/08/no-clarity-around-grow...

https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/05/07/growth-mindset-4-growt...

https://www.buzzfeed.com/tomchivers/what-is-your-mindset

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_Dweck#Criticism

important to note that there is a necessary baseline necessary for someone's potential to be unlocked. you can't be starving with poor nutrition and no education and become einstein. stable home environment is important. baseline being necessary to unlock talent does not mean talent is not important.

[0] https://www.amazon.com/Limitless-Mind-Learn-Without-Barriers...

even if everyone could have all their bills paid for them so they could learn all day at any age, it's ludicrous to suggest this would "obsolete" the discussion of how to treat intelligent kids in relation to others.

also fluid intelligence declines over time so it is absolutely in society's interest to identify talent and assist it as early as possible.

the best students should never be weighed down to benefit the lower performers. the top percentile people in essentially any pursuit are responsible for a disproportionately large impact. it is far more important for the top performers to achieve their potential than for the middle to do slightly better.

This is gimmicky. Everyone knows they can be the best in the world at some random and obscure task nobody cares about. This sort of thing is a complete waste of your time. Better to focus on improving at one or the other.

> "The only difference between you and the other top 1 is that he had more interest."

Wishful thinking. The most important component is genetic ability, which must be enabled by an environment allowing you to put in the required effort (i.e. developed or developing country, food and housing, minimal education). Interest and discipline is a tertiary concern.

It's way easier to be interested in something if you have natural aptitude.

The problem is coming up with challenges that are not trivial to automate and not annoyingly hard for users.

Botters aren't just making passive income, they can fix their bot every day as long as it's making them money. Many sites try "random" questions which are really easy to pattern match with a little regex.

The amount of effort that goes into botting generally scales linearly with userbase size (not always). But once you're talking about a botter with a profit motive when your site has hundreds of thousands or millions of MAU, I think trying to come up with challenges to beat botters would be prohibitively time consuming.

why would an email confirmation be enough? playing whack-a-mole all day with different domains is unreasonable. whitelist only of domains is awful, and botters have tons of popular email accounts.

not possible because anything based off computation only wards off denial of service attacks, not bots which usually have too much profit.

the absolute best you could do is track on the site itself without google, but you still need to track user's data.

anything else you can think of can be beaten pretty easily or is going to really hurt your user experience to the point of severe loss of revenue

any CAPTCHA custom to a site will be broken very easily if your business takes off.

Hypothetically, why is it so unreasonable that you would ban someone who advocated for genocide from participating on your platform?

The government is not supposed to legislate all morality. There's plenty of awful things you can do that are perfectly legal. Companies can and should be able to choose who they do business with.

They can care about the issue and still be greedy and care about money way more. The issue with letting governments "force" things like that is that they might just ban the game entirely and forever.

this is a really illogical take that sounds extremely biased. I do not believe for a second that if American companies did not do anything you claim they do, that would somehow make Blizzard not be threatened by the Chinese government in this situation.

like I have no clue how you can relate these two. we aren't just talking about public backlash, we are talking about the threat that a government can harm your operations in their country for speech. this is so different.

judge the articles based on their merits. they're not hiding their sources, you can go check the study of 5,000 british students if you want to read it yourself.

ironic because you'd think that if buzzfeed was as bad as its reputation, being a left-leaning outlet, it would be reasonable to assume they'd be in favor of growth mindset.

why do you think MENSA members are representative of people with high IQs in general? obviously you cannot extrapolate from them. there's a reason that accomplished people who would obviously get a high IQ score don't join, because the organization offers absolutely nothing of value. extreme selection bias at play.

IQ isn't BS as much as you may wish it to be. I don't know why people feel the need to deny science just so everyone can be on a more level playing field. it's comforting rhetoric but not supported by the evidence.

funny you say that because growth mindset seems to be one of the clearest examples of modern feel-good science.

invariably when a topic about intelligence gets posted we need someone to come around with an IQ around the 140 mark (I have no reason to doubt they are being honest fwiw) to tell us how because they personally failed, genetic intelligence is really unimportant (smarter rebuttals acknowledge that genetics plays a major role in intelligence, but that IQ is a really poor proxy of this, which is debatable).

this ultimately culminates in Almost Everyone Can Be Good At Almost Everything If They Try Hard With A Good Minset, The Growth Mindset. the science is weak. it's baffling how her book can be a "must-read".

https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/04/08/no-clarity-around-grow...

https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/05/07/growth-mindset-4-growt...

https://www.buzzfeed.com/tomchivers/what-is-your-mindset

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_Dweck#Criticism

edit: this article only addresses MENSA members, so i think this submission is bad. most well-adjusted intelligent people want nothing to do with MENSA. so even the claims of the submission are questionable.

Criticism is fine, nobody has to be happy with the decisions Facebook makes, and are welcome to loudly and aggressively voice their opinions.

Suggesting legal measures against Facebook, "perhaps we need not only a separation of church and state, but also of tech and state", is entirely different and completely unwarranted on the basis of them "regulating (or interfering with) speech" as seen in the submission.

I'm not a user of Gab and unfamiliar with their apps, but I assume it can be accessed through a standard web browser (Safari, Google Chrome).