b_tterc_p

> Now place a candle in the middle of the room, one that shines light in every direction. As the light bounces around the different corners, will it always illuminate the whole room? Or will it miss some spots? A side effect of proving the magic wand theorem, Eskin said, is that it conclusively answers this old question.

This is a point light in the middle of a regular polygon right? Why is this noteworthy? Is it that the light settles on all points evenly? Is it in spite of some sort of phase cancellation thing?

Despite the headline I don’t see anything about deleting data. Just that it won’t try to recognize you.

That being said, I went on my profile to check and it was already set to No (don’t do facial recognition). Is this the default? Or is this actually an old thing that I disabled a long time ago.

Seems like it was false! You can use this while married on Facebook

I look forward to seeing if your first statement is true.

It sounds to me like a primary use case of this would be... cheating...

Unlike other dating platforms, this one is integrated with your supposedly up to date profile. Being able to set up a low risk secret crush with a known friend seems likely to be popular to those interested in doing so.

That is to say, a person who wants to cheat has no problem having a Facebook profile, so there’s not a need for anonymity against being found by known acquaintances like you might expect on other platforms.

A similar lesson was learned for cattle. Compressing them en route to slaughter makes them significantly calmer.

I think I’d remember if someone else altered my memories.

There are reasonable concerns about using genetic modifications to kill things like mosquitos, but why don’t we use this tech against invasive species which we want to be absolutely removed from an ecosystem?

Feels like a let them eat cake argument to me. I’m sure many others would like to have the luxury of remote work and leisurely paced travel.

This isn’t a useful perspective for the majority of people

Well they’re clearly being marketed as having actual use. Whether it’s true... could go either way

This jumped out at me too. It’s pretty garbage, but it may be that garbage works

It might have some downsides, but let’s not forget about the daily torture and atrocities we experienced before the government started manipulating our memories.

Nah that’s not the same thing.

In this case it’s just choosing an option that involves very large numbers because it’s learned that it’s opponent can’t handle large numbers. There’s no code injection

Where/why are you going that you can spare two days?

Ok but you’re kind of just throwing numbers into the mix here to justify your position. What if the manager makes $12.50 an hour? Or $10?

The notion that people with low wages can’t be held accountable for errors EVER is... not reasonable

There’s plenty of evidence to suggest some portion of likelihood of being gay is controlled by parental hormones. E.g. the probability of being gay is observably higher in men born after an older brother.

So... this was obviously going to be true.

Pointing out that some people can feels like a lame excuse for justifying doubt when someone says they can’t. Almost everyone does not choose their orientation.

It’s not a growing trend to suggest people can control this. It is perhaps a trend that people acknowledge things change over time. Those two are not the same.

Ok but the question isn’t about a norm of death and illness, it’s about a single one off individual error

You’re saying that management can influence events and that’s true. But management can minimize risk to more than acceptable levels and the individual can still screw up due to their own folly. This really feels like a dumb argument, that your mistakes must be the result of higher order systems.

So... can management acknowledge individual errors if they’re paid highly?

I feel like in the past few years customer service has gotten much better for most companies. I have had reasonably concise and helpful calls with my bank, telecom provider, utilities, phone company, and one product company within the past year and they all went pretty well despite negative reputations for a few.

Online chat windows seem to be the most effective for me.

Curious if this resonates

Kind of like Thompson sampling

Wouldn’t work for the subcontractors though. Margins are too thin to have a volatile demand like that.

I think that your depiction of whales is generally incorrect. There are certainly apps that try to trick kids by requiring currency that is not-obviously real money. These exist for adults too, but aren’t what people refer to when they talk about whales.

Whales make such payments intentionally. They understand that they’re paying hundreds or thousands of dollars- and are doing so in bulk transactions because it’s the most cost effective rate. They play a game regularly and spend so they can maximize their standing whenever new content is released (very frequently).

That is to say, whales exist in games with transparent pricing. I don’t recall specifics but I think Pokémon go was a good example of this. IIRC you could buy coins that were useful for buying poke balls and egg incubators. Not 1:1 but hardly abusive. Whales still spent (spend?) thousands on it.

Edit: every so often I click on an ad for the most awful looking porn based online game I come across just to see what it is. It’s quite surprising to see how deeply implemented some of their gameplay is given their garbage marketing strategy and value prop. What is truly fascinating however is how incredibly complicated some of their micro payment systems are. Dozens of resources introduced around every corner with unclear ways of acquiring any of them in game but each one noting that it will be required to unlock some stupid scandalous picture and can be refilled for $5. Whatever your mental model is for the insidiousness of app based micro payments is, you might find it bizarrely entertaining to explore how much worse it can get in such a context.

> It's never the fault of the guy on $8.50 an hour. The buck stops with management; the buck always stops with management.

Not really. Persistent problems are management’s fault. Individual errors are made by individuals.

Sounds... improbable?

Are you sure you’re not just comparing two areas of different cost of living?

I play gacha games that are friendly towards F2P people. I’m curious what game allows rich players to cause misfortune to F2P players.

Honestly that sounds like a better reason to whale than I had ever encountered

Exploitation of children is an important but separate issue that I would argue falls on the parents. I would argue that while the scenario you describe is a gotcha moment, after two or three times it’s really on you to understand what’s going on. Either way, it’s driven by innumeracy. It may still be exploitation so I’m not really disagreeing.

I do think you’re wildly off base thinking that people don’t drastically overspend at physical stores for physical goods though.

Well that’s probably not possible because each gig market is different.

Healthcare is the biggest item but seems unlikely to budge. Payments for, say, a driver vs. a dog walker are going to vary significantly due to different scheduling expectations, different time values, etc.

It’s not clear what is meant by making it possible for these companies to continue either, as most of these companies are not currently running a profitable business.

I think the part about financial incentives to work longer shifts is a low hanging fruit. This should not be allowed. It basically forces an employee like relationship for an individual to make a practical living (if even). If this were not allowed, uber would be forced to pay higher wages across the board.

Compared to just YouTube’s annual income it’s not trivial