bcassedy

This user has posted the parent post nearly verbatim twice. And the exact same responses about determinism several times.

They also did all that expansion with a focus on cryptocurrencies, and the hype has died on those so it makes sense to reel in investments there.

The some people win argument isn’t even really true for sports betting. Casinos just ban anyone that wins with any regularity.

Of course any individual bet can win but casinos stack the deck by only taking action from players they know will lose over the long run.

I've watched the Fedex truck pull up to my house and the guy walk up to the door and slap a sticker on it for missed delivery. Didn't even bother to bring the box, knock, or ring the bell despite my car being in the driveway.

That same management is the type to set rules where you don't get to assess if you're vulnerable, you just have to fix all the CVEs

> It's not a matter of "personalizing", it's a matter of recognizing that, just like you, the company is trying to get the best deal they can

This is kind of untrue. The company may "want" to get the best deal possible, but you aren't dealing with the company. You're dealing with one or more individuals at the company that have incentives that do not align perfectly with what the company "wants".

In most cases, the hiring manager has a budget for the role and they do not care if you come in at the bottom of budget or near the top. They don't make extra money for getting you as cheaply as possible. Sometimes they even have incentive to pay you more, to close you quickly or even just prestige.

Great grandparent comment said roughly "You can make chicken meat at home with just a chicken and a knife." While factory farming may be abusive, that is not what this discussion thread is about.

For me switching between code and tests is a context switch. TDD approaches that I'm familiar with encourage frequent swapping between them which really drains my productivity. It's much easier for me start something and hyperfocus than it is to swap back and forth.

This is just insanely wrong-headed. Tests with no code are always negative value, the time it took to write the tests. Code with no tests might also be negative value, but it at least has the possibility of having positive value.

Tests are great and TDD is great for some people, but the whole point is to write useful software. It's important not to lose sight of that.

I haven't talked to any teachers about this specifically, but based on my impression of the school system and public philosophy around schools and teaching that I've gleaned from my wife and many friends who are teachers, I think it might help in the short term but be worse in the long term. The one thing that seems nearly constant is that expectations of teachers are always increasing. So I think eventually we'd end up back in a similar place except teachers would have to keep the pace year round rather than getting a couple months off in the summer.

I don't know enough about chess mid-game and end-game to know whether chess is the same as poker in this regard, but poker is absolutely not a game of memorization deeper into the game tree even at the highest levels. tl;dr the author knows nothing about the state of high level poker play and I suspect they don't know much about high level chess either.

Chess and poker both require memorization or at least very strong understanding of the early game. In chess this is openings and has been required for as long as I can remember. In poker this is preflop play. Poker extends this a bit into flop play, but already on the flop there is a lot of opportunity for creativity because there are countless strategies that are indistinguishable from one another within reasonable precision targets.

As you descend deeper into the game tree for turn and river play we enter into territory that cannot be memorized due to number of possibilities and the increasing impossibility of having perfectly executed all the way to the current decision point. This opens up a lot of room for creativity and exploitation.

You have a viewpoint that is shaped by a very niche experience. Your experience was with students that happened into an interest that was itself a project that can drive learning in a handful of subjects. This kind of approach doesn't work so well when the subjects that need to be learned don't lend themselves so well to exciting projects or even when the students don't get to self-select based on their interests.

I've used it pretty extensively in Windows to expand text, execute clicks on certain buttons in GUIs, execute clicks on specific coordinates on screen or within a window, and to combine all these things into complex macros.

I feel like so much of the sentiment boils down to some people objecting to someone else benefiting from government spending and some other people having suffered so they think everyone else should suffer too.

Another interesting one is https://alanaragon.com/researchreview/

For a few bucks a month you get articles by several of the people you mentioned, Alan, and others that evaluate public research on nutrition and training.

This is correct. I believe some other countries do use this rule of thumb for their official purposes, but the US never has.

Recommendations I've seen that are targeted at people trying to lose fat are given in grams per kg of lean body mass.

I can't imagine a mechanism for fat to increase the need for more protein beyond needing more muscle to carry around the extra weight but that's already reflected in LBM.

If you take "just" to mean "justifiable", sure. That meaning doesn't really make sense in the context of this discussion though, so yes I am invoking one of the definitions related to fairness.

Whataboutism is a valid concern when discussing justice imo

It's also short sighted right?

This was a successful worker that missed a few days of work with a medical issue, boom fired. And then we see memos like this lamenting that they can't get enough workers? By not accepting some productivity dips due to human nature, they're shrinking their labor pool both by removing people from it directly and with the sentiment generated by the bad press of their inhumane treatment of workers.

Technically 20 is a number of minutes...

But yeah even as a software engineer I'm often torn about wanting to work for Amazon. They have quite a few interesting projects and the pay is solid, but there are a lot of horror stories out there that suggest it is a brutal place to work even for engineers.

Seems negative across the board.

A huge swath of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck and can't afford a $500 emergency. As inflation increases the cost of goods and services those people have even less wiggle room to handle the unexpected and/or they need to start cutting back on expenses.

Or you could argue that they have too much capital and can't make productive use of it. Maybe taxation can help?

Can you point me to any resources that go into more detail on why the US cannot construct nuclear power stations? I'd love a cliff's notes version if you want to write it up, but I don't want to take up too much of your time

Of course people are always greedy. The "cover" provided by an inflationary environment just boils down to people are less price elastic when the environment primes them to expect price hikes so those that want to raise prices for greed (profit maximization) can do so to a greater degree than they could in other market conditions. I don't know why you're being so dense, it's really straightforward psychology and there's a fair bit of data to support this.

We're talking economics, there is very little evidence in general. The entire field is essentially observations and storytelling.

The evidence is profits increasing faster than inflation and examples of C-suites saying straight up that this environment is letting them raise prices.

The story is that when inflation is low, consumers are more intolerant of price hikes. They'll shop around and try out your competitors. Evidence to support this sentiment analysis is the myriad ways companies sneakily "hike" prices. Shrinkflation for example. When prices seem like they are going up on everything, what's the point of shopping around?

I'm not saying none of those things are factors. I am saying that you can find quotes of executives talking about how great it is to raise prices right now. And plenty of evidence of profit increases substantially above inflation.

An inflation narrative gives cover for price hikes driven by greed.

I've had a similar experience when changing mobile provider. For whatever reason it seems like that last bill posts late and never shows up. In the past I didn't have autopay turned on so I just didn't even know about the debt until I started getting letters from collections firms 6 months later.

I imagine that these last bill things end up dinging a lot of people's credit. Luckily I've paid them when I find out about them and my credit bounces back once the payment in full is reported.

In general people want products that will enrich their lives in some way. Sometimes these things aren't necessities, but sometimes they are. Food for example...

I introduce a new food product, Soylent Green. It tastes great, doesn't cost much and is nutritious. It starts becoming wildly popular.

Does that mean that there was huge demand for cannibalistic products? No. There was demand for tasty, cheap, nutritious food.

If this happened in real life the ingredients label would be a list of indecipherable chemicals, proteins, and "natural flavors". What you're suggesting requires that consumers be able to understand the externalities involved in the sourcing of every ingredient as well as the manufacturing process AND then use those to override their own preferences regarding the end product.

Identifying and preventing externalities or at least making sure externalities are factored into pricing is something that governments are MUCH better equipped for than any individual.