blackbrokkoli

Great excuse. If your research is so important, maybe let blind people read it?

I think it's because measurement, metrics and estimates are so hard in software engineering.

How long should it take to do X? If X is building a shelf, servicing a power plant or designing a car headlight I would imagine at least within the field the order of magnitude is pretty clear. Sure, better tools and experience may make someone twice or thrice as fast or the new guy is taking double the normal time, but such spans fit neatly into the human brain.

But now observe how neither of these statements seem off:

Getting my new web-based CRM tool written and published took me the whole afternoon.

Getting the new web-based CRM tool written and published took us 24 months.

Now add to that the fact that nobody really understands software top-to-bottom (or at all) and it is no surprise that everyone is confused all the time, builds weird mental models of things and skills while vaguely striving to achieve the first scenario and not the second.

I don't think the parent meant this literal situation to work out.

It's more like building a passive perception of belonging-together over a prolonged period of time, where this is only one step of many, resulting in a subtle shifting of the framing when the discussion happens.

And I can see it, tbh.

Yeah, no.

Start doing outdoor stuff in mild weather (probably summer). Buy a used tent, decent shoes and any jacket on craigslist or shady sports outlet or whatever. Get into it. See if you want to go mushroom foraging, hiking, camping, boating, shooting wildlife, skiing, climbing or whatever. Then you can start spending disposable income on the stuff you fancy (or not).

It does not surprise me to find the notion that you best start with an electric Ford truck, a second house with all amenities and thousand dollar Patagonia gear, but that's really not required to incorporate some friluftsliv in your life.

And that is something you would like to accept as a fair reason why someone in your family was ran over by a random teenager who found a driveable car standing around?

It does however is quite hard to do it in hundreds of locations, possible undetected, over prolonged time periods without being personally there.

"I can always go and stab someone" is not an argument pro autonomous killing drones either.

The payer does not have to know content of therapy session though. Just have two databases and practice good separation of concerns.

John Doe | Street 1234 | Therapy | 6 Units | $12,367

That is way less interesting information than what we are discussing here...

Heaven forbid underprivileged people attempt to feel joy!

Yes, because he did it while swimming. Parent is talking about sitting on your bed.

Obviously, when you combine such exercise with activities that require full attention, like swimming, frying a steak or driving a car you add a dimension of serious danger.

However that is the cynical take we are compelled to choose because of what we know and think of smoking.

Taking only the study itself into consideration, one could easily argue that the participants "knocked it before they tried it", i.e. by taking up smoking they realized how nice it actually is.

I am not trying to revive 60's tobacco propaganda, but I would say for a lot of personality/opinion/habit/preference changes in general this explanation is very likely (and far less sinister)

First: Do you not consider it interesting that a given effect can be already observed in earlier development stages?

Second: Why do you argue against a made-up straw man "replication crisis worrier"? The crisis is based on a large percentage of studies, including foundational ones, being not yielding the same results when done again. This is not a notion you can throw out by reciting a single counter example (whose existence no one even denies?!)...

Research confirming "what grandma always knew" is still very valuable research.

That is something completely different and foundational research of a whole branch of psychology (or rather, a paradigm), namely Behaviorism.

I cannot see how these two studies relate to each other except both having "random" and "behavior" in the description...

The nicest possible explanation is that this article is an excellent piece of sarcasm.

The very first thing in the article is a comparison of Waterfall and Agile but it is labelled "Software Engineering" and "Machine Learning"?!

Like, I am so confused. Is the implication that AI researches invented Agile or something? Literally everybody does (or pretends to do) some kind of Agile these days. And I don't mean this in a "my enlightened startup does software dev like this" way, big corporations have the actual job title SCRUM master for years now. I did mom-and-pop store Wordpress projects with "machine learning methods" apparently - nice!

After wording this out I brought myself to read the whole article, and, well, it is a marketing piece for their productivity tool Comet which solves all the problem you have by building AI, which does not have "The provable correctness of software engineering" (I wish software would be provably correct :| ).

OP updated, towing (which is not easy with an activated e-brake) it outside did not work.

[0] https://old.reddit.com/r/Justrolledintotheshop/comments/j9qn...

I briefly tried to get numbers then gave up. However: I think you are underestimating the efficiency of wheels.

See here for an example how a dozen HP (ironic unit name) suffice to pull tons and tons of stuff on a train track [0]. Same principle goes for street/tire to a large extend.

So I'm pretty sure that is the one thing that knocks the horse out of the park.

I excluded planes here, but I would imagine that they reach their improved efficiency by doing a lot of movement via gliding, while a horse has to actively "work" for every bit of movement.

All of this is intuition though, so please chime in if you can provide some actual science :)

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Au3U72CX74I

Sadly, another "publication" on the HackerNews frontpage with really, really low quality.

Nine in 10 Adults? So how many did you survey? 2000, apparently. Not a bad number, still a bit low to use a word describing >5 billion people.

Regarding "Adults": From where? How old? How rich? Does it include female Indians aged 50-80? Apparently they asked "Britons". Refreshing that it is not US biased for once, but that is something very relevant conveniently omitted from the conclusion while still being extremely vague.

But let's get back to n=2000. How did they get so many? Oh, apparently they used OnePoll[1], which is a for-profit company specializing in PR-surveys.

And, did you really ask "would you agree that X is a waste of money"? If I would propose such a loaded question in an academic study I would probably brought behind the barn by any respectable researcher. Ask for example "How much would you agree with the following statement: If a new smartphone model is released, I feel the need to buy it" you would probably get a very different result.

But let's not unfairly presume. What did they ask? Well, the primary source is nowhere to be found. Just a bunch of News and blogs citing each other. Some wrongly cite "The musicMagpie Annual Phone Depreciation Report" [0] which does not mention this, but apparently lead to this study.

Wait: musicMagpie? So, this "study" was apparently "conducted" by a used phone reseller, directly profiting from the sentiment this propaganda piece is selling?

Meaning, this is literally, completely, PR fluff.

I am trying hard to not pull the "HN is becoming Reddit" meme here, but please enlighten me how this uncritical reception of marketing dressed up as "science" (?) seen in this thread is different from the average /r/technology experience.

[0] https://www.musicmagpie.co.uk/phone-depreciation/ [1] https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/12806082/new-smartphone-upgrad...

edit: punctuation

Interesting, I hope you are onto something!

How would you prevent me from taking some $ from Corporate to write a genuine sounding but heavily biased review?

I am not trying to be snarky, but in my understanding that is exactly how micro-influencing on Instagram etc. works and IMO its very dangerous for your value proposition.

Well I never heard of MakeCode, but I can say that I really liked ComputerCraft, especially because it does not try so hard to be educational. Instead it just adds to the gameplay. Quite fund indeed!

(I would recommend playing a bigger modpack where ComputerCraft is included)

Just putting this out there: You don't need a windows machine. Minecraft, including programming mods like ComputerCraft run fine on Ubuntu (and therefore probably on a lot of other distros).

It is funny (and upsetting) how this is on the HackerNews frontpage, and yet this [0] is also sitting on the frontpage with currently double the upvotes. The study in question observes some correlation and then nonchalantly declares a causation (see title).

Not too sure what to make of this...

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24675256

Over half of them are island states or arbitrary n-gons colonial powers drew on the map some centuries ago.

If you base policy for "the greatest nation in the world" on such countries, well...

Important to keep perspective: The study found ~10k eldery Germans living in Eastern Europe, and presumes more in other countries. Let's say 100k German seniors got deported by their family, living under questionable conditions.

That is not even remotely in the same ballpark as the ~70 million elderly unable to buy food in the US (cited in the OP). However it is true that there is an underlying problem in probably most of the West...

Alrighty, what design philosophy would you apply to get millions of animated, individual objects to interact with an astonishingly high and constant tick rate on everything down to absolutely shitbox-laptops? Because that is what Factorio does!

The article yada-yada's over all the things that require constant electricity.

What about garage startups?

What about people who need some sort of pager charged? (Emergency responders, including troubleshooters for companies)

What about disabled people, plagued by anxiety, PTSD or Alzheimers?

What about the absolutly ridiciously look the country implementing this first would have from the rest of the world?

Who decides whose "usecase" for continous electricity is "important enough"?

I get a feeling that the article wants to stretch the Overton window for attention purposes, but forgoes all sense in the process...

But those examples do not hold either?

The Muhammad story is about Austria (which I did not discuss and do not know a lot about). I don't know much about the religious issue at hand either, but the possibility of getting fined 500€ for accusing people of paedophilia if your claim does not hold does not strike me as such horrendous. Isn't this slander in the US and illegal as well?

How is Germany on par with the countries you listed? You may not disturb public peace with speech and not insult people. Example is a dude who printed "The Holy Quran" on toilet paper. Nothing wrong with enforcing human decency via the law. Such insults is also literally what Nazis did in the first stage of the holocaust. Looking at the countries this is supposed to be on par with: Yemen uses blasphemy laws to imprison establishment enemies. Oman is not even on the list. Turkey is extra ironic because there was a comedian who made a parody of the Turkish government and Germany had a diplomatic crisis because Germany refused to do something against it (obv. totally on par). Myanmar put a guy in jail for wearing Buddha headphones. Indonesia's mention is so brief I guess you could say the law sounds similar.

Still not seeing the slope, sorry...

Can you elaborate?

If I say "vegetables save you from cancer" that implies a causation, wouldn't you agree? Just because it does not explicitly say "cause" it still very clearly says "if you do X, Y will happen". Why do you think this is not applicable?

You can't get causation from an observation study.

You can however get a lot of attention for "finding" a causation.

So to answer your question, it's quacks selling correlation as causation.

This is pseudo-science. Please refrain from upvoting.

You cannot prove (or imply) causation via observation. The only method we know to find causation is by setting up an experiment. This study however merely measures variables in a pre-existing context, without injecting independent variables. The only valid result you may extract from this is a correlation, never causation.

Please edit the title to reflect correlation or (IMO preferred) delete the submission, because such bad science surely does not pass the quality barrier of HN.

When one sides always takes the intellectual high ground, the other side can go continually lower, all while amassing significant cult-like follower ship. Alphabet Soup, machinegun argumentation, at hominem, gaslighting, oversimplification, non sequitur. It does not end in free society prevailing.