artemisyna

Oh?

It's fun seeing how much threads like this are mostly folks' hot takes on the title as opposed to anything in specific to do with the article.

If it works it works?

A fun little story, especially in the era of folks talking about alignment/AGI/superintelligence, etc...

None (or at least few) of the folks you’re gonna see on HN are going to be in the income bracket where they’re going to be living in East Harlem. It’s about half an hour from the places where things happen, at least, and might as well be an outer borough for most intents and purposes, given transit times, even if it’s technically within the stated geographical limits of Manhattan.

Well, that's some dedicated griefing lol

Yeah, the places that go for "the great race for comp" is sort of what this question was trying to get at.

A bunch of the comments here seem to be talking about what's in the headline (a game being realistic + feeling like work) without really noticing some of the broader social commentary in the article (the workaholic — and sort of toxic — culture of tech in China).

Seems like a potentially good game to train oneself in figuring out how to spend investor money though lol.

The thing articles like this miss is the problem is not will there be some set of skills gained on a given path, but what skills are gained (and at what opportunity cost) versus alternatives.

I appreciate how this post gets resubmitted every couple of years. It's been a go-to bookmark for ages now and really does help give some visual intuition for what's happening.

Say the middle point is M. We know that for each person the ratio of time to go between M->A should be the same as to go between M->B since the distance is fixed only the rates are different.

First lady got to B at 4 pm so her M->B is 4. Second lady got to A at 9 pm so her M->B is 9. Since they both left in the morning, if we call the first lady's M->A time to be x, we know that the second lady's M->B has to be x as well.

Using the fact that the ratio of M->A : M->B should be the same for both of them, we can set up the equation

4/x = x/9 ==> x^2 = 36 ==> x = 6

Since getting to M was at noon and 12-6=6, dawn was at 6 am.

(For what it's worth, I did trial and error too cause I was lazy and didn't feel like thinking... then noticed the nice pattern and back justified it. :P)

Porque no los dos?

Trends have changed and so have my preferences. It’s the same primitives but we’re allowed to change.

There's a meandering article here but not much of a thesis.

Even when the author addresses the title of the article itself ("So again: Why this book—for ninety-six years, over and over?") he goes back to meandering.

It seems like the author is trying to say something between "we read it because it's like watching celebrity drama and awful people are fun to watch" or "we read it because it's the American Dream" or "something along those lines, but again, it meanders so badly between unrelated (probably true, or at least opinion) statement to other (probably true, or at least opinion) statement where it ultimately ends up going nowhere.