dtdynasty

I've worked on anti abuse systems and people always say just ban spammers. Just is doing a lot of heavy lifting. People feel the low percentage of spam that gets through is already too much. And when the classification messed up on the low percentage of real users that's also a terrible experience.

The precision and recall tradeoffs are difficult and all scenarios lead to people being unhappy. Not to mention the politics of big corporations where anti abuse systems usually stand in opposition to company goals which makes getting any change through difficult.

Seems like an anti spam measure. Bad actors ruin all features where links can be placed in front of eyes.

The skill to distinguish on whether the extra work will help you get paid more in the future is essential. Developing this skill makes it a bet instead of just working more.

Don't you think it's a good thing that hacker news isn't a monolith on their beliefs?

When the cleanliness doesn't serve existing or future requirements.

It's just convenient to mix in shaker bottle and have food sometimes. I feel like for people who eat to live [1] it's clearly saves time.

[1] as opposed to live to eat

I agree if the money was given to organizations which would actually effectively use the money to make road safety changes. But with this form of claim I always come back to the idea this was originally funded by corporations. I don't think the opportunity cost of corporate funding is public infrastructure unless it's profit motivated. So if it makes safety improvements at low safety per $ I still support it because its opportunity cost is more likely ads or other corporate investments.

Anecdotally I find the ones into protein at least have a moderate amount of physical activity. So probably not too big of a deal? I find articles using dramatic words for an article without any metrics on effect sizes the epitome of modern journalism.

I would describe them as pessimistic rather than irrational. They just believe that instead of going with an option like you proposed, companies will push toward unregulated options.

Since I don't know their backgrounds and don't have any background working with video game company executives it's hard to tell which options are more likely.

The console price point will go up too and set different expectations.

I do think the general purpose screens of today are doing a disservice for education. There are too many possible distractions a child isn't prepared to resist yet. But it could enable more advanced workflow for personalized learning.

I think the k-shaped economy where some people are financially succeeding while the rest go through hardship is a reflection of a k-shaped education system where those who are able to ignore the distractions and succeed are doing well. The top of the k can use more edtech as they just need tools for further educational attainment. Things modern edtech can bring. The bottom of the k has different needs.

Isn't this normal? I thought that's how it typically works when an employee leaves a company with any method.

My interpretation is that the studies supports theories of intersectionality for risk tolerance and competitiveness.

I was also one who spent their time playing dota in high school. In my experience one can learn more from playing dota than the average social media experience. Understanding team dynamics and emotional regulation to negative experiences outside your control. If you take the game seriously even prioritization and deliberate practice.

Of course not everyone learns from playing dota but at least it's a focused experience that doesn't steal focus away like short form videos.