hughesjj

Also a lot of value add comes from corporations which produce things of complexity greater than the sum of their constituent parts.

If you already have a platform in use by the entire world, that matter of scale makes it much easier to find value adds more than a sole proprietor could ever dream of.

It's for these reasons I'm wary of talking about "value add" only being from the developers directly implementing a feature. Without support, IT, security, Product, HR, etc, I could not deliver that value add.

> CashApp terminated my account for this shenanigans

Did you call to complain about the termination?

Potentially for health insurance but I get the actuarial argument, especially since higher than typical weight regardless of fat composition puts higher than typical strain on your cardiovascular (and other) systems

Yup. Polygraphs are still used in the intelligence community and court too.

I'm seeing the tide turn (imo), but by no means am I claiming it's no longer used (regardless of merit). I acknowledge I'm starting a personal anecdote which is subject to my own biases such as cohort affects.

Do you mean "why is it still used in popsci"? I'd wager because it makes people feel a similar way to other pseudo scientific categorizations, but that's mostly speculation on my part. Add in a bit of inertia and the simplicity of it ("let's reduce the cognitive ability of people across the world to a single number!") and, to me, I can see the appeal for others.

No, she's claiming that most of those stories were made up by a third guy with Daddy issues (if you want to be reductive)

Is it possible to show contested territories? Ex Oregon territory/British Columbia

To be fair I've heard gripes about statistics, and sometimes even probability being considered as part of mathematics.

The lines between (academic) fields are blurry -- academic fields do not form a set theoretic partitioning over areas of study.

Then we have the ghosts of information and category theories underpinning/influencing them all (including physics) (to some degree)

But how else would I power this machine that outputs theorems?

It's still incredibly painful as a learner though when things don't quite pan out. You start gaslighting yourself and then handwaved/convince yourself away that this must be true given how consistent all the "downstream" work is, and that you just don't fully understand it.

So, I agree with the author that this is super helpful, even if we know the proofs are "true" in the end

Even in popsci/social media I've seen more and more awareness that it's "bunk" science.

It's in the same category as all that "alpha male" theory, Meyers Briggs, polygraphs, and "left vs right brained" people.

I'm starting to see more awareness around the concerns of "ballistic forensics" too, which is heartening.