nedrocks

I feel the same way. There’s a shift that happens at around 80 people where not everyone rows in the same direction. Incentives become different because not everyone “lives and dies” together or by the same metric. By the time you are at bigco status, this is so ingrained that work becomes repeated prisoner’s dilemma trials.

I see so this may be semantics then as the article agrees with intuitive decision making. I think I understand where we’re saying the same things. I will consider replacing my terminology in the future, thank you!

Respectfully, I don't think you took away the correct implications. Specifically in the implications section of [1]:

"The key to effective intuitive decision making, though, is to learn to better calibrate one’s confidence in the intuitive response (i.e., to develop more refined meta-thinking skills) and to be willing to expand search strategies in lower confidence situations or based on novel information."

and

"Relatedly, it also means we should stop assuming that more conscious and effortful decision-making is necessarily better than more heuristically-driven intuitive decision-making."

I would say that while the article makes very interesting objections to the S1/S2 thinking framework, its objections are that they are far more intertwined as measured. However, the article still very clearly agrees that S1 is lower cost than S2.

I don't want to argue the basis of system 1/system 2 as described in [1], because the point I'm taking away is more about whether they interoperate at times of decision making. The point I'm making is system 2 is a far more costly (effortful in the article) mechanism of decision making.

The point I'm making is, as an organism we avoid utilizing higher-effort or higher-cost actions when unnecessary. An untrained lower-cost (IR1 in the article or System 1 in my definition) decision will result in not caring about quality. A trained lower-cost decision will utilize heuristics to bias for higher quality.

Catering to the masses is indicative of catering to system 1 thinking. System 1 thinking is extraordinarily cheap compared to system 2. When a movie has good cover art, an alluring trailer and one name you've heard of before, it is good enough so long as you don't engage system 2 thinking. The same can be said for your domino's argument - picking a good pizza place takes a lot of thought: deep dish vs new york style, delivery vs pick up, price point, etc. Domino's is just there, in-app, and cheap.

System 2 thinking compounds. Once you've really tried great pizza, studied film, felt good product design, drank good wine, and so on it is hard to go back. Even when operating in system 1, after you know what makes things good, you can just feel the lack of quality. This is what some people use to term "snobishness" because it can lead to turning one's nose up at something that's good enough to the untrained eye.

The minimum bar for is a great measure for society's system 2 quotient. The more deep thought, focus, and experienced a culture is, the higher the quality bar is. For instance, as a community becomes wealthier there are more shake shakes rather than burger kings because with more money people have more free time to experience good foods, leading to a system 1 preference for a higher quality bar. I'd love to see how this plays out over different communities and cultures.

This is one of the few interesting uses of crypto transactions at reasonable scale in the real world.

Years ago I was building a search engine from scratch (back when that was a viable business plan). I was responsible for the crawler.

I built it using a distributed set of 10 machines with each being able to make ~1k queries per second. I generally would distribute domains as disparately as possible to decrease the load on machines.

Inevitably I'd end up crashing someone's site even though we respected robots.txt, rate limited, etc. I still remember the angry mail we'd get and how much we tried to respect it.

18 years later and so much has changed.

This is so interesting! I noticed a sign while driving yesterday that was unbranded saying "high speed internet" and an arbitrary local phone number. I presumed it could be a reseller but my mind started turning on how I could create an ISP and what that process looks like. Next morning I see this.

I don't think I would execute on this personally because of the support required -- the spreadsheet takes into account the building but less so the maintaining. I would struggle to be hated as much as people fume at ISPs when their service is impacted.

This assumes the client can keep state in a more reasonable way than a server can piece it together. Definitely a stateful event is more powerful but is likely more lossy.

From what I've seen tracking simple events and then piecing them together en masse tends to show up significantly more frequently.

I'm certain this type of data is tracked on most devices. In an optimistic outlook it drives a better customer experience because AMZN can capture trends in data to discover things like "oh people change the page forward too frequently accidentally" and track down root causes. In a pessimistic sense it can help target you based on how long you spend reading specific content and which content you highlight as a reader.

Generally every product I am aware of tracks interaction based data such as where someone clicks or taps and what context they are in. Consider things like `utm` parameters which suffix most links people click to determine the context they clicked on something and what they clicked on.

I do not see this as sinister. I imagine somewhere in settings one can turn this feature off but I don't know for sure.

* Disclaimer: I am currently employed at a subsidiary of Amazon. These views are my own.