ta_1138

The communication is only necessary/important if people haven't set this as a convention in the first place. I'll say that prior to ever looking at my clues: "I will give you higher numbers than what I said if you miss by more than 1. THe number I pick will always be high enough as to allow you to, with the +1 guess you get for free, make guesses on all the words I was hinting at.

There's also all kinds of not necessarily intended communicaton from the guessers in the fact that you can listen to which words they were considering and didn't pick. Nothing in the game attempt to say that you should not consider, say, whether they were going in the right or wrong direction in their guessing, but it sure can make a difference in how to approach later clues. If they were being very wrong, there might be a need to double up on words that you intended, and that your guessers missed.

In the same fashion, nothing in the game saying that I cannot listen to those guesses as a member of the other team, whether guesser or spymaster, and then change behaviors to make sure we don't hit words they considered as candidate words without very good reasons. Let them double dip on mistakes, or not make their difficult decisions easier. It's not as if the game demands that everyone that isn't currenly guessing should wear headphones to be sure they disregard what the other team says or does.

That might be true, for a while. But I bet many of us have parents that are old enough that are, in uncontroversial, non-political ways, losing their ability to view the world accurately. It's not all that easy to convince them that yes, they are in cognitive decline, and we are doing their best to consider how the version of themselves 20 years before would like us to tackle the decline.

Even in less obvious cases that don't involve old age, we often call something growth, when we should just say change. Sometimes we are all just more set our ways. Others, our "learning" is just abandoning principles so that we can follow random emotional fancies. Knowing when we are actually seeing the world more accurately, instead of being wrong in a different way, is quite challenging. We all want to think we are getting better, which is precisely whi we are blind to the ways in which we aren't. The convenient story often defeats what is actually true, but inconvenient.

The miracle of US healthcare is how at every step, work is done to minimize every party's ability to either use market power to lower costs, or to make people cost-conscious about their own expenses.

Insurance, in a vacuum, detached from an industry is a perfectly sensible way to try to spread risk. And as you say, this fair, reasonable insurance isn't about getting extremely rich, but about being the best at identifying where the risks are, and using market power to lower costs. But with healthcare, and especially with the US peculiarities, we manage to get minimal value out of it.

People getting care don't know their options, and how different the pricing can be. Insurers are capped by a percentage of services paid, so they really are happy if everything is very expensive. Providers band together into conglomerates that make sure it's hard for insurers to lower reimbursement rates. Pharmacy benefit managers build complicated schemes that let them take a bigger piece of the pie. They even purchase pharmacies, and restrict the expensive purchases for themselves, while the local pharmacy is squeezed. All in all, it gets very expensive, with minimal control of spiraling prices, and nobody that can lower costs is incentivized to do so.

We blame insurers because that's the people that get paid first, but yes, it's not really a matter of just insurers. It's a kafkaesque system that is basically impervious to significant reform. And for good reason: Every dollar we overpay is someone else's salary. A decrease in costs per person for the same care to match, say, Spain would involve a whole lot of people making a lot less money, including many losing their jobs. Not exactly a political winner, even though the country would be better off with more efficiency

The shortest, simplest equivalent I know that has most of the same 'spice' is Chicago Express/Wabash Cannonball. At first you think it's a game about building a company that tries to get to Chicago first to claim the prize money, but then you realize that this is really about making money, and that maybe the best thing for you is to completely wreck any and all attempts to have anyone, ever, get to Chicago. Plays in an hour, instead of 3+ in your typical train game with this kind of mechanics.

There was a Railroad Tycoon 3, made mostly by the same team in the same office in Fenton. The changes to a more free-flowing tracks didn't necessarily make the game better, and were a headache for most of the production.

I was also told that there were attempts to make the economic simulation far more dynamic, simulating that the cargo could leave by other transport methods, as you'd find in a more serious economic simulation. That just made the game worse: The more efficient the market gets, the harder it is to find the profit, and the more likely that an old 'good' route suddenly stops making money, which is just annoying in a single player game.

It's a common problem with market-centric games: Good simulations make everything unfun, as most of the enjoyment comes from easily finding opportunities or getting away with misbehavior that would make real-life barons very difficult. This is IMO why you don't find many spiritual successors: Most steps forward would be steps back when it comes to making the game fun. So you'll find games focusing just on the tracks, but as puzzles (like the Train Valley Series). Optimizing routes trading items (spaceways), or outright market manipulation (Offworld Trading Company). Doing it all at once basically demands copying the game with newer graphics.

There's no need for a government to get into this kind of situation: in fact, we get very similar problems all over the place in companies that have limited government contacts.

What you describe is ultimately just a principal-agent problem. In a world where the banks have no government protection, it can still be positive for people working at the bank to do things that are very risky for the bank. We see companies do crazy things that hurt them, but help people that work for them all the time.

Saying it's the government's fault is like blaming greed, or capitalism, or the banks. It's just principal-agent problems all the way down.

What gives people burnout changes per person. For me, Covid was the best thing that ever happened. My stress levels dropped like a rock. My self control went way up, and with it my ability to improve my life. I was doing the same work, but remote, and a whole lot of the things that made my life worse just instantly disappeared.

If you know you were getting all your social needs met at work, and now you don't, the companies that have moved back to the office should be a godsend for you. So why don't you just change jobs?

Making creation cheap just means that the control goes to whoever can bring in eyeballs. So it might not be a studio not making you be able to create your vision, but an algorithm deciding that they want to boost someone else and not you.

See the situation in modern indie videogames: Today a small team does what used to take a huge team a couple of decades ago, but you still have projects that have so much budget you cannot touch them with a small team, and difficulties getting good, small games to find audiences, as they need to deal with a different set of gatekeepers. You'll need some influencer, a blogger, or some social network algo, which can be gamed, to give you exposure. Success without paying is not impossible, but the easy route is through paying. And how much will people pay? More than you want.

Even in a world without physical scarcity, if you want eyeballs and clout, scarcity will still exist because real fame and success is limited. And based on who are the most popular organic-ish influencers, you might not like the kind of person who wins.

That's why the riskiest moment in an engineer's career is the jump up from senior: The things that get you a strong senior review and the things that get you promoted to architect/principal/staff are completely different. You can end up in a situation where you've done a little too much glue, but not good enough to claim you were doing architect work, while that time meant you did less than expected of a senior doing heads down work. Try to do this with a bad manager, and you are heading for a Pip.

Which gets us back to the most important rule of a software engineer's career: make sure that the person writing your reviews really likes you.

The typical IT department in a large corporation is way too big to have reasonable visibility into what it manages. There's no way to build reasonable controls that work out when you have 50K programmers on staff. It's purely a matter of size.

Often the end result is having just enough red tape to turn a 2 week project into an 8 month project, and yet not enough as to make sure it's impossible for someone to, say, build a data lake into a new cloud for some reports that just happen to have names, addresses and emails. Too big to manage.

Today, the hardest part is to get to said first interview, because we are all flooded with fake resumes. Incomprensible amounts. So what you have to do is not send blind resumes, but get a warm intro from someone with a connection to the company that vouch that interviewing you will not be a total waste of time. Networks have never been more important.

Now, if on interview you pass rate is low, it's hard to say what you are doing wrong.

It depends on when and where: All real estate investment is a bet on a specific location, and properties don't maintain themselves: In general, the land appreciates, while the house on top of it loses value.

If you bought a house 15 years ago large parts of north St Louis, chances are you lost money, even without accounting for said home maintenance. They one I live in didn't go up 50% in 15 years. A lot of commercial investments? Ravaged.

So while it's true that it's possible to leverage yourself more in real estate, and that said leverage is even tax advantaged, assuming that the line will go up faster than anything else in a risk-adjusted way is a very risky position to take.

It's not a matter of age itself, but variance and experience. You can find the issue already at 5 years: Some people have grown and have used those years wisely, while others still are going to get experience raises, while they don't bring the improved performance.

A non-trivial part of the issue with consulting companies is the long wait for many to turn an H-1B into a green card. If you are going to need many years of continuous employment without ever getting hit by a layoff (which risks a gap in employment), the immigrant might be better of with the consulting company, as they might end up the bench, or just count as employed but not getting any hours.

If the road from H-1B to permanent residency was shorter and more reliable, the advantages of the consulting companies would shrink.

The same as if we didn't end up having to rely on lotteries. Hiring a candidate and hoping for an H-1B is quite annoying if you don't have them on staff in another country, or they are working for you in the US from an F-1. Those consulting companies that have large offices in India can happily submit large amounts of applications of people they already have in India, and be OK with 2/3rds of them not winning said lottery. A smaller company just can't play that numbers' game

While knowing every possible word is very helpful in scrabble, the most useful, important words for the game will be very different than the words that are useful for speaking the language well. There's many words out there that are going to be almost unusable, as they are low value. So you aren't really going to need all the words, but you want to memorize basically every word that uses the high scoring tiles, and understand how wide the 'gaps' you are leading when you leave high value letters on the board, especially near high scoring, whole word tiles.

So you arent' overestimating how long it takes to memorize words, but how useful having a good, normal vocabulary in the language actually is for being good at scrabble. Go look at guides for English scrabble, and see the words you are trying to memorize.