This is exactly the reason QAnon took off. It evolved from ARG-ish games without the goal of being persuasive about real-world things. But a participant back then realized how people enjoyed figuring out the 'puzzle', and how to lead them to the conclusion without telling them, and once you add political agendas we got what we have today.
But why is it OK if you dismiss someone's lived experience AND a few studies in favor of what is only your lived experience?
Given the demographics of the site and people's explicitly stated experiences, it seems plenty of the people disagreeing have had experiences similar to yours.
I want to bring a note of positivity here -- while most comments seem to be poking holes in the concept, all also seem to acknowledge the need for such a service to be successful.
This is a domain that I've also put a lot of thought into over the years, so I hope something succeeds. And some things do. Keep in mind that Wikipedia caught a lot of flak for being unreliable or impossible at first, but nowadays they have a robust editorial process for contentious subjects that I'd consider the gold standard for any such practical applications on the internet.
>while most comments seem to be poking holes in the concept, all also seem to acknowledge the need for such a service to be successful.
Speaking plainly: anyone who believes you can get better news through some kind of external meta-review process is a fool. Probably a fool who also thinks the review process should validate journalists that share their political biases, because that's what it's all about these days.
You cannot test quality into the product. News sources are supposed to cross-validate each other in the first place. Clearly, that have stopped working some time ago.
The only thing that can save news now is an overhaul of its financing and discovery models.
>Wikipedia caught a lot of flak for being unreliable or impossible at first, but nowadays they have a robust editorial process for contentious subjects
Yeah, I've never quite understood the value proposition of that fee myself. Between that and the gatekeeping that happens to become an agent, it seems like it's a bit inflated and held up by tradition.
At least the iBuyers like Opendoor provide a service whose value I can see, even if it might not apply to every individual. Having someone else take on the hassle of dealing with shady vendors and house showing, repair negotiations and flaky buyers, while letting me move out cash-in-hand whenever I want? I get that.. especially after experiencing my good friends hit every one of those nightmares themselves, ending up having to waste thousands on AirBnB's after contractor issues left them without either home for months.
It's really useful to have access to an eval() function when paused in a debugger. That alone makes this useful -- it'd be great to have IDE's like Goland take advantage of this to provide this functionality.
It must be some subset of expressions (or I must have set mine up wrong), because anything that calls a function (vs a simple conditional statement) appears to throw an error for me indicating that it cannot execute.
The way I read it is that they are using 'luck' and 'risk' in the colloquial sense, where 'risk' equates with 'danger' and 'luck' equates with 'good fortune'.
Basically they are saying that, in a probabilistic outcome, we are comfortable acknowledging that a venture may encounter somewhat random danger, but are uncomfortable acknowledging that they may encounter somewhat random fortunes.
I don't think this is new. 20 years ago, I loved game programming.. I even chose a game dev library in C++ as my senior (college) project. But my obsession also led me to read all I could about the industry, and the stories were the same. I got nervous about the 14-hour-a-day, 7-day-a-week eternal crunch time, the pay, the job security, the lack of prospects without moving around. I chickened out.
I still like my job, but it's nothing like the passion I felt when I built games. Still, I don't think that passion is enough to justify the strain it would put on my family through financial risk, not to mention my work/life balance (or in this case, work/slightly less work balance).
Since it was the same then as now, I suspect it may continue to be. After all, it's a job with inherent joy for people who want it, and those tend to have the luxury of materially rewarding workers less. Much as bars can basically pay bands little to nothing in order to have live music, because there's no shortage of people wanting it just for the inherent joy, I imagine game companies will continue to have a pool of creative technicians willing to work for less. Maybe the higher barrier of entry to learn tech work will change something one day, but it doesn't appear to have done so, so far.
You're in my state then. There is the one guy that's.. somewhat centrist, but he's pretty well back in the polling. SO now I'm figuring out what's the lesser of 3 evils that are competitively polling.
We really need Ranked Choice Voting, I really think these polls affect the actual vote tallies at the end of the day.
Exactly. I think there's a huge flaw in even the toned-down version of that that both sexes buy into -- making a dating profile (or just their public personality) as generically appealing as possible. Yes, highlighting your travel and exercise pics to the exclusion of all else will probably get you more dates.. but how satisfying will the connection generally be? "Likes: food, laughter, exercise, travel, dogs" tells me maybe 1% of the information I need to know to determine compatibility.. especially when most people are exaggerating the importance of the travel and the exercise in their daily life. So the 'matches' made on those generic terms, in my experience, are largely unsatisfying and based on physical attraction -- not exactly the recipe for a rewarding long-term relationship.
Meanwhile, the people who were bold enough to actually talk about their more individualized interests got my attention and resulted in some great conversation and dates, even if they didn't result in relationships.
I fell into the trap in my 20's of being generically appealing. I did very well in the 'dating' market, had attractive partners, married a particularly beautiful one. Then I realized that 'success rate' meant squat other than a minor ego boost, and I was stuck with a person attracted to generically appealing me and not ME. And physical attraction fades.
Luckily I got out of that situation, started representing myself accurately, and I live in a large enough city to be able to find at least some women online who do the same. The conversation, dates, and relationships have been SO much more rewarding, because the people connect with ME and not a generically appealing version of me.
I think being generically appealing does build confidence, and confidence is important. But hopefully redpillers and all the generic profile creators online can eventually see the value of specificity.. and attracting quality over quantity. I think it'll breed a lot more happy relationships.
