1,587 karma · joined April 5, 2016
Yes. Definitely.
I wish.
The best subreddits are the ones like r/askhistorians, which are draconic in their moderation. As a result, the content is consistently extremely high quality.
> the top posts tend towards generic mush that is vaguely interesting to most, and extremely interesting to very few.
This is how HN tends to work, especially in regard to the comments. It's unfortunate.
I never really understood how they got around the limitation with stuff like NASCAR, where you really are essentially betting on the outcome of a single race. Maybe it's like PGA where the tournament is the culmination of a set of matches or something.
It's worth examining because it sheds light on how the less obviously false narratives most of the rest of us invest in are spun. Since it's so crazy, the mechanisms are more clear. Since it still works on many people, the mechanisms aren't that different.
I don't know who Q is (other than clearly not who they claim to be) or what their objective is, but it's definitely worth keeping an eye on.
They just sent me a new calculator for free. I was so amazed! Heh.
I repeated almost the same accident with an early kindle and Amazon did the same free replacement. I don't think they do today.
I met him at a BarCamp in Los Angeles, that's how I started following the account. I miss BarCamp.
Anyway, The Good Captain.
Everyone agrees on this point.
>If your chargeback rate is over 1%, you're doing something seriously wrong
Not everyone agrees on this point.
The point the gp is making is that the chargeback rates are too high due to circumstances beyond his control.
He can't stop people from taking advantage of the system as it currently operates and basically committing fraud against him at a higher rate. There's no policy he can implement to prevent this. Because he's not in control.
Is this really true, though? Are they losing out on more top end candidates?
There are other places with interesting work and big paychecks. Some of them aren't building reputations for annoying interview processes.
Strong moderators are the only thing I've ever seen keep online forums at a high quality level. Voting is the weakest kind of moderation.
Blog devoted to "revisiting rpg rations": http://cookingtheperiodway.blogspot.com/
Somewhat related, blog from the food stylist for the recent Hannibal and American God series: http://janicepoonart.blogspot.com/
Is that no longer true?
I know several people who have worked with Cruise on films who describe their experience as the opposite of this.
You do read this site, right?
My opinion is that getting rid of voting is step one to making both sites infinitely better.
Extremely draconian human moderation is step two.
But meanwhile my 10 year old nephew is having life shaping experiences with the Rift I set up for him.
http://www.trs-80.org/omikron-mapper/
And the obituary for George Gardner, the man who founded Omikron. He led a very interesting life.
http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/times-standard/obituary.asp...
“But Ryan Coogler said the most real-as-fuck shit to me about it. He said, ‘It sounds like you’re not ready to get off the couch.’ ”
The main problem is there's barely a business model for superficial journalism. It's non-existent for in-depth followup work.