SilentStump

It went through for me so try now.

Saw your work on this a while ago. Love the changes you've made to it since then. Hoping to get a weekend free to try it out.

edit: Your link sends a user directly to the content. I love the structure of the content, I was just a little confused, because I thought you linked us to the homepage. It also might just be my 13' macbook, but I think it may be zoomed in a little too much. I had to zoom out to ~75% for it to be comfortable reading.

Dzhokhar was in no state to hear his Miranda rights. He was in serious need of medical attention, so the highest priority is his medical attention, not reading an injured person his miranda rights. Also, I'm not sure if he'd even have been able to repsond that he understood.

I remember reading a blog post about balancing the relationship between investors and founders. Much like this article, it reminds me of the testing requirements in the US education system. The government wants this data to monitor the progress and state of students. The problem with this need and lack of trust, is that it forces teachers and schools to focus less on learning and teaching, and focus on testing and teaching how to test. The part about CH's acquisition speaks the most to this forced shift away from what worked at the start up, to what the acquirer needs. I think this is inpart due to a lack of trust and ego.

I wonder most about the mindset of the people orchestrating these killings. They hint of the mindset of mercy killers; the individuals that kill people to put them out of their misery. They must think they're justified killing the animals, because it's the "ethical" thing to do.

it depends on what you want/need to learn. Since it seems like there is a team developing these apps, I think it would be godo to ask them this question. At least to understand what to learn; then ask how to learn it.

A general area you could start with the "Learn code the Hard Way" series http://learncodethehardway.org/

I believe I know the study you are referring to and you are sort of right. on a scale of accuracy, slightly depressed people are pretty accurate in self assessments, happy people tend to over exaggerate their abilities, and moderately-severely depressed individuals rate their abilities lower than their actual level. So if the person's average ability was a 5/10, happy people tended to rate themselves a 6/10 and moderately depressed people a 4/10 on average iirc.

Edit: My favorite example of Dunning-Kruger happens to be found in religion. The people that know God the most tend to talk about how little they know God, where as the proselytizers that claim the most to know God, really have no clue about the teachings of christ, mohammed, etc.

For some reason this strikes me as the rule "it's better to ask for forgiveness than ask for permission." If I'm being pessimistic, I would assume they decided to automatically opt users in, charge them, and create this hubbub and just apologize about it later. However, the good person in me decides to believe that they are sincerely apologizing for a bug.

I'll address your second point first. I agree that it would be very interesting to see the methodology. You're right that it's the algorithm that determines it, but it's the Kinect that's powering the CVA. Also, sorry I opted for a shorter, less accurate title. (ps. I'm not affiliate to the blog or product. I just thought it was interesting)

I studied psych in college a few years back and read about a variety of studies on how individuals with slight-moderate depression respond to certain stimuli. One of the most interesting studies (unrelated to the topic) had to deal with individuals looking into a mirror after failing a task. Individuals with >= slight depression would look themselves in the eyes, while happily ignorant individuals would avoid eye contact with themselves. They attributed this with a depressed person's desire to figure out what is wrong with themselves and internalize the failure, where as the happy people would avoid internalizing the failure.

This article actually reminded me a lot of iCouch.me, which is like virtual therapy.

Not that one, if you go down to the blendr there are shots of their "users." I think he was just showing what Elon Musk looked like to give context to the person he quoted.

Well, if you take him for his word, he said he doesn't want to be bought out.

I really like the distinction between two languages and a single language. A lot of the kids I've worked with were able to switch from the way they talk with friends, AAVE, to how they talked with teachers and staff similarly how a student might switch from using spanish and english. Pronunciation changes, words change, etc.

I will stake my reputation that the girl two up from the bottom left corner of blendr is "Good Girl Gina," but the image is flipped or something. For most of the dating apps it's pretty obvious how many accounts are fake.

I kind of figured that's probably just what they did. Being none of those things, I didn't really check them out.

You do make a good argument. When I read blog posts and they make a statement like that I tend to just read it as "Most X do Y" instead of "All X do Y." It's like the word literally. Everyone that uses the word literally use it instead of figuratively, even though they mean the latter (jokes I make are bad).

More like use a generality than lie. I know, while I read some profiles, I don't read any until I am physically attracted to the person.

One thing I notice on Eharmony's website is that they have a different Eharmony site for blacks, asians, latinos, homosexuals, seniors, etc.

I think the thought process is that if you're going to be a wing person for your friend, you're going to know if they're interested in women or men. I the same idea of whether or not you would invite a friend that's in a relationships. I think the point is very valid though.

They should treat endorsements like mini-recommendations and make individuals list out why they're endorsing an individual regarding the said trait. Not only would this validate the endorsements, but bring out the true value that I believe was their intention.

Very interesting thesis. The more the ratings and demand dropped, the more news agencies have to sensationalize to compete with other options. However, in terms of the polarization of politics, I'd have to say that stems more from the concept of echo chambers. The polarization doesn't stem from the competition with cable, etc. A lot of it comes from individuals only consuming information and opinions of one side, which in turn pushes each group farther towards those positions.

edit: Another interesting comparison is how a news site like Hacker News (or even Reddit) reaches a decline in the content being provided. Reading the commenting/posting guidelines offers an interesting insight into how HN tries to prevent that decline from happening.