arkades

Right. That’s why it’s odd.

> Piracy of songs, movies, and applications actually improves sales, according to a study that the European Union funded and then tried to keep from getting published:

I never understand this argument at all.

Piracy of X improves sales of X is only relevant if you're keeping the business model of selling X.

It's an argument for small amounts of piracy not substituting for market demand in a meaningful amount, and possibly spurring increased market demand.

It's not an argument for it not being stealing, or against having an IP legal framework at all. If you remove the ability to sell things, there will be no sales for it to spur.

Also, only the most extreme liberterian capitalists believe in capitalism without any commercial regulations whatsoever. Literally the bare minimum is property rights.

It's not thinking that gets me into accidents - it's not thinking that gets me into accidents.

That also applies to driving.

edit: Unintentional. I meant, it's not those situations where I think for a second and make a bad call - it's those situations where I act without thinking at all.

Without even digging into the paper, let's be clear. They didn't find "they have memory trouble." They found, "they have trouble recalling sensations."

> "Our data also showed that individuals with aphantasia not only report being unable to visualise, but also report comparatively reduced imagery, on average, in all other sensory modalities, including auditory, tactile, kinesthetic, taste, olfactory and emotion," the team wrote in their paper.

I, for instance, am not aphantasic, but I fall quite close to that end of the spectrum. But I don't use mental imagery to store memory. When I am attempting to encode memories, I do so in the form of a narrative - narratives stick very effectively for me, and I have a pretty good memory (no one without a good memory survives medical school.) It's true, I can't just "remember" the image of relevant anatomy, but I'm fine with other mental models for encoding and retrieving information.

Expressed Preferences vs. Revealed Preferences

>19% of the public uses google and/or facebook services.

> One aspect is that being excellent at one thing is hard. Be really good at two things. And thats how you will stand out because it is the fusion of two skils that makes you unique.

This is a difference of semantics. "Do a thing you are especially good at" vs. "Do two things you're really good at ... to create a unique result" is another way of saying "find a thing you're uniquely good at."

> there is a subreddit for all things.

1. It needs to position itself as something other than not-reddit

2. There are a lot of issues Reddit really doesn't solve. Reddit encourages short, pithy, drive-by posts without much in the way of engagement at all. Compare old newsgroups, old forums, or even the average post here, compared to the average post (even in a niche sub) on reddit. Reddit:??Mysteryreplacement::Twitter:Blogs. I don't know what ??Mysteryreplacement will be, but there's certainly room for it.

Quite a lot of Greek myths, when not stripped down to the "simplified for story-telling to kids" versions, are straight-up case studies / moral lessons to adults.

I'd never look at the Odyssey and mistake it as something to emulate. That people do is kind of surprising.

A show about people who are overly concerned with appearances can better learn to project a particular appearance, based on the appearance of people who they think are better at faking a particular appearance.

I assume. From the tag line on the page, because there's no article there. This isn't even content marketing, it's just spam.

Apple’s approach improves privacy in most contexts for all of its users, enough to shape market practices. Your approach works for a tiny, tiny sliver of people - which, by the nature of population-level snooping and marketing, are irrelevant.

Excising "no free tier" (because we damn well know "free" products ain't free either - that's not an indicator of marketing), your argument boils down to "one of those services is new, therefore, content marketing."

"All internet discussions of new products are content marketing" seems way overboard for me.

The Ashley Book of Knots.

Until they start prosecuting people and putting up barriers to counterfeit sales, it is just words. They're slightly different words, but still.

I got a counterfeit book of knots. And I kept it.

As far as I can tell, someone printed and hardbound a PDF of the actual book, which is otherwise I guess out of print. It's about the best I could hope to get under the circumstances. So ... there we are.

The article deservedly bashes Google in a way that many here agree with, and praises a number of services that many here at least somewhat agree with.

Validating people's spleen is generally a good way to get to the top of the fp.

If mentioning it in a one-liner is a stealth ad, I assume this was also an ad for Notion, Zoom, Twitch, Apple, Instagram, and TikTok.

> You're almost there; the point is not

I take issue with this statement. It's essentially a variant of the No True Scotsman. I constantly see the OP's statement asserted, in various contexts, by various parties, in the same way he worded it.

I don't doubt that you've seen a more refined version of it. "People" are a fairly heterogeneous bunch, and when it comes to race/gender stuff I constantly see nuanced (whether or not agreeable) arguments filter out from academic circles into the general public and to activists, where they're distorted or simplified.

You're absolutely welcome to raise a more refined version of the argument and point out where it's more valid - I think that's a healthy contribution to any discussion. But you don't get to unilaterally assert that the version of the argument that is constantly being put forward ... isn't being put forward, or isn't "the real" argument.

I was expecting someone to say like, Vive or something. The Quest is that good?

I see it being pitched as stand-alone. Does that mean you can't use it to do VR for PC games (e.g., Skyrim)?

So, for someone who isn’t gonna drop a grand on a Valve rig, what’s the right purchase for a gamer today?

I love you.

> Do you feel that that addresses your concerns?

Many of the responses critical of his decision seem to read as "Here's reason X that his decision is non-sensical, and I didn't read the actual link where he clearly and reasonably addresses reason X."

In addition to any emails one might send the relevant editor at the NYT, you may also email your concerns to editors@cjr.org

The Columbia Journalism Review does a lot of "reporting on reporting," and has a very high profile in their field. I CC'd them on my email to the NYT section editor.

As you pointed out in your footnote, science is a bad topic for journalism, intrinsically. Something like Scientific American is about as good as it gets for lay audiences - solicited longform articles from the relevant experts, meant for a general audience.

His post literally includes the line “and angry internet critics have called my job pretending to be upset patients to get me fired.”

You can’t imagine how it would affect his job?

Thank you.

What does CHD stand for in this context?

I was quite taken with their pitch after seeing their article about the battle with apple yesterday. It seems like they did tackle a lot of my pain points. Does anyone actually have first-hand experience? Did they "fix" email?

And phone companies don't play an editorial role in determining what calls you get to hear, and who hears yours. Newspapers are responsible, even when they're publishing someone else's submission to them.

I find an important take-away of that CO story was "The handwriting was nothing like mine. I pulled up my old lease and the writing on the notes is identical to the landlords'!" That suspicion went away as soon as he got his head on straight.

Which is, we're really good at crafting narratives and conforming our perceptions to fit them, whether or not our brain is working right, and bystanders should probably not take the narrative at face value.

> his is the exact opposite of how burden of proof works. An extraordinary claim is being made.

Person suffering hallucinations is concerned they have a brain tumor, experiences said concern in the form of hallucination, turns out to have brain tumor, isn't an extraordinary claim. Person with symptom X consistent with disease Z worries they might have disease Z, expressed through symptom X, and finds out they have disease Z is ... not extraordinary at all. It's the particulars that make it an interesting anecdote, but the overall phenomenon isn't. Imagine we changed it just slightly:

Patient with spastic paralysis of their lower limbs thinks they have a brain tumor. Attributes that thought to themselves. Calls the nearest big medical center - because that's what people worried about cancer do - and gets seen by onco. Onco finds a brain tumor. Unsurprising, because central neuro symptoms.

The story changes only insofar as "symptom was a cognitive effect that made it an interesting anecdote."