passivate

You're absolutely right, it is extremely hard to emulate the programming experience via such games. If you break down the skills you need in most (with obvious caveats) programming related jobs - reading others' code, explaining your code to others, designing, documenting, brainstorming, breaking down problems, etc, etc, it is difficult to train for those. In the abstract, it makes sense to practice those skills since for many programmers there isn't anything exciting happening day-to-day, and there is a lot of grunt work maintaining existing code bases.

In most physical fields (athletics being an easy example) there is an amazing amount of carry-over from training into performance. Training being where you build up skills and performance being when you apply said learned skill to the performance. But in more abstract and cognition-heavy fields its muddy and vague.

The article also says "In reality, all of us are at least a little narcissistic. ", so make of that what you will. Me personally, I'm always cautious when research people claim to have found "truths" about human psychology - which is temporal, transient, highly mutable, highly context-dependent and extremely difficult to generalize.

Coming from a tech background which promotes algorithmic thinking, I have been more than humbled when trying to apply such conceptual frameworks to biological systems at my current job.

But what does proof even mean? They can pass any audit you throw at them, and then immediately switch to being bad actors.

Its not only complicated, its bordering on the impossible. They are simply hand-waving the "analyze your past decisions" part. Its extremely difficult to be introspective like that. You don't know why someone said "yes" to your deal, and not to someone else. You can guess, but there are so many micro things that fall in your favor when you're successful. Context matters, environment matters, and while we can capture our thoughts, we can't always capture the environment in which those events occurred, etc, etc. This is Harvard business review type stuff, excepting each person to accurately weigh and analyze all that is unrealistic. You're going to find examples of people who "read the book" or "attended the lecture" or "sought advice from X" and struck gold, and these examples provide buoyancy for such ideas.

>If financial institutions (and crypto players) are using these kind of approaches to make their bets, then isn't the individual investor hopelessly outgunned in the vast majority of cases?

When its your job, you're better at it compared to someone for whom its a hobby. And also, larger firms are able to manipulate the market which tilts the balance in their favor.

If you still have them, can you share those emails with names redacted?

The next time CCTVs and bodycams are used to catch a criminal, perhaps you can volunteer to be the one telling the victims family about liberty and government over-reach.

In any case, we already have existing tech that is serving as a technological deterrent for drunk driving. The legislation doesn't explicitly say so, but I am imagining an expansion of this program. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignition_interlock_device

>That’s because, while Google expected apps to use Google’s own billing system for purchasing digital goods, it rarely actually enforced the expectation

>The billing system crackdown

>Starting June 1st, Google said it would remove apps that didn’t comply with its billing system rules.

>Oddly, in March, Google announced a pilot program to let app developers use their own billing systems. The pilot program includes Spotify but not Amazon.

The article says its the billing system, and mentions it multiple times. I'm not reading any court documents, as I am not a legal scholar to offer an opinion on them. I would invite you to write your own analysis, and I'm sure there will be people who would be interested in your scholarship.

That's how I read it. Okay, we just have a difference of opinion, its no big deal.

From the article:

" That’s because, while Google expected apps to use Google’s own billing system for purchasing digital goods, it rarely actually enforced the expectation."

"But Google is currently cracking down on app developers skirting around its rules. Starting June 1st, Google said it would remove apps that didn’t comply with its billing system rules. "

From the article:

" That’s because, while Google expected apps to use Google’s own billing system for purchasing digital goods, it rarely actually enforced the expectation."

"But Google is currently cracking down on app developers skirting around its rules. Starting June 1st, Google said it would remove apps that didn’t comply with its billing system rules. "

Grabbing 30% of sales just to run a billing system is absurd.

I have no issues going to any lengths preventing drunk people from driving.

I have no issues going to any lengths preventing drunk people from driving.

You can say that about anything though. Most people aren't writing code or building binaries, so you might as well take the ability of the end user to write code or run any unsigned unauthorized executables on their PCs. Also most people aren't running old ass executables, so screw backwards compatibility too. I'm sure it will make operating systems a lot less complex if you do down that path, but most people here would revolt if that was done by any OS vendor.

Also, FWIW Apple is no longer part of this lobbying group. And I'm no fan of Apple - they're a greedy anti-repair company.

https://appleinsider.com/articles/22/04/07/apple-leaves-priv...

But even otherwise, the links between the companies and legislation are weak to begin with (IMO). Its a lot of lazy connect-the-dots type reasoning that turns "may be" "could be" "seems like" into "must be" and "is".

>completely subjective because it depends on what you think the educational system should be doing in the first place.

Yup, you nailed it. That is the crux of the argument. I think it also leads into the meta discussion of what it means to be a "productive member of society" and how education fits into that philosophy. Why should one be forced by society at-large to be educated, or productive, or anything at all? :)

>These are very hard questions, and it’s frustrating to read the phrase “we need to fix the system” because yes, obviously we do, but agreeing that things are bad isn’t the hard part, and probably input from people who have never worked in the field is of pretty limited value in how to resolve the hard part, and will not do much more than annoy teachers even more.

I don't agree that the system is broken (broken to me is something that is completely unusable, and we must stop using immediately). The progress we've made as a global civilization is to be credited to the way human knowledge is captured, distributed and taught by us as a species. And certainly formal schooling is a big part of that. And so, I'd rather view the situation as us being on a path of continuous improvement - where everything, including education can be improved.

> They won't go to the best schools or get the best jobs because they aren't cramming flash cards of likely test answers.

Can you clarify what you meant by this? As it stands it sort of reads like you claiming actually smart people don't get into the best schools - which is absurd.

What do you mean by "current state of affairs"? There are plenty of reputable products coming out of China. I purchased the Little Dot mk3 tube amp directly from a Chinese manufacturer (no website, direct paypal payment) around 2006 and it still works.

And the authors are using their rights to free expression to criticize Google. No rights have been taken away. So its all good.

I have friends that work at these companies and they're not toxic.

Its like saying US citizens should renounce their citizenship and move to another country because of the warcrimes of the US that they didn't stop.

My point was not political, but just that overly broad use of words dilutes their effects.

I wonder what the best way is to strike a balance between calling an entire organization as having 'toxic culture' to highlighting the obvious egregious violations that we all want to eliminate. Like, can we call out America as having 'toxic culture' since we literally voted a sexual predator into office? At-least the employees at a company didn't vote on their leaders.

If it is "definitely not true" as you claim, surely someone has done an analysis and published data on electrical, flooring, structural strength, etc. Lets see some of that. Data is easier to discuss than opinions.

>The computerized "knowledge at your fingertips" is a common slogan of computer-age propaganda, but it's probably true that a greater fraction of that "knowledge" is in fact garbage and overall may just be a marginal improvement.

I don't agree at all. Especially in the sciences, the collaboration across countries over the internet has been tremendous. The ability to instantly know what papers are being published in your field and use their results to further your own research can't be overstated. We rely on that to do our work at our company. But going back to tech, the ability to do open source projects _at all_ wouldn't have been possible before. The interconnected nature reduces 'local maximas' of knowledge, skill and expertise. I have learnt so many things from watching youtube DIY channels that I otherwise would never have in my own local community.

And so I ask - What makes your claim "probably true"?

That is an elitist viewpoint. Things that have mass appeal are just that - things that most people like/enjoy/prefer. There will always be niche areas with limited appeal to more critical audiences, or audiences who value other things like aesthetics or other highly technical aspects.

If you can't convince others of your position, then there is no reason for everyone to take it seriously. Its basically the verbal equivalent of a position paper.

I'm in favor of specific criticism rather than lumping everyone together or painting with a broad brush, so on that specific point, I agree with the OP. There is no mention about needing to satisfy any specific 'standard' as you claimed. What you quoted doesn't say that either. Anyway, there isn't much meat in this thread arguing over such minutia, so I will just let you have the last word if you'd like to.

>The grandparent misunderstood why the author was being vague

Perhaps, but only the author can confirm this.

>We conclusively demonstrated that kinetic models of folding are critical to do better drug discovery against GPCRs and other target classes.

How was this demonstration done? Or are you referring to building a better high throughput screening mechanism? I'm by no means a protein expert, but I am trying to learn more about them.

>Or did you mean something more fundamental, like "the biophysics of protein folding is primarily determined by entropic-driven hydrophobic collapse, not enthalpic contributions from hydrogen bonding?"

I don't want to minimize anything or anyones work. But conformation of experimental observations via molecular dynamics simulation isn't what I was thinking of - but maybe I am misunderstanding your claim. Its my own ignorance.