I think people are criticizing this checkbox in a vacuum. This is a mobile app that I personally use to track a small number of habits a day, it's not like I'm filling out a form on a PC. Within the context, it's definitely an appropriate design
I think it would be the opposite. Someone who is taller than you would on average look more like their head is tilted up from your perspective, and vice versa for someone shorter than you.
I think it comes from the statistical expectation. Like, if you were able to donate your kidney any amount of times, you would on average expect to lose your life on the 3,000th donation. So the question is, do you want to be the kind of person who would do that at the cost of your own life?
In your golf example, making that guess requires an additional knowledge of what "pro" means and it's frequency among golfers. The data doesn't know that just like the randomness data doesn't know that most humans are younger than 65 years old. If you really want to figure out how predictive the data is, you shouldn't include considerations like that in your model. I get what you're saying but ultimately I don't think their goal was to make the most accurate prediction, they wanted to make one that illustrated their point by basing their guess off the data alone.
Again though, they are arguing that there is no correlation between randomness and age. This was just a demonstration that when they use randomness to predict age, the results are wrong 50% of the time-- which is precisely in accordance with their hypothesis
> Twitter became a negative-sum game of people competing to debase themselves in service of narrative in exchange for nothing but the approval of others who had already done the same. Unlocking that negative cycle can release a lot of captive value for everyone. The best way to do that is to connect great minds and scale them based on their revealed desires.
This is a pretty big overreaction to a statement no-one should have any issue with accepting. It's manifestly obvious that property damage is not the same as violence against humans. It's something which is reflected in our laws. You can believe that property damage is bad and still accept this as clearly true.
Well, many rioters did target police stations. The issue is that any sufficiently large riot is necessarily disorganized, composed of different people with different motivations. For that reason, I think private property being targeted by rioters is actually not too different from your example of fire spreading to buildings. It seems an impossible standard for any riot / rebellion on a large scale to meet.
There are situations where the defenders of the fence are willfully obscuring / misrepresenting its purpose or may not even know it themselves, when I think this argument reaches its limits.