To say things a different way, I don't think this study will change anything for people actually doing choice architecture in applied settings. They have results that speak for themselves.
No evidence for nudging =/= nudging doesn't exist.
I'm fairly sure anyone who has done A/B testing at scale has plenty of evidence that nudging works. Perhaps not up to the standard of science, but there are literally people who manipulate choice architecture for a living and I'm fairly convinced a lot of that stuff actually works.
> Unreal and unity are monsters that allows beginners to have quick access to a high end rendering system, but then it doesn't leave enough room to add new cool things, like cool gameplay, a good multiplayer system, etc, when you want to ship on console who have limited memory.
I'm not following you here. These engines are exactly what enable you to add new cool things, and not focus on implementing lower level details.
The format to the world championship in chess has historically always been a point of contention, and the current format is no exception.
The Candidates tournament has some seemingly arbitrary qualifications that players must meet, and you could argue that the format doesn't necessarily produce the strongest player to challenge the world champion.
The World Championship match itself is problematic because it gives the defending champion a fairly huge advantage, in that they retain the title if they can draw out the match, although more recently it goes to rapid chess tie breaker rounds. So in practice the Championship is decided by these tie breaker rounds, which doesn't really seem appropriate.
Given the prep time players have and the engines available, players go into these matches extremely well prepared and draws over the board are quite a typical outcome unless someone makes a mistake.
I believe Magnus wants the Championship to become a knockout tournament to reduce the advantage that so much prep time can give. There is a big difference between prepping for a field of 12 players versus prepping for a single opponent.
Interesting to get an more raw insight into Mark's thinking. In some ways its insightful and prescient, but also feels like there is desperation and a kind of throwing spaghetti at the wall and seeing what sticks. I suppose Facebook has/had the resources to do plenty of spaghetti throwing though.
Another observation is that this would have been the moment for Facebook to lean into short video content a la TikTok. But it seems like the video content is just an after thought for Zuck. Hindsight is 20/20 I suppose, but its interesting that they almost got there. Vine already existed at this point and I guess Zuck did not view it as a threat. Perhaps that's one downside of the "defensibility" mindset that seems to pervade this writing and most of the ideas. I get the sense that this is Zuck responding to competitors, and not really crafting a unique vision for Facebook as its own entity.
As a hobbyist I found Unreal to be far better than Unity. The technical debt that Unity has continued to accrue starts impacting you even as a casual user. It's a bit of a mess to be honest.
Unreal on the other hand has a very solid architecture and goes out of its way to be reliable and maintainable. Plus you have the full source available in your project to search through if you want to dig into the code. The code is generally well written enough that you can use the source code over documentation if you prefer. Blueprints are also great if you are prototyping things.
Also if you are interested in doing networked multiplayer, there is no comparison. Unreal's networking is fantastic, while Unity doesn't really have networking built in.
A unsolved problem from three years ago is still an unsolved problem. And you don't actually rebuke any of his claims, you just give a poor summary of MEV.
That's possible. But I think the reason why this is interesting is because you are seeing the same kind of representation in the brain for two seemingly different phenomenon, motion and orientation.
It's intuitive to see how you could represent motion by an orientation (we do this with vectors in math), but its interesting to actually see it happen.
> If you’re going to write a terse, incorrect response, at least include a misleading source.
I appreciate that you take your own advice.
You don't understand how these forms work. Both passive and active investors can file a 13G. Why are you just making stuff up?
It's amazing how jumpy the hackernews crowd gets without even reading the document in question. As if Elon's team of lawyers that did this paperwork for him overlooked such a trivial detail.