gametheoretic

13 ms·

61.
by gametheoretic 13y ago
Yes, somebody claimed that. Anybody would claim that. Good job shooting it down.
62.
by gametheoretic 13y ago
Oh it does not. If you're not a swing state or close to it, you are irrelevant. Really, this analysis could not be further off the mark.
63.
by gametheoretic 13y ago
HN won't let me reply to your more recent comment for some reason. As I see it, you have two options: a) change millions of people to your liking; b) change yourself to your liking. It is not "obviously" true that strangers&#
64.
by gametheoretic 13y ago
No, it's not, though I will cede that the distinction is a subtle one. My point is that their specific words are not important to them. They're just saying whatever. By the letter of the definition, it is sexual harassment, but by
65.
by gametheoretic 13y ago
Yes I would. But I would disagree that that difference is relevant to understanding the problem. In a nutshell, that was the point of my post. Understanding must come first.
66.
by gametheoretic 13y ago
As usual, a discussion of bullying which makes no attempt to understand the bullies beyond broad suppositions of demography. Approximately 16 billion words have been written about how bullies are terrible people, etc. etc., yet your condemn
67.
by gametheoretic 13y ago
The following is not sarcastic: be more cynical. What would you want, if you were a university president? Startup branding. They want you to walk around talking about how SUNY-whatever is where the startup culture is at.
68.
by gametheoretic 13y ago
Sure thing. Up front: I've only read Simulacra; I wouldn't call myself well-versed either. So if you have read that, the following "should" make sense, reserving the possibility that I'm off-base in my interpretatio
69.
by gametheoretic 13y ago
Baudrillard was right.
70.
by gametheoretic 13y ago
1. Win the lottery 2. Spend 100% of winnings on lottery tickets 3. Win all the lotteries. 4. This is stupid.
71.
by gametheoretic 13y ago
An excuse.
72.
by gametheoretic 13y ago
Dogfooding?
73.
by gametheoretic 13y ago
>Please tell me where Kyle signed a confidentiality agreement with Tom. If you point it out, I would agree that releasing the email is inappropriate. Statements of this category are not going to persuade anyone to your side in a debate o
74.
by gametheoretic 13y ago
No. Where writing is concerned, 2+2 is greater than 4.
75.
by gametheoretic 13y ago
Thanks for posting that. Not one to complain about blogspam, but that's one of the all-time great "internet motherfucker" posts. Neither Sciencegeekgirl.com (lol, brand yourself harder) nor anyone else can do much to add to
76.
by gametheoretic 13y ago
USA and allies: 1st-world; Soviets and allies: 2nd-world; all others: 3rd-world.
77.
by gametheoretic 13y ago
I, too, might have been unclear. You were citing a description of a highly, highly regulated labor market as an example of what might come to pass were that market deregulated. >If you have any examples of de-regulation of a labour marke
78.
by gametheoretic 13y ago
Reports on gender issues were going to be a tough sell regardless.
79.
by gametheoretic 13y ago
You don't do your camp any favors with this category of response.
80.
by gametheoretic 13y ago
Disclaimer: I don't know anything about anything. >my company is in public beta and haven't even launched yet! Buy low, sell high. You don't approach this early for no reason. >they specifically said that their senior M
81.
by gametheoretic 13y ago
Oh, c'mon - you're almost there. Your analogy is begging you to take it a step further. Law, code. How good are human beings at writing massive rules-systems which avoid conflicting logic?
82.
by gametheoretic 13y ago
Aside: Compare and contrast the results of nation-state democracy before and after mandatory secret ballots.
83.
by gametheoretic 13y ago
>I also don't see that much difference in asking "why don't more men do [some female-dominated profession]" vs. "why don't men fight for more men to do [some female-dominated profession]". Really? The m
84.
by gametheoretic 13y ago
Yes, I noticed that as well. The formula seems to be: a) identify trope, b) throw down cards, c) leave. Each of your points of evidence is true in-and-of-itself, I think. But not enough compare-and-contrast with outside situations for my ta
85.
by gametheoretic 13y ago
Oh, this post is gold. Albert asks: >Why are women fighting for more women to do STEM while men are not fighting for more men to be therapists? ...and Freakonomics hears: "Why don't more men pursue female-dominated professions?
86.
by gametheoretic 13y ago
If the top post indicates anything, it's the high precedence the psyche places on framing. Switch around your default- and exception cases and see if that helps take your mind off it. It's a real thing. This summer, because my roo
87.
by gametheoretic 13y ago
Structural superiority of Tacoma Narrows beyond question. Automobile farers can expect to enjoy bridge commute for centuries to come. --top 1940 scale-model builder
88.
by gametheoretic 13y ago
Ideas will persist as long as there are willing believers, no? Young-earth creationists are still alive and kicking...
89.
by gametheoretic 13y ago
Break it down further - the attention isn't monolithic. There are bullies, there are friends, there are friends who bully, bullies you want to be friends with, shit's complicated. That emotional confusion can get you stuck in a lo
90.
by gametheoretic 13y ago
Failed. Well, technically I think they let you return if you demonstrate this and that elsewhere, but the university most certainly dismissed me for academic reasons. So, failed.

More ›