The article you linked indicates the reason for him not finishing is specifically that he didn't like his game design, which seems orthogonal to coding practices.
He appears to have shipped middleware projects for RAD, and other contract work where he was not in charge of game design.
They're just saying they won't encourage news/politics, not that they'll police them off:
> "Politics and hard news are inevitably going to show up on Threads - they have on Instagram as well to some extent - but we're not going to do anything to encourage those verticals."
The article does not advocate tuning out the results; it is advocating awareness of the results and careful consideration of how to proceed. See the detailing of options at the end of the second case study:
>> "As with Tia, Tamera has several choices she can make. She could simply accept these biases as is and do nothing, though at least now she won't be caught off-guard if users complain. She could make changes in the user interface, for example by having it present two gendered responses instead of just one, though she might not want to do that if the input message has a gendered pronoun (e.g., "Will she be there today?"). She could try retraining the embedding model using a bias mitigation technique (e.g., as in Bolukbasi et al.) and examining how this affects downstream performance, or she might mitigate bias in the classifier directly when training her classifier (e.g., as in Dixon et al. [1], Beutel et al. [10], or Zhang et al. [11]). No matter what she decides to do, it's important that Tamera has done this type of analysis so that she's aware of what her product does and can make informed decisions."
Oh, okay ... but everyone having perfect information AND fraud being possible to get away with are fundamentally contradictory assumptions; fraud is based on exploiting some people not having perfect information.
Even if it's relatively easy to not get caught, you can't be sure exactly how easy it is, and the downside is catastrophic. So no, I don't think every entity in your thought experiment would be committing fraud. Only ones that knew for sure exactly how easy it is and that they would not get caught for sure. And those ones, by definition, would never be caught so the public would never know ...
Quote:
> The game is always prompting the player about his location. In this regard, Michael Carney from PandoDaily said, “To capture a Portal, and harvest the “energy” contained therein for his respective team, a user must physically go to a location and check in. additional energy is available by travelling specific walking paths, bike paths, and inner-city routes dictated by the company, all while the user’s Android device is transmitting GPS and accelerometer data. In some cases, the user will be required to photograph locations or objects along those routes.”
Yes, you're right -- Diablo did a lot for the ARPG genre, but if you enjoy digging through the history of games there is a ton of interesting ARPG stuff from at least the 1980s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_role-playing_game
> And yet, this gluing together of terms like login, logon, backup, and setup as verbs is common, especially in writing about computers. Not for everyone, however. Some well-known software companies, for example, carefully maintain the distinction in their programs and documentation.
But habits are difficult to change. Those who react to the one-word verb as an error will probably have to get used to it, and those who use the one-word verb will have to recognize that others will see it and wince.
> (since you could learn most of it just by reading or watching videos)
I think this misunderstands how most people learn -- people generally learn much more effectively by "active learning," aka actually trying to do the thing they are learning, and getting dynamic guidance alongside that active process, not canned lecture / video content.
They added a note at the end clarifying that they have flush to zero mode enabled.
quote from the article: "EDIT: This blogpost assumes that we enable flush to zero (FTZ) which treats denormal numbers as zeros. It’d be interesting to see reseachers try without FTZ!"
They give an indirect nod to friends play-testing in the "Time" section:
> "Friends around us were saying “it’s too difficult” right to our faces, but amidst our nonstop-no-days-or-time-off working, we were too dull to let it inspire action."
So I guess they did have some people play the game -- but they didn't build in the time they needed to properly use the feedback, so it was almost the same as not play-testing.
This kind of thinking works out if you personally value your time at an hourly rate, and consider the whole commute time as lost and unpaid.
For example, say you value your time at ~$50/hr, and the train costs $8/day, and there are 20 work days in a month. If your daily commute takes 2.5 hrs, that's $2660/month in value to you. If your marginal income tax rate is 28%, then to actually get that amount of additional spending money you'd need to make $2660/.72 = $3695/month. This would be a 30% raise if you currently make about 12k/month (144k/yr).