> Study finds that when there's a time limit, even a rational judge would try the case faster, and there would be a tendency towards unfavorable ruling.
This study does not say this.
The simulated rational judges are "ideal" and their decisions are not influenced by the ordering of the cases or how long it has been since a break.
The study is saying that despite this perfect behavior, some simulated methods for choosing when to take a break will cause favorable cases to be more likely to be scheduled at the beginning of a session (in their last simulation, this effect only appears after applying the same statistical processing as the original study).
Wow, I made it to the compliments page! I feel like it's cheating a bit that I knew about the page before writing a comment.
I don't really have anything important to say, but I did find this interesting. I'm unused to this sort of indirect response. It feels slightly like a personal response, since he links to a page where my comment is one of a few added, and refers to "commenters". However, my criticism was close to the opposite of what he is replying to.
I criticized the author for writing a story where I felt they mostly acted like a cog in a dysfunctional system, but was sneering at everyone else doing the same. I suppose, though, that perhaps they believe that the best/only solution for being in a poorly-functioning company is to jump ship.
edit: To clarify, I do agree that most corporate systems are dysfunctional and I'm not an agile fan. I'm not defending these systems.
The superior tone of the writing is wild to me, because it isn't exactly a story where I think the author looks great. Certainly others look worse in the story, but still, finding an issue and apparently barely trying to convince others it's an issue is not impressive.
It really sounds like they stayed in their lane and did their assigned job, just like every other person on their team.
I don't think that SFPD should need to anticipate in their emergency response that 2 lanes would be blocked by 2 different Cruise vehicles. Do you also take issue with the Fire Department blocking 2 lanes to shield the patients from oncoming traffic?
The deflection is just weird to me. Can we only discuss issues with self-driving cars once they've replaced human drivers fully?
I don't know anything about app releases, and I'm sure something like this is important to get an app into trending lists.
However I'm a bit skeptical that auto-downloads would even really be better for a free app. If the user isn't willing to accept a notification to install an app, they probably aren't going to use the app if it just auto-downloaded.
Also this just seems like a very weird app to have pre-registration ads for. If a user is looking for a "meal planner" app they obviously aren't going to just wait 2.5 months for your app (which doesn't seem particularly unique) to come out. They're going to download and try other apps that are actually available during that time.
Fighting between Deepmind and Google leadership over autonomy doesn't really directly support that Google Brain employees and Deepmind had infighting. They seem to me to be quite different things.
It seems like a big leap to take these articles as support the statement:
> Demis now has a load of people reporting to him who previously were rooting for his failure
It certainly might be true, but I'm missing the connection between these articles and the statement.
When you don't understand the science yourself and can't properly weigh the risks / benefits it seems fairly reasonable to rely on experts.
In this case, the parents likely did not have the information necessary to make a decision about their own offspring (especially since they were lied to).
As far as legal/societal decision making, I don't think we have a better solution than relying on experts. What is the alternative? Unless you are only talking about using personal morals for the purpose of discussing right/wrong rather than actually making decisions based on them.
This study does not say this.
The simulated rational judges are "ideal" and their decisions are not influenced by the ordering of the cases or how long it has been since a break.
The study is saying that despite this perfect behavior, some simulated methods for choosing when to take a break will cause favorable cases to be more likely to be scheduled at the beginning of a session (in their last simulation, this effect only appears after applying the same statistical processing as the original study).