I think there's also the opposite – there are a number of places in large marathons allocated for "good for age" entrants, which I would guess are more likely to be taken up by people at the younger end of those buckets.
I agree with his point about the films being a snapshot of history, but the examples of ET and Roald Dahl highlight for me the issue. Dahl’s language isn’t very friendly, and the guns in ET are scary and arguably inappropriate, but the film and books are fantastic stories with real-world lessons in an accessible format for kids. Do we just “remake” them? How does that work for books?
Your story is true, but I think this is far too broad a loss to be something like that, even providing a smokescreen. An article I wrote has been lost, and there's nothing controversial in there!
I think this was true in the past, but communities like Premodern, cEDH and, of course, Old School, have managed to sidestep this issue: in the case of Premodern and Old School by sidestepping new releases, and for cEDH by being lenient on proxies.
I don't think Magic will ever _die_, but if it did, these communities could well go on for a lifetime longer.
It’s done Flashback Standard a few times, with preconstructed decks. I forget whether you have a choice over decks.
They’re really fun if you have the nostalgia, but for newer players who want know, for example, what Affinity or Caw-Blade Standard was like, I don’t think they’re that enjoyable.
We pay Heroku thousands of dollars a month for our Staging and Production environments, and one of the reasons we chose them is that we can spin up a toy widget or proof of concept in seconds for free: we probably do a few of those a day, play around with them for a few days or weeks, and then kill them.
Now that these toys aren't free, I would guess likely to move them to AWS or GCP (since they're likely to be cheaper), and at that point we might as well migrate the rest of our stuff as well. It's not just goodwill that Heroku generated from this, it's actual revenue.
This is an excellent point. I think the point that the article is trying to make is that people's motivations are divided and we can't expect to change them. If we can find ways to harness the products of scientific or exploration pursuits to help with the socio-political tasks, then the motivations of those seeking to solve techno-economic tasks can also help solve socio-political tasks.
I agree with a number of the comments here that this is a false dichotomy in terms of the technology itself (as mypastself says, Nanofabrication and fusion reactors are both “cool” and “cozy”), but understanding that people's motivations probably are dichotomous is important – if we can find technology that is both "cool" and "cozy", the incentives for both groups to work on that technology are increased, and I would guess this increase is probably multiplicative, rather than additive. Bernie isn't going to persuade Elon not to build his cool stuff and work on cozy stuff instead, but if he can find applications for what Elon is building to help with his cozy motivations, then more people will benefit.
Ironically, while this is a very data-driven piece of research, the fact that it chimes with how most people (especially within the HN crowd) 'feel' will make it more persuasive!
I hope that some of this trend is due to the acceptance thresholds lowering slightly, allowing for publication of incomplete research, on which others can build, rather than requiring a complete conclusion. Of course, one may draw conclusions about funding causing people to wrap up research prematurely.