IMO, "ish". You can reliably and repeatedly produce good teams _if_ you reliably and repeatedly invest in your people.
IMO, what's really happening is that small, effective teams aren't _fungible_ - you can't just swap people around without breaking the magic in a team, and you can't just move a team around an organization without similarly breaking the magic (although the latter _is_ way more possible).
IMO, it's sort of an organizational version of "context switching". It takes time for a team to get up to gel and get up to speed. If you're swapping out team members, you break that cohesion. If you move around teams, you (somewhat) reset that "getting ramped up" process.
I remember (the one time I snuck into NIPS) a buuunch of papers on "fairness", and it was basically: "We have decided that this input should not affect the outcome. Does it? If so, how?"
So that seems like a pretty good actual "what's DEI?" - Does race/gender/sexuality/etc affect some outcome? Should it? If it does affect it and shouldn't, what we can we do about it?
That said... yeah, not gonna get a room full of anyone to agree on that. Starting with that "should".
Mostly agree, but I’d advocate for a carve-out for DropoutTV; maybe; exempt if (1) only hosting your own content and (2) that content can be licensed by other services?
I don’t know how much of this paper I can understand but
I find it pretty interesting that, AFAICT, the dominant engineering paradigm of an era is also the dominant “this is what reality is” metaphor: cathedrals and architecture and the spheres; steam and clockwork and mechanical; now - computation and information!
I think this means you didn’t read the piece, as it addresses this concern of yours in perhaps the simplest way possible: it’s about why each prior modality has issues.
Yes, survivorship bias is probably happening here; but I’m not doing anything like “sorting by paid”. Each of these authors I discovered “organically”; generally through Reddit or Royal Road, any many I’ve been following (on Patreon!) since before they started making $$.
From what I can tell on RR+P; if you write a decent story regularly (or a tremendous story occasionally) you can make some money. If you then also strike a nerve with the audience, you can make a lot.
Maybe it’s a semantics thing (if we have different definitions for “gate keeping”)… but, I’ll fight you on that hill:
Gate keeping is one of the primary means by which a community defines itself; it both requires that the community have some idea of “us/not us”, either deliberately and explicitly, or incidentally; and it is a primary means of implementing that identity.
It can also be a means for induction; the “gate” is one of the best places to introduce someone to the cultural norms, etc, of the community they’re entering. Related, it can also be a way to catch people who’ll have a bad time in that community, even if they’d otherwise be welcomed.
It can be done well and it can be done poorly.
Positive examples that come to mind:
- New Zealand has aggressive biological border control
- Costume parties that turn you away at the door if you’re not in costume
- Men’s and women’s circles
- Everyone on the boat has to know how to sail
- Everyone on the ski trip has to WANT to be in winter weather
Depends what you’re writing about. The chicken xianxia is something like $10k/mo, a Friren-inspired fic is a whopping 30k (and like 3mo old from a complete unknown), and Dungeon Crawler Carl has fully broken out into mainstream.
“Fun” things do seem to be making money, and if they hit a nerve they seem to be wildly successful.
Am I missing something or is this literally just Ruby? Like - it doesn’t list Ruby as a supported language, but, it also looks like fully executable Ruby code?
It works better if you “split the axis”; (imo) good code is easy to modify, bad code is hard to understand. Everything else is, as you say, trade offs, and so only evaluatable within a specific context.
IMO - There's a few games that match it, but nothing "in the same category". Braid, Portal, Stanley Parable come to mind. (Also what I hear about Baldur's Gate 3, but I haven't played.)
But the depth of character, discussions on morality - I still reference the MJ12/Illuminati portrayal from Deus Ex as a discussion on leadership and morality - the depth of gameplay, the way it created a feel of a much bigger, open world.
Do you know if anyone has ever sued to either not pay taxes while not allowed to vote, or to be allowed to vote? Ye olde "no taxation without representation"?
Huh. I wonder if part of this is that, when you make a globe, you’ll pretty much always look “down” on it. And as another poster said, most of the land (and thus peoples and nations) are in the north. So it makes sense it’d end up on top?
Eh. While that might be true in the course of say, governance - where IMO it’s important and worthwhile to use scientific methodology (statistics, etc) to establish “importance” -
…your family around the notional holiday dinner table? The personal is what’s important, kinda by definition. The point is the subjective and emotional.
…and you usually find out they’re shitty because of how they handle (or don’t) “political” conversations.
Pro tip: You don’t get to decide for someone else what’s “just” politics. If someone else says it’s important, while you’re interacting with them, it’s important.