Some folks seem to be able to switch and keep their old ability and some can't. I was able to switch back to Qwerty pretty easily, but it made my wrists contort in such odd ways that I never noticed before. So I generally wouldn't go back to it.
I don't find myself to be any faster in Dvorak (70 wpm, like before) and from other users and people online, that seems to be typical. There are some possible gains at the high end, since from what I read most of the confirmed world record holders for typing speed use alternate layouts (for example, https://www.typing.com/blog/fastest-typists/).
Seems like a pretty good analysis. I've been using Dvorak for 20+ years also. The keyboard shortcuts thing is annoying, though I hadn't heard about the wrist strain they cause. I didn't see this discussed, but I actually find the fact that Colemak shares more keys with QWERTY to be a problem for learning if you already know QWERTY (even though that might be the biggest strength). Dvorak only shares the "A" and "M" with QWERTY, but typing those letters always confused my brain the most when learning, and sometimes I'd fall right back into QWERTY in a really frustrating way.
I switched to Dvorak because of wrist strain/RSI issues. I was in pretty serious wrist pain and now I rarely have any. It probably wouldn't have been worth it otherwise, but that was a huge benefit to me. I'm not sure if other things would've helped since I didn't try a lot of other approaches first.
"Some special circumstances" can also mean where stock prices go down low enough to bring employees below their compensation target. It doesn't happen much lately at tech companies because the stocks are soaring, but it used to be more common. In those cases, many employees can receive more stock to bring them up to target. It puts a real and meaningful floor on stock price risk and is a nice fringe benefit for companies that do this.
As mentioned in the article, it's because it's based off of Paul Ekman's facial recognition work (FACS), which infers a person's emotional state based on their facial expression. The only reliable markers Ekman found were for those 6 emotions (and contempt and perhaps 1-2 others). I haven't heard of any for boredom
The misattribution of anger you're describing is pretty common, I think. I'm guessing it's because you furrow your brow in deep concentration (and possibly tense your lower eyelids), which is also common in anger faces. The real giveaway here should be the missing upper eyelid raise (and possible pupil dilation) that you won't be doing but should be there if you're angry. People and AIs that are trained with good visibility of your face shouldn't make these errors very often.
Our biology is hardwired to communicate the emotions we're feeling via our face. We want other people to know how we're feeling because it's important. It could be misused, though (Ekman's FACS work with airport security to detect lies was a failure).
This article reads like a longform version of why statistical power/effect size is important but doesn't mention it by name, only alluding to it. I suspect there would be much less of a replication crisis if, instead of just focusing on statistical significance, there was also a focus on effect size, or both.
I always thought Hofstadter's argument (I see he's discussed elsewhere in this thread) was that consciousness was a convenient illusion, which is kind of like the idea that it's a feeling here. And that the key insight is that consciousness arises through self-reference in a non-obvious way. It's kind of like bootstrapping an operating system. It's the only explanation I've ever read where it all made sense and you could see all the mechanics of how it worked if they were explained in-depth. Maybe psychoanalysis and philosophical arguments can point you in the right direction or develop your intuitions, though.
Another accidental method I found was leaving Javascript off by default. It's a bit more granular since websites experience different levels of breakage (if any) without JS. But it makes me similarly thoughtful. I can't count the amount of times I've clicked back on personal blogs (via HN) that don't load because of JS. And IEEE. It seems to be a good filter so far.
You can also contact Customer Service about stuff like this and they'll handle it and that feedback often makes it back to the teams responsible. There's not a lot of CS contacts in Prime Video compared to retail but they can be meaningful.
I appreciate the explanations, thanks. I don't have the trading context. Seems like tail risk or Black Swan events yet again. I hope they made enough money on these shorts that it wasn't "picking up pennies in front of steamrollers". If not, then I wish there would be better rules to prevent the short squeeze, like requiring calls instead of stock borrowing (maybe this is too expensive). When the liability is theoretically infinite, it just seems really risky to count on the hope that you can keep borrowing the stock (which works great the vast majority of the time but every now and then you lose billions).
Right, seems like a similar problem to banks and leverage. People can short more in aggregate than exists the same way the money multiplier exists for banks. But there are bank runs and it's built on trust, so that's risky too and we make people hold on to a certain amount to cover what they lend.
I guess I'd just prefer they use call options to cover the shorts instead of borrowing. No leverage or multiplier effect there. Gets too high, just execute the call. Am I also missing something there?
So it seems the issue is that people have borrowing agreements that can be recalled early (seems like it functions like a margin call in a way). Call it half-naked shorting, I guess. Still seems risky. I feel like they could've just bought call options and called it a day instead. Maybe that's too naive or call options are hard to find/pricey for Gamestop?
That still doesn't explain how you know folks aren't naked shorting. Maybe you can read the trades?
Please explain. I thought this was the whole purpose behind hedging, was to avoid the short squeeze. Are people reneging on the purchase agreements or overpromising? How can we know these aren't naked shorts and if so, why are they still facing the short squeeze?
Am I missing something in the Gamestop news that isn't "hedge fund gambles billions on naked shorts and loses"? That seems like a real blunder on their part. In other contexts we would just call this gambling, I think. Shorts have infinite liability, not hedging them is not something I can get behind.
I agree, the title is misleading. This doesn't have the traditional hallmarks of money laundering since the scheme is mostly transparent and fradulent. It's really just a scam.
I also use ReviewMeta and it does handle review hijacking. It's not a great experience as a customer, but if I combine ReviewMeta and Amazon reviews and search I still get pretty good products. My basic guidelines are that it needs at least 4 stars (preferably closer to 4.2-4.7) and the product can't be a "fail" on ReviewMeta. I also am wary if ReviewMeta is a "warn".
I don't trust Amazon reviews without a review checker anymore, they used to be much better. The highest reviewed products are often some of the worst. Any product with a 4.8 or better is immediately suspect (though some are fine, especially if they don't have as many reviews).