howunfortunate

6 ms·

31.
by howunfortunate 9d ago
This would kill some middling parties but wouldn't do mich. I worked for a major adtech company that bought zero third party data. There's enough in the bidrequests. And we had nothing on Meta or Google's ecosystems.
32.
by howunfortunate 9d ago
This seems quite hyperbolic to me. Newspapers were leveraging sensationalism and attempting to capture attention by any means long long before targeted ads were a driver of revenue. I'd guess there are plenty of pre-newspaper examples
33.
by howunfortunate 10d ago
I'm a nerd and do a lot of stats for my job and I would not read a statistics textbook. I read a lot of informational things, but math / stats / software has always felt like an area where a book is just the wrong format. If
34.
by howunfortunate 10d ago
I think you'll find that 98% of normies think the opposite
35.
by howunfortunate 10d ago
Oh, I know. There are many reasons why peer review doesn't work including but not limited to (1) motivated reasoning AKA complicity in whatever lie is being pushed (2) no real incentive to put effort into peer review (3) laziness and i
36.
by howunfortunate 11d ago
This is kinda terrifying from an AI apocalypse angle, though. It almost feels like "A robot shall not autonomously build or repair another robot" should have been another of Asimov's laws.
37.
by howunfortunate 11d ago
RCTs are really not that complicated or expensive. It's pretty reasonable to ask for that level of evidence for things that are this important.
38.
by howunfortunate 11d ago
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1578415/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10227535/
39.
by howunfortunate 11d ago
I wonder if the author has these things in abundance, or wants to have them. While they sound incredible to me, I can't help but ponder that the demographic with the highest suicide rate is retired men.
40.
by howunfortunate 11d ago
If you have a Ph.D. you can somewhat sort the wheat from the chaff. But it's 100% not worth it for the layman. Better to just ignore it. That's why, even though it's incredibly sad to see, I can hardly begrudge the current ad
41.
by howunfortunate 11d ago
I knew immediately this was BS, sure enough, someone already beat me to it with the comment explaining why. Man, I'm so ashamed of my field (experimental psychology). Maybe ~60% of publications are literally worse than useless (that is
42.
by howunfortunate 13d ago
That's not what the parent comment said though > any human for which we spend $100billion - $3 trillion...would be able to reach all of those levels
43.
by howunfortunate 13d ago
IQ tests are incredibly good at what they're designed for, which is discriminating relatively higher intelligence humans from lower intelligence humans. Also discriminating within a single human - they are routinely and reliably used
44.
by howunfortunate 13d ago
Some results, sure. But that list is extremely ambitious. Write a best seller, make a popular game, come up with a truly novel theory, consistently outtrade index funds. That's top 0.001% human stuff, I don't think you can take ju
45.
by howunfortunate 13d ago
I think I view humanity fairly positively, but I admit I would gladly take the other side of that bet
46.
by howunfortunate 13d ago
You're absolutely right - filler words are genuinely load-bearing
47.
by howunfortunate 14d ago
I'd really like for some country to ban all ads, even if just for a while, so people could observe the quasi-experiment. My personal bet would be the country would suffer for it quite a lot, similar to places that have banned e.g. loan
48.
by howunfortunate 14d ago
It may be that you just aren't a big spender. My experience with performance adtech was that 95% of the energy went into targeting whales, with a focus on products that drive massive revenue (mobile gaming, gambling, crypto). It's
49.
by howunfortunate 15d ago
I won't weigh in on whether it's "cheating" but it is definitely benchmaxxing