wright08

7 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by wright08 8mo ago

   It is easy to prove, it is shown in the linked model. The model is simple. If I spend X amount of dollars feeding people, I can save Y lives. Since this model is obviously bunk, I'm sure you can easily articulate why this model is inac
2. 2.▲
   by wright08 2y ago

   I wouldn't bother. It is super obvious.
3. 3.▲
   by wright08 2y ago

   Huh interesting observation. I wonder if anything in the first two sentences of the article can shed any light. In my job I get to speak to lots of people about Rust. Some are just starting out, some have barely ever heard of it, and then
4. 4.▲
   by wright08 2y ago

   So you looked up the paper cited in the article, right? Since you understand there are confounding factors right? Since you're a competent and knowlegeable human, right?
5. 5.▲
   by wright08 3y ago

   Thanks for helping me take a break to be grateful in my job search. Cheers
6. 6.▲
   by wright08 5y ago

   Chess.com is super bloated, slow to load, and hard to navigate. There's so much noise on the screen compared to playing on lichess. Features are paywalled. For example if I want to know how the top players are responding to a certain s
7. 7.▲
   by wright08 9y ago

   The author would find nothing reasonable to object to in your statements. I find this article frustrating because it fails to reiterate a common point bestowed by all self-help pundits worth their salt. Results are highly subjective in many