I honestly don't think it's possible to have a QA team large enough to handle the gajillions of websites that come up and disappear every day. They just have to come up with better and better metrics until they find one that approximates the human experience the best.
I guess a less usual one, compared to the other comments: For me it was StarCraft multiplayer, had to type fast so I could get back to controlling my units.
Because I was rapidly going back and forth between the keyboard and mouse, it resulted in an unusual style where I use the outline of the keyboard for hand placement, and attempting to use the home row slows me down significantly.
Starseige: Tribes and Counter-Strike: Sometimes a short thing while the character is coasting through the air.
Tribes in particular also had a voice-tree, and while it was shorter than prose it still encouraged a certain degree of touch-typing.
For example, typing VSAF (mnemonically [start][self][attack][flag]) led to text and prerecorded audio for "I will attack the enemy flag." Little of it survives now beyond references like VGZ for "Shazbot!"
Yes, that is what he said. Welfare beneficiaries and women are two groups libertarians find are tough constituencies to appeal to, and both of these groups have increased in size since 1920.
The quote says “capitalist democracy” is an oxymoron. If Thiel is pro-capitalism he thinks democracy is a problem. If he is pro-democracy he thinks capitalism is a problem.
He doesn't say either of those things. Considering the context of a pro-libertarian text, what it means is that the capitalism part of "capitalist democracy" is losing significance as the US is moving more towards a EU-style social democracy.
But we all choose to believe what we want to believe. He certainly never said he opposed women's suffrage, as the original commenter claimed.
That position is Peter Thiel's apparent perspective as judged by somedude895, not a claim being made by somedude895 himself.
Since Peter Thiel is a libertarian, it's quite reasonable to surmise that he believes America is moving in the direction of social democracy. And if he has in mind the shifting political preferences of younger generations of Americans, I personally think it's a reasonable position to take. Public polling shows that more funding and reform for social programs is increasingly popular with younger Americans.
There is a leap between "X is bad for me" and "X should be banned". Some people make that leap automatically without even realizing it and assume that everybody else makes that leap too. So for instance, if I say "Soda rots teeth" some people will become indignant, "So you want soda banned?? People have a right to drink what they want you tyrant!"
The trouble is that generally people don't make this leap automatically, and simply noting a problem doesn't come with an implied "therefore ban it." Generally the people who do automatically make this leap have authoritarian mindsets, for whom personal preferences and public policy are nigh inseparable. Watch out for these kind of people, they would likely impose their preferences on you if they ever gain power over you, without even thinking about it. The emperor doesn't care for pre-tattered jeans, therefore he bans them for everybody else too; not a good sort of man to have in charge.
Now, the pertinent question is which of these sorts is Peter Thiel? When this self-espoused libertarian says "X is bad for me" does that necessarily imply that it should be banned for everybody else as well? Is there evidence for him behaving in a way that betrays this kind of authoritarian mindset?
Which is, I suppose, literally true. Any government exists to mediate conflicting rights, and that means limiting freedom.
For many self described libertarians, that conflict is to be decided entirely in favor of their liberties and everyone else's liberties don't matter. Democracy is inherently about everyone trying to have some freedom, which comes at a cost to Peter Thiel's, and apparently that's the only one that counts.
In any reasonable person's mind, a democratic republic (as seen by internet libertarians and conservatives) is a subset of democracy. Same with the democratic monarchies of Northern Europe, and the (more) direct democracy of Switzerland. Splitting them up just confuses people, and makes your point harder to communicate and understand.
never understood why conservative and libertarians americans want to make a difference between republic and democracy, it is literally in the definition of "republic" that it should be a democracy
Because it lets them make the implication that the Democratic party is un-American. And also that somehow the language is unfairly biased against them.
It's absurd, just like the bizarre fetish for using the term "Democrat party" as some kind of slur. But that's the essence of American politics now: a constant culture war, where the primary thing people want out of elections is to hurt the other side rather than pursue actual political goals.
That's an interpretation, sure, i'm not even arguing against it, i truly do not care either way.
All i was pointing out is that leaving out a section of a sentence you are trying to explain your interpretation of is not a good way to convey that you are arguing in good faith.
Especially when that section could be thought of as not neatly fitting in to the narrative you are trying to explain.
> eventually only read vol 2 because I was interested in (pseudo) random number at that time
Your comment comes at the perfect time, I am looking at learning about random number functions and tests of randomness myself. Do you have any other resources about these topics?
Some statistics books, perhaps? I think there are some references on them. I don't study random numbers anymore because my interest changed few years ago.
yes but they're missing the take-the-radio-apart or take-the-computer-apart or fit-whole-instruction-set-in-one's-head advantage that earlier eras were granted.
"What if there is no Internet?" No computer? Etc...
Papa (grandfather now, raising my granddaughter because... not important, lol) tends to impress the young ones with what can be done with what is in one's head.
I am hopeful. But maybe also naive.
The other idea I like to link to these skills is "thought is action" type mastery. And, just to be clear, that is a state of clarity coupled with having grokked[0] something valuable.
Having realized that state many times in my past makes it easier today. I can go there and perform, doing or dealing with whatever it is efficiently and effectively.
It also can mean agency where ones peers may well lack it.
[0] - ...having achieved a state of understanding so complete it is a part of us, who we are, automatic, almost instinct.
The take things apart has become obfuscated by modern technology design. Most devices these days just drop one of a dozen chips into a circuit board as it's brains. Program it, and then ship it. More or less black boxing the device. It's one of the reasons the supply chain hit a lot of tech hard, those few chips were low cost and plentiful ... Until the knock on effects of the supply chain issues happened and they weren't as profitable to make compared to the high prices chips companies like auto manufacturers were bulk ordering for a premium.
Fascinating few years, a whole generation of designs rendered unusable - complete designs trying to be reworked for the chips they could get a hold of.
