I was dual booting Linux Mint (work) and Windows 11 (games). A month ago, Windows started trying to push an update, which I resisted. A week ago, they just force fed it to my computer. I deleted the partitions without a second thought, tried CachyOS, realized that the games I play worked perfectly out of the box, and now I'm using it as my main OS. I'm never again installing windows on a computer I own.
I think there should be less "how to solve friendship" posts, which see our social interactions as "problems" to be solved, and more reflection about how this is a consequence of a market oriented, inequality driving system. If the problem is that friendships need time, we should demand less working time and more free time to establish friendships.
Sometimes it looks like the purpose of those hundreds of billions of parameters and those apparent feats of engineering, is to get others to tell you how clever you are. Now we have even automated that.
I suggest everyone interested in learning how these theories emerge, and how the social sciences work, to give it a read. Also, it kind of dismantles the whole idea of System 1 and 2, which then I guess would question the theoretical foundations of this paper too.
I've read the work, Gerd Gigerenzen criticises the approaches to scientific experiments conducted by Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, and the lack of desire, to put it mildly, to properly define the terms they were introducing.
Critique to System 1 and 2 is based mostly on using System 1 and 2 to excuse the alleged deficiencies in the experiments.
I think the original article in this discussion is using "Systems 1 and 2" as intuitive and rational modes for problem-solving and interestingly enough, Gerd Gigerenzen also has a reference in this work "accuracy-effort trade-off (Payne, Bettman, and Johnson 1993): The less effort one takes, the less accurate one will be." which aligns with the broader idea of Systems 1 and 2.
I'm a bit surprised to see those examples, because there's nothing really new here. These are typical beginner pitfalls and have been there for at least a decade or more. Or maybe it's because I learned java in the late 90s and later used it for J2ME, and then using things like StringBuilder (StringBuffer in the old days) were almost mandatory, and you would be very careful trying to avoid unnecessary object allocations.
I remember writing Java for our introductory programming course at university around 2010. I was already familiar with object oriented programming in PHP at the time, so I just wrote the Java code like I would write PHP. I was absolutely astounded at the poor performance of the Java app. I asked one of our tutors and I can still remember him looking at the code and saying something along the lines of ”oh, you’re instantiating objects in a loop, that’s obviously going to be slow”. Like, what? If I can do this performantly in freakin PHP, how can Java, the flagship of OOP, not have fast instantiation of objects? I’m still shaking my head thinking about it.
Your tutor misdiagnosed the issue. These allocations in a tight loop would have used bump allocation on Java 6 in 2010, and the young generation would have used a copy collector, which would have freed those objects more cheaply than any unspecialized malloc/free. It would have beaten the pants off of PHP's reference counting GC.
> Flip the toggle and tap to confirm you are not being coerced
This is just spreading fear. If you're being coerced to do this, then you're in a much bigger danger than what a rogue application sideloaded to your phone represents.
“Being coerced” typically means “you’re on the phone with a person who claims to be a bank representative and who is trying to push you into flipping the toggle.”
> you are making the recipient wade through noise to get to signal
Because we all know that human beings are actually computers in disguise, or radio receivers, and everything that matters is "perfect", "unpolluted" transmission of messages. :shrug:
reply