Yup. Why is this even posted on HN? Seems really low brow, honestly. I see this as the exact sort of click bait, anger inducing content a lot of people here want to avoid.
Why do we trust the poll if it doesn’t publish the survey contents and describe the methodology for participant selection? Survey design is extremely important, it’s like Stats 101. 2% margin of error, oh I’m sure.
Fun anecdote time: my high school was selected to take a survey on extracurricular activities. It was taken over a couple of days in the period before lunch and took like 2 hours total.
My memory is that everyone in the school used it as an exercise in creativity, with lots of people making themselves out to be drug abuser or gang members on paper, just for the novelty. I distinctly remember being surprised because so many people I didn’t expect(because they were typically honest, straight and narrow type folks) were laughing at their made up character who took meth every day before school and did heroin on the weekends, or whatever. Maybe it’s for this reason that the extreme importance of test design and method has stuck with me, but it seems like most people forget it after they pass Stats? hmmmm.
Unrelated to this comment, thread or OP in any way, you mentioned to me the concept of Complexity Catastrophe ~4 months ago from the book Design Rules by Baldwin and Clark. I’ve finally gotten around to reading it and I feel compelled to thank you. I haven’t yet finished, but it’s an absolutely fascinating read that is providing me with a lot of food for thought. I find it both well written and easy to understand. I honestly can’t remember the last time I was so fascinated by the contents of a book. I’m trying to find a new career right now, and this book may single handedly have changed the direction of that journey. So again, thank you.
Such a disappointment personally, I hope they add a chassis option with an 8' bed and two seats, or maybe make the back seats removable? also they need a lumber rack. seriously, pickup trucks have lumber racks. I think they are missing out on a significant market segment of trades people by not offering it with an 8' bed(or a rack), and a foreseeable second-order effect is that it will give the Cybertruck the repute of being a poser vehicle. I like everything about it, except that it has a huge cab and a small bed.
It’s because there are huge tax incentives for “under preforming” real estate investors. It’s honestly maddening. You literally get to deduct everything short of your desired “market” rent (even if the market can’t bear it, you just need a team of appraisers on your side) and you can even include upgrades and entrepreneurial risk as a deduction.
I mean, I tend to give all of my friends a hard time about sweets and sugary drinks, and expect the same. Most everyone I know understands that it’s best to avoid sugar, but it is both truly ubiquitous and extremely addictive so it’s essential impossible. Trying to not get into an icecream/chocolate habit is a never ending battle.
I like this, I even wish it had a name because I have observed it frequently, but upon some reflection it really only seems to be the product of certain organized situations and perhaps even just an artifact of our own pattern recognition. Are these new collapsed systems really less complex or just easier for our brains to think about? Natural(chaotic) systems certainly don’t seem to follow that logic unless I’m mistaken. Thinking of a river system, it seems that it is just in a state of flux, making little wins across the system all the time, but also becoming more complex due to inputs. If we consider a star system I have trouble identifying how the system doesn’t become permanently less complex as energy is radiated away over time. (Although I’m clueless on how to actually model either sort of complexity appropriately)
That said, it appears to me that as soon as we start to tread against entropy we might notice this phenomenon cropping up. Life seems to “collapse” on new designs and human understanding too seems to collapse, but in both cases it seems that only the system complexity collapses, not the entity complexity. I think that the collapse of the complexity of the surrounding system is the result of outside stimulus causing additional entity complexity to be added to the total complexity. In a stable, complex, system this has the potential for massive system destabilization, but it is not certain and it doesn’t seem to be the nature of complex system themselves to inherently collapse on less complex states, rather it is the result of stimulus. Moreover, if we look at total complexity, does it really become less complex or does the complexity just shift from the system to the entity?
Hyrum's Law: "With a sufficient number of users of an API, it does not matter what you promise in the contract: all observable behaviors of your system will be depended on by somebody."
IIRC, I think first read the phrase "complexity catastrophe" in the book Design Rules: The Power of Modularity. Per the authors, it's when a system becomes so complex (interdependent) that the cost of any further changes far outweigh the expected benefit.
> wish it had a name because I have observed it frequently, but upon some reflection it really only seems to be the product of certain organized situations and perhaps even just an artifact of our own pattern recognition.
In The Matrix movies that is sort of a key premise of their world setting. There are words like reset, reboot, reload for it.
But I don't think it's a given, not all complex systems are prone to collapse; some systems, once past a given point, may even perpetuate their complexity practically indefinitely.
Consider life on Earth: even if a cataclysm occurs that results in mass extinctions, new life will eventually take over, in millions if not "mere" thousands or hundreds of years.
Until Earth itself no longer exists that is. Same goes for galaxies and the Universe at large.
>I even wish it had a name because I have observed it frequently
At least trend-wise, it’d probably look similiar to a malthusian catastrophe (population reaches environment carrying capacity at time n, and then (greatly) overshoots it at time n+1, resulting in mass die off due to starvation, taking the population well below carrying capacity)
Yes, the pulse selection is the most useful part of the implementation, and makes me not want to upgrade to iOS 13 on my iPhone X based on feature degradation alone. I use 3D Touch all the time and have for years now. I don’t understand the “zero discoverability” claim. It is natural to try and push harder on the screen, and it’s extremely fast. Ive often thought they should leverage the Taptic Engine to offer (at least in accessibility settings) an option for haptic feedback for all deep touches system wide, with like a double knock telling you that nothing happened. And honestly, peeking/popping links is the single greatest innovation in mobile web UX in a decade, deprivation of the tech stack is a travesty for a premium gadget brand like Apple.
Why do we trust the poll if it doesn’t publish the survey contents and describe the methodology for participant selection? Survey design is extremely important, it’s like Stats 101. 2% margin of error, oh I’m sure.
Fun anecdote time: my high school was selected to take a survey on extracurricular activities. It was taken over a couple of days in the period before lunch and took like 2 hours total.
My memory is that everyone in the school used it as an exercise in creativity, with lots of people making themselves out to be drug abuser or gang members on paper, just for the novelty. I distinctly remember being surprised because so many people I didn’t expect(because they were typically honest, straight and narrow type folks) were laughing at their made up character who took meth every day before school and did heroin on the weekends, or whatever. Maybe it’s for this reason that the extreme importance of test design and method has stuck with me, but it seems like most people forget it after they pass Stats? hmmmm.