I think you got it backwards. The only way is guessing, it's all random.
It's the internal inconsistencies that get me. Like, OK, I understand that there might be some quirks, maybe due to some weird backwards compatibility or technical limitation, but there are multiple incompatible quirks _inside_ this single interface! It's terrible, and things like this are a huge part of the reason JS was long considered (and sometimes still is) a Not So Good language.
the new Date() constructor is an amalgamation of like 5 different specs, and unless the input matches one of them, which one kicks in is up to the implementer's choice
I think NaN itself is a bit of an error object, especially in how it's passed through subsequent math functions, which is a different choice than throwing up.
But besides that I think you're right, Invalid Date is pretty weird and I somehow never ran into it.
One consequence is you can still call Date methods on the invalid date object and then you get NaN from the numeric results.
fixing the font does not help those that downloaded the font and won't get the new version. it also does not prevent malicious code from replacing the font on your machine with a version that has the ligature.
in fact this could be a novel attack vector. replace fonts on victims devices to hide the true address of a website. the fix then would have to be to not display any ligatures at all in website addresses, which in my opinion would be a smart change.
Disabling ligature rendering in the omnibox seems significantly more sane and safe than this (why wouldn't you do that already?! URLs need to be displayed clearly - not be "aesthetically pleasing").
> fixing the font does not help those that downloaded the font and won't get the new version. it also does not prevent malicious code from replacing the font on your machine with a version that has the ligature.
Fixing the code doesn't help users that downloaded code and don't get the new version either.
Malicious code that can replace a font can replace a lot more too.
I can imagine a group of excited guys coming up with that idea as something cool, and then the whole thing slowly evolving into a yet another branding tool.
I think it was the Einheitswagen that I liked. The IC2000 seems pretty spacious compared to the DB's RB trains, though maybe I'm not comparing apples to apples
This is actually not true (or was only very briefly true) [1] Germany has added a lot of renewables over the last couple years. And more than compensated their nuclear plants, which only played a minor role in Germany's electricity production at that point anyway. Of course Germany could have reduced the CO2 output even more if the nuclear plants hadn't been turned off. However, when the discussion heated up again last year it was basically already a moot point. Planning to decommission the plants was already too advanced. There was no personal, no company that wanted to operate the plants, no fuel, etc.
The moment they shut down their last nuclear plant they had several quiet nice in a row. The total output of renewables was about 4% of the installed capacity.
So Germany had to burn copious amount of coal, and gas, and buy energy from France
- Wind: 66.5 GW installed capacity. Generation: 1.82 GW, or 2.74% of that
- Solar: 69.1 GW of installed capacity. Generation: 0.38 GW, or 0.55% of that
- Hydro: 9.78 GW of installed capacity. Generation: 3.09 GW, or 31% of that
So Germany is busy burning gas (generation: 7.6 GW), coal (generation: 14.2 GW), and "bio fuels" (generation: 5 GW), and importing electricity from as far away as Norway
Echoing all the others that this Trust game is great, I noticed something else that struck me in some of the "play with the dials" stages.
The game showed us that when you decrease the reward for Cooperate/Cooperate from +2 to +1, the Always-Cheats take over. But I tried increasing the reward for above the default of +2 to +3 or +4 and an interesting thing happened: The naïve Always-Cooperates actually took over!
It made me think about how a lot of cynical people -- of both sides of the political divide -- play the 'game' as 'cutthroatly' as possible. I think if you asked these people how they see the world, they'd tell you that "the system is rigged anyway" such that there's barely any benefit to cooperating. "So why shouldn't I exploit everything I can to get mine?" And in a world where there's arguably not enough reward for cooperating, I can see how people arrive at a cynical conclusion and become Always-Cheaters. This is why people who work for minimum wage generally don't want to work hard and provide great customer service. And it's why companies who employ them don't want to pay them a living wage and benefits. Both sides would tell you that the rewards of doing that aren't worth the risks or the cost.
If we could somehow bring about greater rewards for good-faith participation (working hard → a very high likelihood of affording a moderately nice lifestyle), I think a lot of cynicism would be outcompeted by more cooperative attitudes. Obviously I'd already be President of the World if I knew how to just make that happen, though.
Makes me wonder how you could apply this to social media.
What if you had a social media site where you could only see the same set of people? (Say, 150 people - Dunbar's number)
This isn't perfect by any means, but how would you fix it from there? Would you make it mix the population every few months? Maybe just comments/reactions are restricted to your cohort but you can see all posts? Would you mix the population based on some kind of score? Could that score be multi-dimensional?
It probably wouldn't work, because social media is voluntary. People can just reduce participation, or just leave, and find alternative ways to get whatever value they were getting from the social media site. Users stay because it's fun, or because their friends are staying (network effect); your proposed interventions would both frustrate the users and weaken or destroy the "glue" that keeps them coming back.
In contrast, those natural social networks of yore - tribes, villages - were all-encompassing, and you were stuck with them. The modern social networks that are strong - school, university, work - also have this strong "like it or not, I'm stuck here with this people" component. Sure, it's easier to change a job than a tribe, but it's still costly.
I love this game and think it is one of the most important things on the internet, but I hate the consequence. The intended message is great: cooperate and forgive so that you can live in a great society. The corollary is absolutely awful... If you let defectors win, you are responsible for creating the defection.
Indeed! It's awful, but all-too-true. Those who enable the bullies can be as bad for the group as the bullies themselves. Cultivating, protecting, and maintaining a peaceful and trustful society is an active effort, not a passive one.
I think game theory is really cool and all, but I'm not sure it actually has much relevance for analyzing human behavior. It is always taught in that way, to simplify it for undergrads, but the mathematical concepts, I think, are significantly more important than the "ethical" questions.
I liked playing this game! The art style, animations, and overall messages were a really good experience! I look forward to sharing this with my friends later.
