The Chesterton fence argument is that you need to understand why the fence is there. If you do understand it, and still remove it, it doesn't say that's bad.

You mean "hotel booking sites offer discounts to non-bay area customers", surely?

Intuition forms because it works. When it doesn't it's remarkable to the point of writing books and movies about it.

Intuition is a heuristic that lets you form decisions fast without a lot of effort. But I wouldn’t say having a wrong intuition is that uncommon that I would write a book every time I had a wrong intuition. I have intuitions all the time about stuff and when I check, it turns out I was wrong. That’s also why I wouldn’t make important decisions based purely on intuition. Intuitions form because sometimes, you need quick decisions and it’s better to do something wrong some of the time than take longer to make a better decision.

When it works we call it intuition. When it doesn't we call it superstition. There are all sorts of availability biases at work here; none of which really support the use of intuition as a valuable, predictive resource. After all, if your intuition fails to predict something, there must be some lurking variable somewhere that you failed to account for. Not that the intuition is wrong /s.

The thing is, depth discussions have been going on for decades and these swimmers literally live in the pool. When people spend literally 40+ hours a week in water I trust them well before I trust scientists because it takes scientists so much longer to catch up and measure what the practitioners are observing.

Like this reminds me of Beckham/Ronaldo doing free kicks. They had a deep understanding of controlling the ball well beyond what scientists knew how to measure and explain what they're doing.

I couldn't make it to the end of the "Badness 0 Knuth's version" paper because of the keming. Is it on purpose? I can't tell, it was too distracting to keep reading. Ironic.

There a BUG. Try reading in Chrome.

You're right, no badness there.

In UX, the right way to think about your users is not that they are dumb, but that they are very smart but very busy, and don't have time for your app's bullshit. It puts you in the right frame of mind when designing interfaces. It's not about dealing with dunces, but about being efficient with peoples time and attention.

Waves on what?

Probability.

Can't spell "copilot" without "clip"

Actually... CLIP is an image-to-text computer vision model. It has nothing to do with copilot.

I think GP was going for a clippy reference.

Is that 5% growth? Or is that a piece of paper with a number "5" in it? There is a difference.

> any foreigner who lent Evergrande money thinking this wasn't a huge risk is a moron.

Or they are very smart while investing your money. Check your country's pension fund, see who manages it and what they invest in. Or better yet, don't.

It's not taboo in the slightest, it's everywhere.

It's just that it wouldn't work because any group defecting and having more children would inherit the earth and you'd be back to square one, only now not even in control.

It's the same mistake as every other decel "solution".

It's so obvious, and so unbelievable that proponents don't think of it that one has to wonder, who pushes this? Qui bono?