Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | throwawayhhakdl's commentslogin

Without reading the study in detail, I feel like 4,483 is too few people to detect an effect like this because you can’t easily control for how much vitamin d people get from the sun.


They’re pretty good though. And also cheaper. The same argument could be made of chips.


Article suggests he has 3 direct reports

More of a PM


FWIW, try not to act on that assumption being correct. Because if you’re wrong, you now have two illnesses simultaneously...


To be a dungeon master is effectively to achieve AGI. It’s... not realistic. Current NLP systems have mapped out what language means, and can use that to generate text. But they have no idea what the text means. It requires incredible knowledge about how the world works and an ability to explain its reasoning in plain terms.


That is because you have not seen One Cut of the Dead

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Cut_of_the_Dead


Can you name any piece of intellectual property that has a small, recurring income after 30 years?


> A bunch of people couldn't get to us, but that wasn't really our fault (or was it?). At the end of the day the users didn't care if it was our fault or their ISP, so we counted that against ourselves.

So... what did you do about that?


Further, The introduction of hotels to the game was not intended initially. Adding hotels causes more housing to appear, which is antithetical to the point of housing shortages


That is... false. Trading down consistently only works if you’re playing with idiots.

Trading a high value property for a low value property makes sense if you get a color set, but if you do this multiple times with bare minimum competence players, the likely outcome is that everyone has at least one set, but you have booth the lowest amount of cash to develop things and the least valuable properties.

With the exception of edge case (although often optimal) strategies where you lock down the available houses, trading down is likely a sign that you’re trying to increase your likelihood of winning from 0% to 10%, while improving the odds to a greater degree for whoever is getting the better deal.

Most properties are superficial until they have specifically 3 houses on them. If you have three color sets, but fewer than 3 houses on any of them, you’re going to lose.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: