I'm struggling to tie your comment to what the author is getting at. The advice to write thoughts down so you can stop thinking about them isn't offered as a way to achieve more efficient performance, it's to let yourself stop worrying.
I have no real opinion on the project in question but devotion is not a fungible, generically applicable resource you decide to apply to one issue or another. Run a test for whatever "IQ/g-factor/ability" handwave you're referencing on someone that loves their work and someone that doesn't.
I can not help but detect a condescending tone in your comments (if such is not the case, my apologies – Poe's Law and all) and find it interesting that you have not provided sources to the "research" which your claims are based on.
I think it would benefit everybody if you could share a couple of links to some "research".
They're similar, but at least with traditional pagination you have a very clear page transition boundary. You can manually loop through Next → Ctrl-F repeatedly much faster in my experience. With infinite scroll I'm left to work out my own "pages" by eye or some other mechanism, which is slower. Not by a lot, but still slow enough that I feel the friction.
(Edit: I emailed them and the article has been corrected.)
> a Library that contains 251,312,000 volumes of random sequences of letters (1,312,000 being the number of characters in any given book, each of which admits of twenty-five variations)
This seems to be a typo of sorts. I believe the correct number is 25^1312000 (sequence length m, n possible values for each, n^m distinct possible sequences).
Having hit this in the past, my guess is it was originally written with a superscript, then the text lost the formatting (leaving 251312000), and an editor left it as 251,312,000. Always worth checking final rendering for any text you expect to include superscripts.
It's always staggering to really meditate on the unimaginably vast size of the universe, and then come up with some simple idea such as every combination of letters arranged in books, and realize that our universe could never fit all the books that would require, even if stacked side-by-side between all the galaxies.
(The observable universe is also on the order of 10^80 meters cubed.)
Something similar happened to me once when submitting a scientific paper. The publisher merged a line number into the number I was trying to write. Caught it in the proofs, luckily.
I agree that it's a somewhat unfair generalization that paints a harsh picture. The core point of the argument still holds though, I think. A cynical response might be to say that the difference is the employer is accounting for longer-term replacement hiring/training costs, rather than short term value extraction. The optimization has new parameters but the structure of the relationship is still fundamentally transactional. I don't really think that's how things generally run, though.
Both parties should want a place that's enjoyable to work over the long term, yet sometimes the company will have to make hard decisions. Priorities slip or people are straight-up unable to avoid, say, laying off half the staff. Framing and context matter, as always. "Your employer is not on your side" is hopefully not a statement about the day-to-day interactions with your boss, or even a statement about company values, but it can serve as a reminder that there's always a line somewhere, and, intent aside, your best interests may simply fall on the wrong side.
The law was changed to permit jamming in prisons. It is quite difficult to implement because you have to avoid jamming outside the prison, but a successful feasibility study was carried out. And the government decided it was too expensive to roll out nationally.
There are after all good reasons to ban them, but even if those reasons didn’t exist, the Tories would ban them for their usual “law and order” reasons.
Isn't the purpose of the example to make it hard to just trivially deduce y? If you know y = 1/(1 - t) then yeah it's undefined at t = 1. The example given doesn't seem to lend itself to that though, and a lesson is to know when your tooling isn't good enough.
