- I've critiqued it plenty in other comments, including that exact issue. However, that doesn't mean they "gave people surveys with a lot of questions" to p-hack, it seems like a study designed (albeit not well designed) to test one specific hypothesis. I see no reason to question that they did the methods as described in the paper, which were designed to test this very specific thing (they didn't even test "childlike wonder" in general, just self-reported Mario-induced childlike wonder), but their conclusions aren't supported by their data. If they were p-hacking as you accuse them of, why not have more questions? Why not survey non-Mario players too so there's a new variable to create significant results out of a null?
- Airport newsstands used to sell adult magazines, do I buy a bottle of water from a porn shop every trip?
- It does seem to be cynicism, they're convinced the authors "gave people surveys with a lot of questions and then tried to find correlations in the data", but nothing indicates they did more than the 9 questions (plus one more for sex as a control) the paper includes, and restricted it to only Mario/Yoshi players. Ten questions is pretty short.
- It's "statistically significant", but it doesn't really say what the title says and they draw a lot of causal conclusions that don't really follow the data IMO. The main result is really that happiness and burnout risk were negatively correlated (what a surprise, people burning out aren't happy?), although the caveat is that's only shown in Mario-playing college students.
- > afaik a study can consist of one single survey
It definitely can (and they had interviews too), although there's a lot of limitations with their methodology they don't address in the paper.
- It definitely should be in a list of offensive terms too (and offensive dictionaries by language could be even more useful, telling moderators why it was flagged is valuable).
- > How do you realistically quantify someone's "overall happiness in life" and "burnout risk" into 1 number ?
There's existing survey methodologies for these, and then they added a Mario-specific set of questions (IMO these questions were poorly designed, they expected people to be able to accurately report how much Mario games specifically change their childlike wonder, which even if true, kind of changes the conclusion they should be able to make).
> I'm not sure how they did the control group
It's not that kind of study. They didn't sit half the participants down with Mario and half took a nap, it's interviews and surveys. Their only "control" was showing it didn't correlate with gender.
- There's a "Yoshi" series now, but they specifically mean Yoshi’s Crafted World and Yoshi’s Woolly World.
- Sounds like a good opportunity for some kind of batching feature.
- > I can safely assume that this dictionary of bad words contains no people’s names in it.
This is a big one for this kind of project, and I've never been sure how usernames for people named Kike should be handled.
- I could see social-media-ish websites not wanting those names to prevent impersonation. They'd be deciding if they want to risk friction when a big name joins the platform (@cocacola needs Coca-Cola to verify) or risk threats from that big names' legal department (when @cocacola gets registered by someone who just posts furry porn of their mascot bear). It could just set a flag to require the account to verify or be renamed.
- It's odd that they focused so much on "it's better than regexes" when it doesn't handle these cases where a regex would do well.
- I'm not understanding your categories. Every dictionary word is flagged? It seems any first or last name is a "public_figure" ("apple" is a "public_figure" and also a "brand", I guess that means there's someone named Apple? Tim Apple?)?
It "blocks profanity", but "shithead", "assfucker", etc. are allowed (not to mention obfuscating a restricted term even slightly, e.g. "sh1t")? Yes, the Scunthorpe problem exists, but you can do better, and should if you're expecting people to pay to wait 500ms.
Something that detects these sorts of things very well could actually be worth paying for, although it still would probably be better off as a library.
- I think there's some value in providing a huge dictionary of things to test against, with tagging for what things are to help filter. This doesn't do a great job at it, and it would make 100x more sense as a library, but it's a little more than just string.contains().
- GeForce NOW is supposedly decent for a lot of games (depending on connection and distance to server), although if Nvidia totally left gaming they'd probably drop the service too.
- > ESPECIALLY if you're in seattle
Especially especially if you're at Pike Place. It's not even the real original Starbucks location!
- It's not quite as bad as I expected (still bad), since it does at least clearly tell you how to not buy it, in normal size type even. Except then they decided to make it out of place alphabetically (and it seems to have moved at least once, since the other article says it was "between Denmark and Finland" because it was sorted under "don't").
- It's fiction, there's breadcrumbs at the top that list it as in the "Fiction" category. qntm is good at plausible sci-fi, e.g. https://qntm.org/mmacevedo
- > 1.89gb executable file
Add me to the list of people curious about this. It feels more like some sort of bug than a real attack, it would be odd to use such a huge file for every torrent.
Having gone through some bad depression in my life, it's not helpful. It's not exactly a platitude, but it's the same genre of meaninglessness that sounds good to people who aren't in a deep dark hole.