Using every tool in the tool box seems objectively better than only using one tool in the tool box.

If someone wrote a C++ or Java program only using "if then" statements with no objects and ignored objects, case statements, while statements, for loops with conditional exits, etc., I would judge their code to be worse and their mastery of the language to be lower on an objective basis.

If someone writes an adventure with a tool kit that has 7 tools and they only use the one tool over and over, I objectively judge their mastery to be lower. I agree that whether the adventure they create is fun or not is subjective.

A wider use of tools is more likely to result in a better scenario however. I say that from experience writing adventure scenarios for decades.

I can't see how you come to the conclusion that a richer experience would be a more boring game. Your statement here seems biased to me. You might want to reconsider it.

I agree with your comments on the article. Someone posted just above here that the actual results were more what I would have expected to see from past experience.

* Worst was a boy.
* Average of girls was better than the average of boys.
* Best was a boy.

---

They also posted the actual triggers above too.

When the player arrives in area
When someone says a line
When someone gets and item
When someone is killed
When something walks into trigger
When something walks out of trigger
Every six seconds

I think several of them would make for a more interesting game. In the scenarios I write, I use...

When a player is in an area, when someone gets an item, when someone is killed, when someone walks into a trigger, When someone walks out of a trigger, and every X seconds. My X varies from 8 seconds to 90 seconds. I don't use "when someone says a line" because minecraft isn't amenable to that or I haven't learned how to do that yet if there is a way.

What I meant was... why did 100% of the girls do better than 100% of the boys?

I would have expected overlap between the two populations.

In similar studies, the average of the females was higher than the average of the males but the extremes of the males were lower and higher than the extremes of the females.

I'm guessing they had things like...

Trigger
Character says "Xxxxx".
Character attacks.
Character is damaged.
Character places objects on table.
Character gives objects to NPC.
Character is hungry.
Character is wielding X when close to a spot.

For some reason, the boys only used the 1st trigger and the result was a stereotypical "prompt/respond" roleplaying game.

Using the other triggers would provide a less stereotypical experience.

Not sure why all the girls did well and all the boys did badly. That seems off.

Perhaps there was a particular girl who "got it" and showed the other girls how to use the other triggers or shared code and made it easier for them to figure it out. Perhaps the teacher prompted the girls in some way.

In any case, the girls did better in this case-- perhaps some will turn out to be major names and the experience has to bolster their confidence.

Interesting result.

It will be interesting to see if any of the girls in the class go on to be the next Caitlin Colgrove, Adele Goldberg or Barbara Liskov.

However, I'd expect more of a bell curve in both genders with the average for girls being better than the average for boys. If the girls uniformly did better and the boys uniformly did worse, that sounds strange.

Never admit to knowing what jury nullification is.

The prosecutor will ask. It's not really a fair question for them to ask so you should ignore the question. Any honest answer means you lose your right to jury nullification as a counterbalance for unjust/unfair laws.

Likewise, if you are actually on a jury and decide to use jury nullfication...
Do not tell any other jury about it.
Do not say you have decided on nullification. Simply say based on the facts, you have reasonable doubt. Stick with it until the judge ends the case due to a hung jury.

Different people with different personal experiences can look at the same facts and come to different conclusions.*

If you are part of a group who regularly sees and reads about the police beating and killing other members of your group including 12 year old children (and a 7 year old girl was shot in the head and killed by police in a raid on an incorrect address in the last couple months) then you are going to WEIGHT facts regarding the GOOD INTENT of the police officer differently.

Also, our entire system is based the trust of the governed. Why the hell should blacks trust our system when they are under represented and when black st louis police officers say in interviews that st louis police are racist?

Why should they trust police when the police pick up a mixed group of young black and white children and then arrest the black children while calling the parents of the white girl to pick her up tell the black children that "trash goes in the back." (again recently within the last few months).

---
*(also consider discussion be tween religious and irreligious people who view the same facts and come to wildly different conclusions).

I think this is a new level. Considering they can see pre-drafts, edits, etc. which previously were lost and all you saw was what was sent or saved.

It may be suitable for banks, but it is going to raise the cost of business for everyone.
It's probably overkill for many businesses AND will simply drive people who have ill intent to other communications methods.

You said: "I am plenty white, and the assertion that I am unable to listen to evidence and come to an impartial decision is ridiculous."

That's not the point man. and it's not what I wrote.

If all blacks on the jury voted to indict, then the white votes against indictment will have no credibility with the population. Especially if ALL of them voted against indictment.

Use your head, man.

Because otherwise, I don't think the answer of a 67% white grand jury is acceptable to a town that is 67% black and patrolled by a police force that's about 94% white and which hires people who are from other police departments which were shut down because they were too racist.

If at least one black voted not to indict then it gives the process some legitimacy.
If all three voted not to indict then the answer will probably be accepted eventually.

If you are wealthy and conservative, it's just to be expected as it is in your own self interest.

If you are poor and conservative, what the hell are you thinking? Why are you cutting your own throat so a few wealthy people can have lower taxes, lower estate taxes, and ship your jobs overseas if not ask you to build a stage so they can climb up on it and fire you?

Stock prices are ultimately related to related earnings than demand.

If a move like this suppresses stock prices such that the stock price vs earnings returns a predictably higher annual rate of return, then others will buy the stock until it returns to an the stock price vs earnings returns to an average annual rate of return.

Did you even read the article? You'll find it discusses how the old World Trade Center Towers had built in devices that were made specifically for the building that would automatically go up and down cleaning it. The only problem was they missed the corners and creases of each pane and the rich people at the top of the building didn't want the grimy borders to their new expensive view of NYC.

It sounds like you have a lot of ideas for building a nice big heavy expensive machine that moves up and down a building. Burst forth and implement your idea, I think you'll find that the the weight, the power and the water feed to these devices will push you towards what has already been implemented and did not do a satisfactory job. Humans had to follow up behind the built in robots to clean spots they had missed.

It's funny, I read articles on Slashdot about how AI is the one thing that threatens man. And we can't even implement AI and pattern recognition to replace a window washer -- oh the incongruity!

I think you misunderstand him.

If person "B" sets up a rule saying your are spam (or "enough" person "B"s) then general heuristics of their spam filters may filter you as spam from all yahoo users.

So I'm not too knowledgeable on photography but one thing I'm aware of is that professional photographers do a lot of post processing. To the point of Adobe Lightroom or higher being so mandatory with DSLRs that they sometimes package it with lenses (especially the ones that distort like a wide angle lens). Do you post process your photos? To what extent? How do you feel about people who use advanced techniques like even adding color to their photos? For example, I came across this photo which was odd to me because I've been to that place and it's beautiful but not like in that photo -- it doesn't need fake pink clouds to be beautiful. It would seem to me a shame to have a tree live 2,000 years and then a human uses a fish eye lens on its knotted trunk to make it seem more old and gnarled and then later adjusts the darkness of the sky to give it a Halloween feel, etc. And then since that's the most artistic shot of it, that's how we remember it.