Oh yes, I'm sure the CoS people have read them, but it will be state representatives who go to the constitutional convention. Do you trust your state government, and the rest of the state governments, enough that they will end up with something better? I sure don't.

That's not what I said. I am happy to do devops as long as it doesn't take more than like 40% of my time.

Yours is the best comment in the story.

The thing is, the NYT has a lot of high quality articles still, even if their newsroom is all liberal. They go deeply into subjects and do good research. You shouldn't believe everything they say, and if it's important, you should verify; but they give you good overview of the world.

Another high quality newspaper is the Wall Street Journal. If you're looking for print, it can't be beat, for similar reasons. The main difference is the WSJ focuses more on economic issues, and the NYT focuses more on social issues.

The editorial staff of both newspapers is mediocre, but the quality of the guest editorials can't be beaten, in both papers. You have ex presidents, or the commanding officer of the armed forces of Lebanon. Maybe you don't agree with the guest editorials, but they are often worth reading, more than the average blogger.

Homicides are different than mass killings. Check out the number of mass killings since 1906 for something comparable. I'm sure you're smart enough to realize the difference, so I don't even know what you are trying to accomplish by bringing up the wrong data there.

No. It's guaranteed that whatever comes out of that will be worse than what we have now (and probably favor whichever party has the most representatives at the convention). Remember, the people who wrote the last constitution wrote the federalist papers. The ones representing us now haven't even read them.

Rise of nations has a few default formations. If you think that's good enough, you completely fail to understand army positioning.

If you want to manage sc2 like that, you can.... you can press the button to select your entire army then click the attack button and where on the map you want them to attack, but your engagements won't be very good because your army formations will be poorly organized.

Wow, that is something I see as a benefit. I love the intense focus it takes. Of course it's harder to do for people with kids.

Although if you're Taeja, you can sign autographs during a match and still win.

'Publish or perish' is a very real thing. Sometimes scientists know their results aren't amazing, but are desperate to publish something because they've just spent a year's worth of grant money on it.

That pretty much works in Starcraft, too

Yeah, you make a good point, this study didn't even claim find any correlation between age and skill-level; the headline is wrong. They claim to have found a correlation between click speed (reaction after the screen changes) and age, but even that claim is tenuous.

Even then it's hard. For example, one pro-gamer hasn't been winning as much as his prime, but he's said he hasn't been practicing as hard (his teammate just won the championship in Korea, and he definitely practiced hard).

Of course, we can't necessarily trust his self-assessment, but it shows that even people who have a financial interest can get burned out and lose interest in the game.

Yeah, I remember the good old days, when there weren't many demands on developers, and release schedules were easy, and if you said to your boss, "can I have more time?" He said, "Sure, no problem my good friend, have a raise too!"

Look at the graph. Data often clarifies things.