This seems reasonable: Most games have elements of puzzles and/or tactics and I would expect playing more to correlate to being better at games and therefore puzzles and/or tactics which in turn correlates with having a high IQ.

There is a difference between ethical/moral and legal. This might be legal, but it is neither ethical nor moral. Even in case it had been all three, people are still allowed to complain about mostly whatever they want.

The title/summary reminded me of this comic: https://www.smbc-comics.com/in...

Randall (XKCD guy) appears to be a fan of Magnus.

This story mentions Magnus' app which was in: https://xkcd.com/1628/

You can also see Magnus' regime starting in: https://xkcd.com/1392/

He has been the highest rated player for 10 years by now according to FIDE.

Yo dawg, we herd you like Ponzi schemes, so we put a Ponzi scheme in yo Ponzi scheme, so you can get scsmmed, while u scammed!

I hope parent is just a troll, but still, let us go over the posts:
There is a European wide shortage of HGV drivers, true. The UK is worse off because of brexit though. Even most (52%) *leave voters* do agree with this. Source: https://twitter.com/OpiniumRes...

The UK have done two trade deals that differs a lot from what was before (besides the deal with EU): With Australia and Japan. Both roughly as far from the UK as possible... AND a case could be made that they are worse than what was before (see the other posts under this one for that argument). Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-...

The non-EU immigration might be up but it is not for a lack of trying: https://www.politico.eu/articl...

Taking a lead on global climate: Clearly something the UK could not have done in the EU... (Also, perhaps, consider being proud of something you did instead of something you want to do?)

The UK managed to support Australia against Chinese expansion by... making France retract their Australian (and US - the UK ones were not retracted, simply because France did not consider UK to be important in this regard) diplomats...
Source: https://www.politico.eu/articl...

You should read “reflections on trusting trust”. It is a wellknown essay showing you cant rely on computers to not have abitrary trojan horses, even if you say read/wrote the source code or even low level instructions. To avoid it, you would need to build every tool you need for your reseach from the ground up. This is what I would call a medium level of trust. There are lower levels of trust, such as things to do with your own memory or language. There are higher levels e.g. Newtons quote about giants which you seemingly view as a problem.

To my mind, what the researchers did was fine. They in essence said: Based on the data we got from Facebook, this is what we can conclude.

You can see examples of similar issues even in quite hard sciences like physics (without the whole Facebook was wrong twist). E.g. research from CERN relies on that none has deliberately or by accident done some bad stuff to the data or results before or after it was collected. This requires trusting a lot of people since none has done personally done every single step of constructing and running their system. And that is if you participated in it! Outside CERN you also have to rely on them not just lying about everything since you clearly wont have the abillity to verify since you do not own a particle accelearator to test this on. There are similar issues with most group-based research. Nearly all experimental research is group based nowadays and most teoretical research is too.

I do agree with what you wrote, but just because an interpretation gives something that seems "intuitively wrong" (i.e. to do with what many people feel should happen) does not mean that that the interpretation is wrong (i.e. to do with what happens). Sometimes, it is something inherent in what we think of as "intuitively wrong". Like, many of Zeno's paradoxes are in essence about sums of infinitely many positive (real) terms that can be finite. Even nowadays, to many people this (i.e. that sums of infinitely many positive terms can be finite) seems intuitively wrong, but it turns out not to be. Note, the interpretation in Zeno's paradoxes are fine: The situations can be interpreted with those infinite sums and that does lead you to the right answer, even if that answer seems "intuitively wrong".

A quantum mechanic one could be Elitzur–Vaidman bomb tester. This too can seem intuitively wrong, but experiments seemingly does suggest it actually works.

Schroedinger's cat could be similar: while we feel that it is intuitively wrong that the cat is alive and dead at the same time, it could "just" be something else in what we feel is "intuitively wrong" that happens to be wrong.

Why is it surprising that you can find this information in Mozillas own reports? They do not have a good reputation in regards to listening to their users, but I havn’t heard any suggestion that they are dishonest — still a Firefox user

The XKCD version of parents post: https://xkcd.com/1235/

The abstract just discusses proof assistants, which while interesting is not new. The result they are used to show, that geometry, functional analysis and p-adic numbers can be unified (hence the title) is not in the abstract at all, but is interesting as well.

i could not agree more! Lets keep the status que where it is extremely big ad-companies that decides these things.

As pointed out by XKCD: https://what-if.xkcd.com/72/ due to the fact that he went to the far side of the moon alone he is/was in a more select group than Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin. 12 people have walked on the moon, but only 5 others (=on a similar trip alone around the moon) have been as isolated (in the sense of distance to closest human - at least likely) as Michael Collins

Rest in peace Michael.

It depends. If you mean that if they did not do it, then someone else would, then sure, that seems extremely likely. If you mean that we could do things like the apps on our phone without something like a compiler, then no, that is absurd. I think he is talking about the second interpretation while you are talking about the first.