I can say with the utmost confidence that with the respect of your claims about the on the ground reality of the game industry, you do not know what the fuck you're taking about. But if it makes you feel smart, you do you I guess.

All of our energy needs could potentially be supplied by the angular kinetic energy of the Earth — and because of the mass of the planet, doing so would slow its rotation down by a mere 7ms per century.

Reading is hard?

aka the more power consolidated in the private sector, the more they can defang the government (or astroturf the electorate to demand such a thing on their behalf), the more the government is just a sock puppet for consolidated private interests

wow, it all seems quite familiar

That's precisely the dumbfuck response I was anticipating. Excellent work.

He/his admiration/financial backing apparatus sure is working hard to ensure that private and public institutions alike institutions are not permitted to determine what constitutes merit, and I'll give you exactly zero guesses as to why that is. It sure isn't his/his administration/his financial backing apparatus favorable views to people from other places - citizens, legal immigrants or otherwise. If you don't think these are deliberate actions to adjust the color balance on their reality TV sets, I dunno what to tell you.

This second dataset needed some repairing. Around a third of the institutional affiliations were missing, so I used Claude 3.7 Sonnet to fill in the blanks. When checking Claude’s work, I was surprised at how accurate it was. Of the roughly 275 entries Claude filled in, there were errors in fewer than 10 of them, and the errors that it did make were often borderline (i.e: a publication coming out in a given year and an author moving institutions that same year, or an author having multiple affiliations).

In fact, Claude’s answers proved to be more accurate than the original dataset, at least for institutional affiliation. Spot-checking the original dataset revealed numerous errors, so I also ended up using Claude to make corrections to the original dataset. Altogether Claude (with me checking) fixed probably ~100 errors in categories like institutional affiliation and publication date.

Every time you poor saps play 4D chess against your own brains, you just trip over your shoelaces. Maybe learn how to tie them before you weigh in on anything more complicated.

Kinda hilarious - you own an advertising platform, and you're auto-engaging on behalf of users. The snake is starting to eat its tail ...

"why doesn't internet provide me with a group of likeminded to philosophize"

Because properties on the internet subsist via advertising, which is driven by engagement, which benefits more from adversarial (or instinctive) interaction than from non adversarial measured interaction. If platforms were not supported primarily by advertising, we'd have a fairly different kind of internet, much in the way if some towns' municipal budgets were not funded by traffic tickets, they'd have a very different kind of police force.

One of the real tragedies of life is that some people (and to be clear I'm not saying it's you, it does not appear to be) for whom life was so hard are so utterly disinterested in - sometimes to the point of being against - making life easier for others.

Sure, but the ability to do that can depend on what kind of terms you have - and "don't go into debt if you don't have to" is a vast oversimplification of the dynamics involved. If you have access to credit - even super shitty credit - you will probably use that to say, pay for medical stuff, or food, or you know .. stuff that directly implicates survival.

The idea that there is always a simple choice is a fallacy for those who are not faced with those types of decisions. And people can be extremely inconsistent, because it's an emotional topic. Plenty of people who *used* to not have that choice, but have escaped poverty though hard work, luck, or any other reason, are capable of the mental gymnastics required to deny this.

Successful companies are more diverse because successful companies are big and can afford to hire globally.

This is a common misconception. That diversity comes from just *being* places. But what companies recognized was .. they were hiring the same people in their own markets that didn't (and still doesn't) have the diversity of those markets. It hurts them financially.

Now look, I get that people think companies operate on a quota system. I've worked for multiple companies that are *extremely* dedicated to DEI initiatives, and none of them have anything remotely like that. They do have initiatives that study how their workforce aligns with the actual diversity of the population in the market, but it has nothing to do with hiring. It's just an initiative in why the workforce doesn't represent their consumers. "We'd like to get here, we're not here yet. We can prove it from a financial perspective because we make decisions that are not informed by our customers." The people hiring are entirely independent of that analysis. What that kind of analysis does is improve the company's ability to foster moving towards having employees that can better serve their market. Success does not lead to diversity, but hiring *for* diversity is stupid. The thing dumbasses like you don't get is that companies don't actually do that. (I absolutely expect you've got a hundred examples where this happens, based on your junk food news.)

I got modded down for saying below and I'm happy to get modded down again: you're a simpleton and I really doubt you have any actual financial skin in the game. It's all just feelings.

I can tell you've never worked in a position of seniority in a large company in your life. The halls of real decision making is basically like Narnia to you.

It's kind of sad you don't seem to realize that you care. Much more than any well adjusted person does. You appear to have some ... opinions. Hope you can join us in the land of the adults some day.

Yes, it's just a resolving door with the private sector to public sector to private sector pipeline. The rules are written by those who worked and will work again for the groups that have vested interested in them. The American public seems relative okay with this because the American public thinks that .. *checks notes* .. uh government sucks or something.