I appreciate that they clarified that “bad” employees aren’t always bad. I very firmly fit into the fourth category listed (avoids looking for jobs because it’s the worst) and would definitely get trapped pretty easily.

It does. I was looking something up and ran face first into a redacted account that once had the answer I needed. I was very conflicted about it.

Best use I’ve had for them (data engineer here) is things that don’t have a specific answer. Need a cover letter? Perfect. Script for a presentation? Gets 95% of the work done. I never ask for information since it has no capability to retain a fact.

This is my line for biting the bullet and switching to Linux. I hope gaming gets to where I want it to be (braindead easy for anyone with ‘actually’ on their lips)

Absolutely. I’ll poke my head in there when there’s someone on insta who I’m curious to see if they get naked on Twitter. And that’s 100% of my interaction.

When I was taking classes on similar things, ‘human performance’ was generally defined as how well an expert in a given task performed.

Porn

These. Also, random celebrity factoids (height, married, dead, etc), how long to get to some town you’ve never heard of, basic math that I’m too lazy to do myself.

Sometimes making it meow to confuse my cat.

A little bit of everyone? Watchers create demand for creators, which creates demand for hosts. If any link in this chain breaks, then the little ecosystem dies.

Though that’s both difficult and reductive. Punishing hosts drives watchers to shadier hosts, with creators following. Punishing creators just creates space for other creators to fill the gap with unpredictable content (be it more of the same, better, worse, or other). Punishing watchers is resource intensive to do well, so the focus has to be on the really bad stuff to get anything done. And conjures articles like these when done poorly.

My brain despises econ and I always struggle with it. But that first paragraph smells like “MBAs cooked up a justification for why they don’t pay taxes that doesn’t actually make any sense”.

The second bit makes me wonder “why don’t we have some authority on evaluating the worth of CEOs?”. Insert joke here about that worth being 0. And then I remember that the CEOs are the ones that would have to pay the government to make that rule.

A little bit. He doesn’t strike me as the type to keep the quiet part quiet.

I’ve yet to see a wiki article without a shit ton of sources listed clearly at the bottom.