Trogdor was popular way before Reddit

It doesn’t have to be

https://www.mathworks.com/products/compiler.html

MATLAB can ruin all sorts of coding experiences, programming included

(⌐■ ͜ʖ■)

Journal quality can buffer this by getting better reviewers (MDPI shouldn’t be seen as having peer review at all, but peer review at the best journals–because professors want to say on their merit raise annual evals that they are doing the most service to the field by reviewing at the best journals–is usually good enough at weeding out bad papers), but it gets offset by the institutional prestige of authors when peer-review isn’t double-blind. I’ve seen some garbage published in top journals by folks that are the caliber of Harvard professors (thinking of one in particular) because reviewers use institutional prestige as a heuristic.

When I’m teaching new grad students, I tell them exactly what you said, with the exception that they can use field-recognized journal quality (not shitty metrics like impact factor) as a relative heuristic until they can evaluate methods for themselves.

A fellow Julia programmer! I always test new models by asking them to write some Julia, too.

Fair points. My use of “primary” was a poor choice; I meant something along the lines of “most common among individuals who aren’t philosophers, in my experience.”

Interesting take! Is lightning conscious, then? The idea of Thor isn’t too far off if so, haha.

Not everyone finds it persuasive, yeah. It’s an appeal to intuition that many people, though not all, have.

To a degree. The large subreddits, like AskReddit, get far fewer upvotes on the top posts of the week than they used to get. I think there’s a good chunk of folks who left for a replacement, then left their replacement without going back to Reddit.

I go out of my way not to do so. Whenever I search for some specific items and see “Sponsored,” I’ll scroll down until I get the same listing without the ad link.

First, the RCT is a much stronger study. I’m not sure why you’re picking a fight with a correlational paper when there is a causal manipulation that I linked first.

Second, did you actually read the paper? 1B isn’t the graph of productivity; 1C is. You can’t just look at a graph, either–you need statistics.

"For Output, figure 1B, there is no visible monotonic or linear trend, so a seasonal time correction might be more appropriate here. Moreover, average output appears to be slightly lower during WFH.

For Productivity, figure 1C, the graph is more volatile, which is not surprising for a ratio. There is no clear linear time trend before WFH, but some variation from month to month, so a seasonal correction might be more appropriate. Productivity drops visibly during WFH. Finally, figure 1D plots the log of Productivity, which drops considerably after the start of WFH.

To quantify the WFH effect, and to control for employee and team time-invariant variables (via employee and team fixed effects), we now turn to the regression analyses. Informally, the estimates give us average differences in outcomes before and during WFH for the same employee, controlling for team effects (since employees sometimes switch teams) and time trends.

Table 4 reports WFH effect estimates based on OLS regressions for all three outcome variables, plus the natural logarithm of Productivity, in each case with linear and seasonal time trend corrections. All estimates are in line with the visible effects in the raw data in figure 1.

…

Columns 5 and 6 show that both WFH effect estimates on Productivity are negative, but only the estimate with seasonal time trend is significantly different from zero. We prefer that specification, since both the plot and the linear time trend coefficient indicate that a linear trend is not as appropriate. According to this specification, productivity decreased by 0.26 output percentage points per hour worked. Given an average WFO productivity of 1.36, this estimate corresponds to a 19% drop in output per hour worked. This is economically significant: if employees worked a fixed 40 hours per week, this would imply a drop in output of 10.2 output percentage points in a week. In other words, if employees had not increased time worked during WFH, on average they would have completed only 90 of 100 assigned tasks.

Columns 7 and 8 explain the log of Productivity, which strongly increases the fit of the regression. The WFH effect is negative and significantly different from zero at all significance levels, irrespective of time controls."

Beyond self-reports and perception-based outcomes, most extant studies that I’m aware of have found decreases in real output. For example, a randomized controlled trial published by the NBER found that productivity of employees randomly assigned to work from home was 18% lower than employees randomly assigned to work in the office:

https://www.nber.org/papers/w31515

Another study found that output decreased by around 13% when employees worked from home, even though hours worked increased:

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/721803

Cognitive performance may also decline in remote settings:

https://academic.oup.com/ej/article/132/643/1218/6445994

https://perfectmotherfuckingwebsite.com/

There are still people who have terrible American accents in media. Lucifer’s twin, for example, was so ridiculously bad. The only person without an American accent who I’ve ever seen pull one off in media was Hugh Laurie in later seasons of House. I still find most attempts amusing, even with coaching.

deleted by creator

I paid for Kagi and have been super happy with it. If you don’t mind paying, I highly recommend it. Not having ads or manipulated results is worth it for me.

You mean our lithium?

Sincerely,

The White House

I interpreted it as showing that 8 hobbytes were equivalent to a hobbit. I didn’t see that it could be interpreted as saying each little frodo picture under the hobbyte was a hobbit until your comment.

But a byte is 8 bits, not the other way around

Where’s the Julia programmer that hits every one of these with @benchmark and then works for six hours to shave three nanoseconds off of the fastest one?

(Example: https://discourse.julialang.org/t/faster-bernoulli-sampling/35209)