...I don't think this is a very wise offer to make on the Internet unless the "coin" is somewhere you can both see it.
Nevermind - I thought I'd found a site that would flip a coin and save the result with a timestamp.
Why hasn't anybody made this yet?
The SAT used to have only two sections, with a maximum of 800 points each, for a total of 1600 (the worst possible score, IIRC, was 200 on each for 400). At some point after I graduated high school, they added a 3rd 800 point section (I think it might be an essay), so the maximum score went from 1600 to 2400.
Well, for this applet the optimal strategy might depend heavily on how exactly its tameness is executed, which isn't very enlightening.
Edit: Derp, I tried out top-to-bottom and got it in 572. Definitely better than left-to-right or normals-first-ltr.
I used top-to-bottom, but dires first on each level, and that seemed to work consistently pretty well.
I didn't think of that. I think that is more likely than my hypothesis. EY is telling us that the unicorn attack is a consequence of the roles arc.
Or he's telling us that Quirrell is playing the role of someone who is on the verge of dying.
I certainly agree that it's important to learn what we can and can't change, and how to change what we can change, and that it's important to teach kids things that it's important to learn.
I didn't intend to devolve into platitudes; sorry if that happened anyway. I was just trying to relate your comment to the general topic.
But people have a lot of control over many aspects of our physical appearance.
We also have a lot of control over many aspects of how "smart" we are.
Don't we?
What this means is that we should teach the kids what they can and can't change about those things, and how to change them (via hard work), instead of continuing to teach them that appearance and intelligence are completely fixed, and then rewarding them for those traits anyway.
I'd like to point out that romantic and/or sexual relationships do tend to work better if the people are attracted to each other. Appearance plays a role in many peoples' attractiveness functions. It's difficult or perhaps impossible to intentionally change one's attractiveness function, so this doesn't indicate a personality flaw or moral failure. Optimizing for attractive appearance at the expense of other things might be a mistake*, but most people would do best if they at least satisfice for it.
I'm sure some people do weight appearance for signaling value when choosing a partner, but I don't think it could be the only reason. Most people I have talked to about this say that appearances influence how attractive they find someone, and they don't all agree on what they find attractive, even within the same social circles.
*I know that the chemical things that happen in the brain when a person is in love can make them like things about the other person that they would ordinarily be bothered by. I remember several times when I started finding a person much more visually attractive than I had when I'd first met them when other things changed (getting to know them better, etc.), and also finding strangers who looked like them slightly attractive. My attraction function is really weird, though, so this isn't very strong evidence unless I see other people reporting the same experience.
Data point: your final paragraph is an accurate description of my expercience as well.
Over the long run Harry wants to be a scientist and no politician.
World dom... er, optimization doesn't include politics?
View more: Next
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
Do you know, I hadn't even thought of that?
You are perfectly correct, and I thank you for raising the question.
The only reason I see blue when I look up during the daytime at something higher than a ceiling, an airplane, or a cloud, is because the atmosphere is composed of reflective blue material (air) intervening between me and the darkness of space. I would still like an explanation from the great-great-grandparent as to what constitutes 'turning the sky green'.