Discussion article for the meetup : Rescheduled: Chicago Calibration Game

Discussion article for the meetup : Rescheduled: Chicago Calibration Game

Discussion article for the meetup : Chicago: Seeing with Fresh Eyes Review

Discussion article for the meetup : Chicago: Seeing with Fresh Eyes Review

Discussion article for the meetup : Chicago Open Discussion

Discussion article for the meetup : Chicago Open Discussion

Discussion article for the meetup : Chicago: Discuss Thinking, Fast and Slow

Discussion article for the meetup : Chicago: Discuss Thinking, Fast and Slow

Discussion article for the meetup : Fermi Estimates in Chicago

Discussion article for the meetup : Fermi Estimates in Chicago

Discussion article for the meetup : Chicago Organizational Meeting and Open Discussion

Discussion article for the meetup : Chicago Organizational Meeting and Open Discussion

Discussion article for the meetup : Zendo in the West Loop

Discussion article for the meetup : Zendo in the West Loop

Discussion article for the meetup : Predictions Chi September 15 (September 8 -- cancelled)

Discussion article for the meetup : Predictions Chi September 15 (September 8 -- cancelled)

The language you speak may affect how you approach your finances, according to a working paper by economist Keith Chen (seen via posts by Frances Woolley at the Worthwhile Canadian Initiative and Economy Lab). It appears that languages that require more explicit future tense are associated with lower savings. A few interesting quotes from a quick glance:

...[I]n the World Values Survey a language’s FTR [Future-Time Reference] is almost entirely uncorrelated with its speakers’ stated values towards savings (corr = -0.07). This suggests that the language effects I identify operate through a channel which is independent of conscious attitudes towards savings. [emphasis mine]

Something else that I wasn't previously aware of:

Lowenstein (1988) finds a temporal reference-point effect: people demand much more compensation to delay receiving a good by one year, (from today to a year from now), than they are willing to pay to move up consumption of that same good (from a year from now to today).

Chris Pruett writes on the Robot Invader blog:

Good player handling code is often smoke and mirrors; the player presses buttons and sees a reasonable result, but in between those two operations a whole lot of code is working to ensure that the result is the best of many potential results.  For example, my friend Greggman discovered that Mario 3's jumping rules change depending on whether or not a level has slopes in it. Halo's targeting reticle famously slows as it passes over an enemy to make it easier to target with an analog stick without using an auto-aim system. When Spider-Man swings, he certainly does not orient about the spot where his web connects to a building (at least, he didn't in the swinging system I wrote).

Good player handling code doesn't just translate the player's inputs into action, it tries to discern the player's intent. Once the intended action has been identified, if the rules of the game allow it, good player handling code makes the action happen–even if it means breaking the rules of the simulation a little. The goal of good handling code isn't to maintain a "correct" simulation, it's to provide a fun game. It sucks to miss a jump by three centimeters. It sucks to take the full force of a hit from a blow that visually missed. It sucks to swing into a brick wall at 80 miles per hour instead of continuing down the street. To the extent that the code can understand the player's intent, it should act on that intent rather than on the raw input. Do what I mean, not what I say.

I suppose this explains why I am better at arcade bowling games than I am at actual bowling. More seriously, while I had some vague awareness of this, I am slightly surprised at the breadth (Mario 3!?) and depth to which this "control re-interpretation" takes place.