Personally I would lower the Claddagh rings to :low. At Least in the northeast US every Irish girl I know wears one regardless of relationship status and doesn't pay attention to the direction of it.
To add to it. Next time you are at a big clothing store check out the styles of pregnancy clothing. They have elastics around the tummy and often layers for nursing. They are pretty recognizable and a tell-tale sign someone is pregnant or postpartum. It's not uncommon for women To wear pregnancy clothes for a while after the pregnancy as their body is still changing and it's hard to change your wardrobe with a little one.
New parents are always swaying back and forth regardless of whether they are with kids. It's funny once you see it.
Also: tripodding is something they tech you in EMT class as a telltale sign of respiratory distress. I shrugged it off in class but it's pretty reliable. Sitting down, knees apart, with hands or elbows on knees.
I forget the brand. But they are clogs (not wood) that look a bit more modern. They are apparently good on the feet and primarily worn by nurses.
Wanted to confirm. The map doesn't show it well but Boston folks primarily call it a bubbler. Source: from Boston and it's on this list of things people ask you to say
Eh I didn't think you can just ignore facts like the components of the bag. You could actually do this experiment, and the probability won't be 50%.
That's fair. I guess if you will allow me to re-state my idea with your ideas in mind:
Aggregate rating systems are best. But occasionally they are wrong. Sometimes I will see a movie has a high rotten tomatoes score but I still hated it. I don't watch a lot of movies so this happens often actually. Having someone similar to me, who is watching highly rated movies can usually save me time by predicting whether I will like something or not.
You are right aggregate is best. But I think having an aligned friend who knows your preferences can help build on top of that. Or rather help me filter.
I'm my original post I failed to realize that my brother and I are both watching movies that are highly rated. I think using both in conjunction works great. So I'm not disagreeing with you, rather building off your thoughts.
But to pose an interesting question. If tomorrow, rotten tomatoes had an option to find a user who EXACTLY matched the ratings you gave. For instance both of you gave Titanic a 7, Forest Gump a 8, etc. Then the algorithm tells you this user that most matches you, watched Shrek 6 yesterday and gave it a 10/10. Would you prefer that algorithms suggestion over just an aggregate average rating?
There are a lot of cool algorithms that could be applied to this, even a neural net that could take your past ratings and "predict" movies you would like next. I'm sure one might be more accurate than averaging method. SVN or KNN algorithms seem promising off the top of my head.
Forget where I read it, but this Idea seems similar. When responding to a request, being upfront about your boundaries or constraints feels intense but can be helpful for both parties. If Bob asks Alice to help him move, and Alice responds "sure thing" that leaves the interaction open to miscommunication. But if instead Alice says, " yeah! I am available 1pm to 5pm and my neck has been bothering me so no heavy lifting for me!" Although that's seems like less of a kind response Bob now doesn't have to guess at Alice's constraints and can comfortably move forward without feeling the need to tiptoe around how long and to what degree Alice can help.
Agreed
Maybe if you have very "standard" tastes this is good advice to get movies that appeal to large audiences.
If you were the type of person who ONLY likes movies where the guns are super realistic, you aren't going to love Titanic and other top-rated movies.
I have certain people I categorize as "well-aligned movie watchers" like my brother that I grew up with. We have similar tastes. I find that gets me further than aggregate rating systems.
I think when you say, "I don't think this is relevant" you mean... I agree with your premise (that user stories are related to the assumed intent bias) but I don't think that we should upend user stories yet because they do what they are supposed to.
To which I agree.
Development is complex and realistically even with user stories, developers are considering other users (not in the narrative). If you were to take away user stories and focus on tasks, developers would still imagine user intent. By using user stories we are just shifting focus on intent. Which I think is usually a net positive. This post helped me illuminate in my head where it might not be a net positive.
I may have not been clear. I am agreeing with the entire post. I agree with your comment too that "user stories" arose most likely for the same reason as this bias.
I also agree with you that figuring out intention is an important part of development. A majority of users will use my software with the same intent.
I just meant to say that I immediately thought of "user stories" while reading this post. My initial thought was that user stories focus too much on intent. For example, if you are hyper focused on the user trying to reset their password you may neglect the user who accidentally clicked the reset password button and just want to navigate back to the log-in page. Would there be benefit to removing the user story as a goal and just make the goal, create a reset password page? I agree with you though, user stories serve their purpose and might be more of a net-good. This post just helped me recognize a potential pitfall of them.
Dansko! Thats the clog!