guiscreenshots's comments

guiscreenshots | 7 years ago | on: Show HN: MazeBattles.com – Race to solve generated mazes

Love the idea! Execution could be much better:

1. Don't make people watch the generation of the maze. Why on god's green earth do I need to wait a full minute to play the game? It takes less time to solve the maze.

2. Allow for random matchmaking

3. Let me hold down a directional key to move multiple steps in the same direction. Feels like a lot of button mashing without this functionality.

Hope to see this grow!

guiscreenshots | 7 years ago | on: Signaling in tech is some fucked up shit (2016)

I would imagine some of the problems people have with web developers is this inflated sense of ... something. Comparing GMail with the moon landing is hilariously out of touch. If you hear these sorts of statements enough times it's easy to associate most web developers with delusions of grandeur.

guiscreenshots | 8 years ago | on: The Role of Luck in Life Is Still Misunderstood

>> It could be that the results were built into the model’s design.

>Every true mathematical proposition is a tautology. I don't find this point particularly convincing. As long as the model's predictions match reality in interesting ways, it can lend possible insights on why reality might have certain characteristics.

I think the problem is that nothing about the model lines up with reality. For example:

- Each agent begins with an identical amount of capital. -- nothing like the real world.

- Every 6 months you have the possibility of doubling or halving your capital. -- nothing like the real world.

- Chance of doubling capital is proportional to talent. -- nothing like the real world.

As an argument for such a simple model they provide:

> The previous agents’ rules are intentionally simple and can be considered widely shareable, since they are based on the common sense evidence that success, in everyone life, has the property to both grow or decrease very rapidly.

Sure, success/failure _can_ increase or decrease rapidly, but is it the rule? Arguing the basis of your entire model on "common sense" seems weak. It would be better if they had provided at least some real world data where this pattern emerges. In my experience people seem to move a little bit up or down from their baseline, but I have never personally seen a swing from rags to riches or the other way around.

If they had begun by drawing parallels to the ways in which we see the real world and letting the model simulate it into the future it would be more compelling. As it stands, it seems like a set of arbitrary rules designed to reach their desired conclusion, albeit weakly through "it looks pretty similar".

page 1