Circadian rhythm is 40-70% genetic. And there's an evolutionary advantage to not having everyone asleep at the same time. Early humans would have been safer at night with some people in the group awake.
But how big is the inter-person variation? "Out of some 200 hours for the entire study, for only 18 minutes were they actually all sleeping synchronously" is a pretty useless quote -- how much of that was due to a handful of extreme outliers? People's sleep times were obviously not evenly distributed over the other 1422 minutes per day. And obviously environment is going to play an outsize role in causing outliers, since people who work the graveyard shift aren't going to spontaneously revert to a normal sleep schedule when they enter a sleep lab.
Half-Life fans are currently leaving negative reviews on Dota 2 because Valve won't make HL3. Recent reviews went from "overwhelmingly positive" to "mixed".
Can someone shed some light on why we should care about the non-dictatorship requirement in Arrow's theorem? Reading the non-dictatorship section on the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy makes it sound like it's a meaningless assumption. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/arrows-theorem/#NonDic If someone's preferences always aligning with society's preferences results in them being a "dictator", so what?
Exactly. This is why Arrow's theorem has no applicability to practical use of voting systems in the real world. The dictatorship property is often misinterpreted.
Do you think my comment was out of proportion or very different in tone to what he said?
I think there is a noticeable tone difference, assuming one is sensitive to these sorts of things.
He dismissed Brie's words as "typical feminist schtick"
While this is true, as a whole if you compare his first couple of sentences to yours, his remains much more closely related to the overall subject matter. He dismisses the author's words, but goes right into talking about video games.
On the other hand, your opening is too focused on tnones. The subject is always tnones and neglects the topic of video games. You can see this with the constant instances of "you" throughout the first line of the comment.
Now maybe this is because you're trying to establish the thesis that tnones is part of the problem as you state in your first line. However, I think approaching your rebuttal this way has led us to where we are now where you come off as condescending. Ultimately it distracts too much from the subject matter and distracts from the points you make later.
Simply leading off with "we do have a culture problem that is well documented" without anything else in the first line would have been a better way to start. The impact of a statement like "you have identified yourself as part of the problem" would have been better in your conclusion after all was said and done.
You're right, I hear you, and I appreciate the thoughtful analysis. I could have skipped the first line entirely and my comment would have been better for it. Notes for next time. I'm taking the punishment and leaving it there.
My mistake was letting @tnones' comment bother me and replying while irritated.
So let's get back to the subject matter. Is there a gender gap in games, and what should or should not be done about it? Is @tnones right that there's no evidence of a gap?
I find the entire quoted line to be unnecessary. The initial question "Does this article scare you?" doesn't serve a purpose, it's just filler. I wouldn't expect the other person to really respond to such a question, nor do I think the conversation should be or is trying to be centered on the question and its possible answer. The post would have been better off not being framed by that question and instead just dive right into the actual arguments.
I also play Dota 2 on and off, since multiplayer interactions in it are so intense and so unpredictable
It's a shame to see how AAA companies have butchered the Dota-like genre. There's Valve's Dota 2 which is the shining example of what the genre should be and then there's all these garbage rehashes out there that have just tried to dumb down the game or introduce some kind of gimmick or cliche.
AAA games are just a race to the bottom in terms of design. They just try to appeal to the lowest common denominator and games get more shallow and casual with each iteration.
I'm not talking about games overall, just games made by AAA companies. There's certainly still games that cater to a hardcore/competitive audience but you have to look a little harder for them and they're usually coming from indie developers. But for a AAA studio casual is where the money is and it's the philosophy driving their game design even though from their perspective they'd probably call "easier to get into" or more "intuitive" or "streamlined".
Look at the difference between Starcraft Broodwar and Starcraft 2, Diablo 2 and Diablo 3, Dota and every clone like LoL and Heroes of the Storm, Hearthstone, Overwatch. All of the sequels and successors are more shallow and casual than what came before. And the novelties these games introduce are better characterized as gimmicks to hook casual players. Why make a game that caters to a hardcore audience? That's just limiting your playerbase and limiting your potential profit.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-40568997