He could have left out the “Top 10” in the headline and all the numbers. Then, I guess, you wouldn’t hate it anymore (at least if you don’t also have something against ordinary lists), even though nothing has changed about the content. Is that really the case?
(Please note that the author doesn’t claim that the myths are the definite ten or something similarly grandiose – they are just his ten personal favorites.)
That's exactly how I felt, so I changed the title (which I rarely do) for submission. This is interesting content which only becomes distracting by putting it in a list.
No matter what you do, someone will find the weakest link to pick on. Reminds me of a few years ago when my mother gave me 2 sweaters for my birthday. When I next saw her, I wore one of them and she said, "What's the matter, don't you like the other one?"
Call me picky I guess but I want a story, you know, with a beginning and an end. Not just a collection of stuff the author dumped into a WYSIWYG editor.
No reflection on you for submitting it, of course, but it's the laziest way there is to write something and I come here b/c often it's avoided.
This subthread is 'guesstimates'. Redorb gave his honest guesstimate. Time will tell if it's right, but in the meantime it's rude to vote this comment down to -4 fade-out (where I saw it) just because you disagree.
Have terms been disclosed? Until they are, Redorb could be right. At least he described the parameters of his 'guesstimate' and put it on the record next to his name and history of contributions. Anonymous downvoters are just grunting, "no."
What people objected to were the "great signing bonuses". For someone who already has oodles of money (which, being early Google employees, we assume they do), 200K is not that much.
It was a fair comment in the context of the thread. Predictions should be rewarded or punished based on whether they eventually pan out, not armchair snap-judgment popularity.
The fact that it's different from the pack of similar guesses makes it a more valuable contribution, to me, even if it winds up wrong.
It was just a guess, thanks for bringing the comment back to 1 (even) - I now see that TC has it at 50mm, that is really high in my head... and now twitter has one less exit option.
It did say 15mm was cash. Guess that is still 50% off...
But they have a landing page explaining what they are, and they're obviously already doing their PR push. How many eyeballs are they getting that, instead of saying "I'll have to come back and check it out when it goes live", are saying "Uh, what?" and won't go back?
I don't think any of these things are a big deal. Real people don't religiously follow the 37signals blog and shun any company that ignores their principles.
Did my friend recommend this? Does the site save me money? Great, I don't care that there are 7 steps instead of 4.
As someone who spent about 18 months building a No Limit Hold'em bot, I can safely tell you that the "bot problem" is not as big of a problem as it might seem like it would be.
Not only do you have to program a winning strategy--which is very hard--but you have to not get caught--which is also very hard.
Both 'very hard' problems seem best solvable by a tiny bit of collusion with the site operators: run the bots as shills, disproportionately pair them against weak-player-heavy tables, drag just a little on enforcement of bot-detection mechanisms.
I know, I know: "if the operator is dishonest there are easier ways to cheat". But this looser collaboration between bot-operators and site-operators is easier to disguise, or to compartmentalize. It doesn't require dishonest software, for example.
It might even be easier for perpetrators to rationalize. ("These players are dumping their money anyway; it might as well be to my confederates' bots. Bot-training is a skill, too!")
1) I
2) Hate
3) Top
4) 10
5) Lists