Love the approach. Then they showed their results, and it was only 606 "tests" (showings) of 250 images? On average, just a little more than one same and one different pair-showing for each image. Doesn't strike me as a huge sample.
Based on what criteria, exactly? 606 comparisons is more than enough to rule out large differences, especially considering that the testers were heavily primed to look for even the tiniest difference and making forced-choices about difference or no difference. Less than 1% difference suggests no real difference.
CAN-SPAM does not actually require one-click unsubscribe, but many senders include it anyway.
From the primary source: "Give a return email address or another easy Internet-based way to allow people to communicate their choice [to opt-out] to you. You may create a menu to allow a recipient to opt out of certain types of messages, but you must include the option to stop all commercial messages from you. "
You're both kind of right. A one-click unsubscribe is not required, but if you do use a web link for unsubscribe, the form can't require the user to enter any information beyond their email address. (Unsubscribe forms that require you to login are probably violating this law.)
"Reply with the word REMOVE in the subject" is also a CAN-SPAM complaint unsubscribe method, though.
It's actually surprisingly difficult to find original, authoritative sources on what the law requires. You linked to the full text of the bill Congress passed, but that left all the implementation details up to the FTC. The rule I'm talking about was not in the original bill or in the original set of FTC rules, but was added later by the FTC in 2008.
From 16 CFR 316.5:
> Neither a sender nor any person act-
> ing on behalf of a sender may require
> that any recipient pay any fee, provide
> any information other than the recipi-
> ent’s electronic mail address and opt-
> out preferences, or take any other
> steps except sending a reply electronic
> mail message or visiting a single Inter-
> net Web page, in order to [...]
The tech is already on the roadmap for set top boxes and roku-type devices to scan the room for wifi and Bluetooth devices in order to determine how many many people (and who) are in the room, and tailor the ads accordingly.
>Brailsford believed that if it was possible to make a 1% improvement in a whole host of areas, the cumulative gains would end up being hugely significant.
If there are ten components that make up the total, and you make a 1% improvement in each of those components, the cumulative gains for the total is... 1%. Maybe I'm being pedantic; I realize the main point is probably something closer to what the parent comment articulated. As worded in the article is not accurate.
My grandmother is an avid player and has told the story of how she used to play with the inventor, back before the game was sold and mass-marketed! The rules were different back then, and I believe, better. Here is the variation we play with:
A common problem with scrabble is that, given a bad hand of tiles, boards get very "closed" very quickly with three- and four-letter words that offer little to no opportunity to play off of. The solution is to allow tile-swapping, on your turn, before you play a word. Many people do this with blanks - swap a valid letter in your hand for a blank on the board. We do it with ALL letters (on your turn, one letter at a time, as many swaps as you want before you lay your word).
The result is an exponentially increased field of possibilities, longer words and a more open board. And more fun for even novice players, once they get the hang of it. It's not uncommon for intermediate players to get three or more "bingos" in an average game this way.
I'm intrigued but do not quite understand exactly what you mean by tile-swapping. Do you mean that you can take, say, FATE on the board and swap out an L in your hand to make it LATE, taking the F for yourself? I assume you could then in the same turn, say, play an R off the LATE? Tile exchanges are not scored?
Do you have problems where the slightly better players find ways to endlessly re-use the high-scoring tiles, thus annoying the heck out of the other players? ("Oh, geez, there he goes making JINX on a triple-word score again.")
Yes, sometimes if you have six out of a seven-letter word and just need one, you might do several swaps to get that last letter you need for the bingo. Which is why, since the turns can be longer, it takes first-timers some getting used to.
I believe ultimately the game becomes more fun and playable. It also tends to smooth out the "luck" of drawing a Z or an X, since as you point out these letters get re-used by all players throughout the game.
I'll have to try it. My wife keeps wanting to play but we both end up having to play a metagame of not making moves that lock up the board, which is... well... a very different game. We do have a long-standing house rule where the list of all valid 2-letter words is kept open and public, which does help quite a bit.
>There's generally a shortage of tenure-track jobs relative to the number of qualified PhDs, so when companies poach faculty, it improves everyone's career options.
Good for the PhDs; bad for the schools, who must now find more funding to retain the same level of talent, thus making future academic research (e.g. the next gen of robots) more challenging to accomplish
Even at schools with actual athletics programs and budgets, most PhD students are paid with grant money won by their advisors, or through government fellowships. Not by the university. (I'm a PhD student at CMU paid with NSF grant money.)
Also of note, CMU just introduced a new presidential fellowship to fund undergraduate and graduate students in all fields .