The problem with riling up crazy people is they are crazy, and as a result somewhat unpredictable.

Is .ee one of the ones with bad rep? I picked it randomly.

That shit is still everywhere where I am. Vote as if he’s a popular as he ever was, because in some areas he sure seems to be.

I actually am genuinely interested in that fellow’s reasoning behind believing both that his job of managing people is successful, and also that all the people he managed do not like being managed by him.

Anecdotally, I have encountered workplaces containing a manager or employee that was universally disliked, and it was never because they were doing an awesome job. They did appear to think that people disliked them personally but benefited from their results. Often they seem to also believe those results would be unachievable in ways that do not produce the distaste. I am not sure these contradictions are entirely defensible.

So are you just one guy with a lot of time and accounts to use, or is this like, a group of people working to make these low effort bait posts? I realize that might come across as dismissive, but I’m genuinely interested. Let’s chat!

It’s like you’re not even trying.

Nah, it wasn’t very clear in retrospect. That kind of snide comment doesn’t really translate to text very well. My bad!

Well, gaslighting would be trying to get you to question reality in some way. I don’t think that fits here. I was more implying he was being a dickhead. Because he was.

What’s outrageous about what I said that I read in an article?

Fairly confident he’s calling you a liar and suggesting the things you claim to have seen in an article you never really saw, and are instead offering a claim of your own under the guise of it having been in an article.

Pretty cool way to interact with another human being, if you think about it.

I feel you, I don’t have a lot of time either - more than that, but not a huge amount. That’s why I prefer having more viable builds. I could play Path of Exile, for example, but I don’t want to spend hours trying to learn how to even play the game this particular season so that I can make a character that won’t be a giant ball of crap. If there’s more build diversity, you’re more likely to do okay just doing whatever you want to do, without needing to research builds ahead of time.

D3 has builds that are far superior to everything else, but I don’t think D4 is any better - nerfs mid-cycle or not. Using a bad build is punished less in D4, but you’re still going to be on struggle street if you pick a shitty build. With D3 and D4 if what you want to do doesn’t just happen to be one of the good builds your character is gonna suck. It matters less in those games though, since gear is absurdly easy to get in D3, and respeccing is fairly accessible in both games.

In fairness to your point though, back when D3 was new and its hardest difficulty was borderline impossible, I found a mage build that could do it, and when I had finally gotten the gear I needed (NOT easy back then) it got nerfed the same day I was able to use it. That was super frustrating. I would argue they did that to help push the real money auction house though, not promote build diversity - don’t need to buy gear if there’s a class that doesn’t need you to. That’s the cynic in me I suppose.

Honestly, yes. I used to be in the “just buff other things” camp, and while Diablo 3 is fun enough, it already shows what happens when you do that.

Build diversity > screen go boom.

What’s that from? The Simpsons?

Alternatively, maybe a better work culture that could be advocated for by the union would result in better working conditions, more realistic deadlines, happier developers, and by virtue of these things a reduction in the kind of error you are referencing.

But also people make mistakes sometimes. Unions don’t cause that, and I’m skeptical of claims that they seriously aid or promote mistakes either.

I was told it is also less likely to succeed the longer you’ve had it. Relying on reversals is a less than ideal plan.

Oh yes it’s all clear to me now.

The p value is effectively the % chance something happened by coincidence, and not because of a real effect. Like flipping a coin and getting the same side several times in a row. P value is an assessment of that likelihood. Less than .05 means a less than 5% chance of that. I don’t know what the other bit is, except it was likely a method of statistical analysis.

It’s a way of saying that the results they found were very unlikely to be due to chance.