Games are like books. Saying books are worthless because they don’t build “transferable skills” is absurd. But it’s obviously true of many books and sure, the most popular books don’t. But as a whole they definitely do.
I feel like there’s scientists must have spent a long time researching this seemingly new phenomenon before discovering that the sunk cost fallacy was widely studied. And at that point rather than spend the effort to correct their conclusions they decided to double down and spend even more effort on trying to spin their work as something new and unrelated to the sunk cost fallacy.
…thereby falling victim to the sunk cost fallacy themselves, amusingly.
Reminds me of the medical researcher Mary Tai[1] who published "A Mathematical Model for the Determination of Total Area Under Glucose Tolerance and Other Metabolic Curves" (ie reinvented integral calculus) and tried to double down in a similar fashion.
"This newly documented phenomenon has similarities with and differences from the sunk-cost fallacy; we see them as part of the same family of effects. In one instantiation, the sunk-cost fallacy can dissuade people from completing a goal (e.g., attending a show) if their initial investment failed to yield a return (e.g., a purchased ticket was lost). With doubling-back aversion, the question is not whether people complete a goal but rather what may discourage them from doing so efficiently. In another example, people display unwarranted escalations of commitment—irrationally persevering on a goal—in the hopes of delaying (and possibly escaping) an admission that their initial investments were actually misguided. Losses simply pile up as a result. Doubling-back aversion discourages people from issuing a course correction even when doing so would not require them to accept responsibility for choosing that longer course in the first place. After all, our participants had to travel down a pathway to even see that there was another route available or were first assigned to complete a task in a particular way before they were offered an alternative. That said, both phenomena emphasize that people do not want to take actions that would force themselves to view their previous efforts as a waste, although with doubling-back aversion it was not a waste that they could have avoided."
Is this the most groundbreaking study ever? No. But the researchers do seem to have found something worthy of comment, and I see no reason to believe that they weren't aware of the existing literature on the sunk cost fallacy when they started working on this. In general, you can't dismiss a study as trivially flawed or useless based solely on a popularization for general audiences; such popular explanations often omit context required to make the study make sense for scientifically literate people. Read the actual paper before dismissing it.
It's really subtle the difference between motives of "I have invested so much in this so I feel bad wasting that effort" v/s "I don't feel like turning back, if there's a way forward, I would take it"
I wonder if the sunk cost fallacy - that usually refers to an abstract cost, like time or money - would truly be the same effect as an aversion to retracing a path in 3D space.
Possible, or even likely, but interesting nonetheless. Towards the end of the article, they describe an interesting other direction of their research that's not so directly correlated with sunk cost:
> More recently, we’ve been examining a related form of hesitation. This time, it’s not in switching paths, but in committing to one at all.
> “While it might seem that having enticing options (e.g., a great apartment one could rent, a fun event one could sign up for) would make commitment easier, we’ve found that it’s often the loss of a great option that finally pushes people to choose. People often hold out for something even better, but the disappearance of a pretty good option inspires some pessimism that encourages people to grab onto what is as good as they can get for now.”
This is exactly my thought. I think what they've really discovered their own "publish or perish" grasping at straws reinvention by way of the emperor's new clothes. Perhaps that, in and of itself, requires future funding and publication if we're being 360 degrees honest.
> EU's legal arm can't extent outside the boarders of the EU, without an outright military invasion
All the lawsuits from EU against tech companies outside the EU have been carried out without any military invasions required. You are delusional if you think USA is going to go “Google won’t pay the fines, invade us if you want the money”
>You are delusional if you think USA is going to go “Google won’t pay the fines, invade us if you want the money”
Why don't you read my comment thoroughly before accusing people of being delusional? Google is registered in Europe(HQ in Ireland IIRC ) and does business in Europe as an European company, so there's a physical, legal and tax paying entity the EU can fine and even European management they can send to jail just in case they don't comply, same how they did with VW for the diesel scandal.
If you would have read my comment thoroughly (hard ask, I know), you would have seen I'm specifically asking about how would the EU fine foreign companies that have EU citizens' data but have no HQ or any legal entity in Europe that can be reached by EU law enforcement in case of GDPR violations.
K8s team insists k8s team needs to exist. Just fire them already, hire a consultant to set you up if you can’t do it yourself. And the difference in cost will certainly be covered by the savings on the k8s team.
No need to worry about them, they’ll easily get a job at Amazon running the infrastructure that you will use instead of running the infrastructure you would have built for them.
Letting consultants do this one-off is the worst you could do. If you can't do it yourself do it fully managed with your cloud provider, or hire a party which maintains k8s on a subscription basis
Why are you suddenly arguing against Israel? I mean he’s we know they have hidden nuclear weapons and will not enter into any deals or allow inspection. But they are on our side so we don’t care about that.
silly argument. iran is not a tiny country surrounded by much larger countries that want to run them into the sea. they should have invested that 500B into conventional forces instead - be a lot safer for that as a country (except that would threaten the regime).
I personally think that this would almost never the case because of the extremely skewed distribution of income in the sector. Almost everyone will be making so much less that it’s never even possible that you would be able to pay for dinner with your income and a few are making so much more that it’s never a question if dinner will be paid or not.
So it’s the e-mail exploit? If you e-mail someone and tell them to send you their password and they do, you suddenly have their password!? This is a very serious exploit in e-mail and need to be patched so it becomes impossible to do.
Your comment bears no resemblance with the topic. The attack described in the article consists of injecting a malicious prompt in a way that the target's agent will apply it.
Of course it will apply. Entire purpose of the agent is to give a response to a prompt. But to sound more dangareous let's call it "injecting". It's a prompt. You are not "injecting" anything. Agent pickups the prompt - that's its job, and execute - that is also its job.
> Of course it will apply. Entire purpose of the agent is to give a response to a prompt.
The exploit involves random third parties sneaking in their own prompts in a way that leads a LLM to run them on behalf of the repo's owner. This exploit can be used to leak protected information. This is pretty straight forward and easy to follow and understand.
Bad analogy. It's more like indexing a password field in plain text, then opening an API to everyone and setting "guardrails" and permissions on the "password" field. Eventually, someone will extract the data that was indexed.
