I think what they're describing isn't related to video games. It's just that using your brain a certain way makes it better at that type of task. The idea that playing Mario 64 improves the spatial reasoning isn't surprising because most levels are large and open and require spatial reasoning whereas first person shooters often featured tight, indoor corridors where the player cannot observe landmarks easily from different locations and must therefore hardcore directions into their memory.

"One freaking hundred years, or something, after women started voting. What happened in that time? Women were blind to say the least?"

Are you suggesting the fact that women did not speak up before indicates that there is nothing worth speaking up about now?

No, I am not suggesting that. Some, not few, women speak up and take action. What's then the difference between women who do and those who don't? Especially if they have the same background. What about the women that, in the same conditions, have no reason to speak up? Or women are victims and need men's help by default?

This article seems to ignore the added revenue from a driver having a car and driving people around for Uber. The better metric is probably the average profitability of a driver with a leased vehicle.

The numbers in the article came from Uber. If there was a better metric they could have used you'd think they would have done.

Isn't there some debate as to whether there is profitability though? Or have they definitively made the turn away from investor money subsidizing below cost rides?

They're still subsidizing rides though. This program is paying for the privilege to lose more money!

In most markets, Uber is also losing money on a per-ride basis. So, the lease subsidy is offset by the rider subsidy ... to give a larger negative number.

There's also debt servicing that Uber needs to pay for the billion dollar line of credit it received and tapped. It's possible the true metric is actually worse.

What's the process like to get a game on the platform? Are there any requirements for exclusivity? Any expected monthly revenues for a reasonably popular game? This sounds like a good idea and I'm looking to publish a title at some point within a year.

Hey! Shoot me an email at distribution@rootsoft.com

Our process isn't super formalized yet, but we think we make it pretty easy for devs. We don't really have expected revenue numbers, since we just launched!

ARMs is solid. First time I have preferred motion controls over traditional inputs (for entertainment, not efficacy).

What's the safety like relative to other options in that price range for a place like India?

Probably just you. This product is indeed capable of changing the world for the better if scaled up. "Saving it" is hyperbole. But it's not about making a nice meal for vegetarians, it's about sustainable meat consumption for a growing population.

It's not just him.

>This product is indeed capable of changing the world for the better if scaled up. "Saving it" is hyperbole.

But "changing the world" isn't hyperbole?

> But it's not about making a nice meal for vegetarians, it's about sustainable meat consumption for a growing population.

What? Meat eaters aren't going to choose fake meat no more than vegetarians are going to choose fake vegetables/fruits.

People are still going to hunt, still going to keep livestock and still going to consume meat. We are omnivores after all.

Also, meat production is HIGHLY sustainable already. We waste tons of meat because we have such an excess of it.

Meat eaters will eat fake meat if economics incentive them too. You don't need to completely switch over to impact the world. Growing meat is a substantial waste of energy and nutrients. Unless you think we will never struggle to produce enough food, it's hard to reconcile how you can think we won't run into issues with meat.

Feedback is a hard problem but this sounds fluffy and unhelpful. Are there any tools out there that have effectively been implemented in a large organization to facilitate feedback?

The only one I've seen work at any kind of scale is anonymous peer-to-peer feedback where the company only sees aggregate numbers. You pick who rates you, but you have to pick X number from your direct group, X from groups you support, X from leaders, etc.

Doesn't help the company do anything actionable at an individual level, but does give you a more clear idea of how others see you. Which is more likely to feel actionable to you. Less threatening if there is real assurance that only you see the scores too.

Of course, you still need something for leaders so they can dole out whatever limited bonus or promotion opportunities, so it isn't a panacea.

> Of course, you still need something for leaders so they can dole out whatever limited bonus or promotion opportunities, so it isn't a panacea.

But, how do you ensure that that feedback even plays a role in one's review? In most companies I've worked, I'm skeptical. At the end of the day, one's job performance is judged by a human that is free to use or ignore all this feedback. And that human is usually your direct manager, so they often already have their own biases and self-generated feedback in their own head. "I think this direct report of mine is performing badly, but all of their feedback is good so I'll give him a raise" - said no manager ever.

Right. I pointed out it was useful for the person getting feedback, and not useful for the boss, company to do reviews.

I have seen no process that helps make reviews better.

Not really. Mostly because feedback by its nature is personal and doesn't scale.

There are tools to send out surveys which somewhat-anonymize feedback by methods like "at least three people must answer". It's not really helpful for anything that requires full sentences, though - you'll be able to tell fairly quickly from speech patterns who says what.

The things you can do as an org:

* Encourage a blame-free culture.[1]

* Mandate it on a regular basis (and make sure the mandate is followed), with a goal of going to "continuous" feedback.

* Give people lightweight tools to collect quick feedback

* Provide pseudo-anonymization in those tools to remove the barrier to reply

Hey, look - it's like CI, just for people :)

This seems to describe a group which bought ad space. That's not google's doing.

Glossing through save the cat- it doesn't seem like a restrictive guide, but rather a set of reasonable narrative components, like stating the theme and having a narrative catalyst. Frankly this seems fine, if not beneficial. I would be more concerned about the formulas that drive your average Michael Bay quality film or second-by-second construction of trailers.

The key new idea in Save the Cat is that both dramatic elements and pacing are standarized. Save the Cat tells you on what page of a screenplay the various elements should appear. Screen time allocation is rigid.

Yeah... and that's not really accurate.