skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
If say some person knows two people and that one tested as INTP and other as ESFJ and doesn't know for a fact who had which test results. Are you really sure they won't have better than even odds at figuring out which is which based on their interactions with the people that don't involve asking for their MBTI test results? If so, based on what study? If you can't demonstrate that, on what do you base that it has no predictive power?
If you have a reasonable methodology to generate the comparison, I think being able to tell someone they are a Sith Lord can be helpful. I think tests can help provide a different perspective to people. I think tests are an issue when they present traits as concrete and unable to be changed, or only present the positive aspects of your personality.
I think the reason you were getting eaten alive was because your comment somehow confused the design being similar with that somehow being bad. Steve Jobs was always about refining and, when he found a design he liked, he stuck with it. For nearly the entire iPhone's existence, Jony Ive has been the one that has decided the design of the phone. I would imagine that if he's happy with it, Steve would have been too.

You're totally right with your comment but I think that the context of the other posts made it seem like you were suggesting something you weren't.
As a society, we believe in a lot of pseudo-scientific garbage, from management principles, to nutrition theories, to psychological tests. Ironically it's an outgrowth of our glorification of science and education: kids are taught from an early age to defer to those who clothe themselves in the trappings of the academic, and so as adults people voluntarily entertain very stupid ideas so long as they sound sufficiently "science-y."
I feel the developer experience has improved substantial, mostly because homebrew is simply amazingly stable and up-to-date. I don't care about the build-in ruby or git because it's replaced immediately anyway. I guess the experience is different for people doing system-level C.
If we're talking about supporting a family then having subsidized nurseries, good pediatric care, schools, social support structures etc. are definitely worth it.

If we're talking about single healthy people working for equity trying to cut cost of living in hope of big payout down the road then the difference between 40% and 10% income tax is huge and you're not really getting much out of your taxes.
Let's not overgeneralize, many Americans are bothered by this and have gone to great lengths to correct the record with the truth. For example, Columbus day was yesterday, but where I live the day has been renamed Indigenous Peoples Day. We have taken Columbus off the pedestal and recognize the world for what it really is and not the myths we were taught in school.
Ezl, Spark, MPI Experiments on HPC, EC2 and Multicore
Some people may score same results for the entire life, just as some unlucky molecula of oxygen can stay in same cubical centimeter of the room for a long time. Statistically it's possible. But it does not matter, when you need predictions for the entire ensemble. If real predictive power of MBTI is low, if the cost of mistake is high (e.g. when you do not hire a star because of this test or when you promote to management position a guy with promising test score), then this typology does not make sense and must be avoided. Since there's no scientific proof of predictive power of this theory, then it's garbage.
It is easy to come to blaming others for something that is, to a high degree, one's own fault. Much of the losses sustained by the Soviets during the war were due to the pitiless practice of a forced sacrificing of soldiers' lives in trying to achieve military objectives. All sides were doing that, but nothing can be compared to the scale on which it was practiced by the Soviet military command.
Psychopathy might be a factor but I don't think the instinct for violence is limited to psychopaths.

Non-psychopaths simply dehumanize their victims to suppress that empathy.
If you have failed to take a site down in 15 minutes, continuing for longer is not going to make a difference. Also the attacker may be renting time on the botnet.
Really? I used to have to take these tests in the '80s but nobody has made me do one for decades. I thought we were all past this hoax years ago.
Woo. Its full of Woo. Now let me back in Hal
As a sysadmin/IT person, this looks pretty helpful in making user training pretty easy.

The user tracking would help with ensuring that our userbase actually watched our policy videos too. Love it.
I guess I just bought the right yet boring phone .. the iPhone 7.

The Note 7 looked crazy innovative besides full waterproofing, iris scanning..it be turned into a deadly weapon that could be used for mass destruction :-/

On a side note such a phone that floating around could be used by terrorists on planes. How will airlines handle this?
I don’t feel that it’s meaningless. I’ve taken it multiple times in a span of a decade and most of the times I get the same result (INTJ) - I guess P’s and J’s must be pretty dominant in here. As any test, it gives me a rough estimate. It’s not meant to define you, it’s meant to give you a guideline to understand yourself better. In that aspect it works just fine for me.
The goal of the test is just to give an approximation. The test is not accurate (and is not claiming to be).

The core of the theory is to highlight natural preferences in the way we use cognitive functions. It's a pretty good and useful model. It's not a definite one though, like all the models we have it's meant to be improved and replaced over the years (like in physics).

99% of the critics about MBTI are focusing on the tests (which I agree are not accurate) and the authors don't understand the theory behind it - which is the really useful part. (Carl Jung's work, cognitive functions preferences, etc)
Sure. But the bank isn't going to give random Joe a loan to buy a Monet. That's why all this is far-fetched. There are scenarios that could result in 20MM loans being suddenly called. People with little assets generally don't get those loans though.

It's doubly far-fetched to talk about loans to individuals for $20MM. If you're applying for a $20MM loan, you should have an accountant and your accountant should have told you to put this kind of thing in a corporation. You'll still lose a lot but it shouldn't bankrupt you personally.
The shuttle was for the most part a terrible program. It cost an enormous amount of money compared to its benefits. It would have been cheaper to continue sending rockets than trying to maintain and fly the shuttle fleet.
Another solution is to search for the words in the headline. This works for me even in a non-incognito window. Very little effort required.
> whether there's any information gain from knowing a person's previous MBTI results for subsequent tests

That doesn't seem like the proper question. Specifically, it works only to predict future MBTI results, not anything further. That's fine for height and weight because those values are robust to small/moderate changes in value.

MBTI already has low predictive power about real-world content, and high sensitivity to change (on the margins; it also suffers from applying a clustered model to non-clustered data). So if retest reliability is anything less than excellent, I worry that our predictive power has been almost totally destroyed.

To provide a new analogy, this is like variance in number of fingers. The significance of 11 vs 10 vs 9 isn't proportional to magnitude, so we wouldn't accept "small" counting errors.

None of that says that "I'm an INTP" is meaningless, but I suspect that MBTI is no better, or even worse, than non-formalized personality summaries.
My dad had his IT revolution moment when he encountered the iPad. To me it was just a device with limited capabilities, for him is the predeferred medium of content consumption.

That said he still prefers sending his emails with his 12 year old Window XP laptop running Thunderbird.
From the order "all hands on deck", perhaps so that the captain can address the entire crew from the sterncastle.

In my experience, this is the sort of meeting that completely wastes a shocking amount of everyone's time, and the Flavor-ade that HR always distributes there tastes very strange.

In my opinion, a company-wide mandatory meeting should be held no more often than owner/shareholder meetings, and only for time-sensitive issues that affect the entire company, such that you want everyone to hear that news, spun correctly from your good ol' trustworthy and reliable CEO, instead of getting rumors with varying levels of substantiation from the Internet.

If you want to give out awards and reinforce corporate culture, make that a voluntary meeting, and bribe people to come to it with gratis food and drink, or door prizes, or some form of entertainment.
I think Jobs did believe in Unix, as a way to have a system that doesn't fall down all the time; just he wasn't perhaps on board with all the crusty bits that come with Unix.
Rats with wings
Why though, isn't it an OK assumption that anyone who can afford solar panels or whatever buys internet access before that?
Is road damage from vehicles the main cause for road maintenance? In the midwest, I am 90% sure that the reason roads break apart is the freeze and thaw cycles in winter. I suspect deserts have something similar going on with hot summer days.

There are roads I know of that almost never see a car (say a few a month, weird dead-end roads).. and they wear down just as fast as main streets.
That's not how science works. The burden is not on me to prove MBTI does not have external validity, the burden is on the MBTI to prove it does have it. You have the chain of cause and effect backwards.

If you say "the sky is green," it's not my job to prove to you it's not. It's your job to prove it is. You're the one making the claim.

But here is a (more politely worded than I) paper on the MBTI's ineffectiveness for your perusal: http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article... - simply googling "mbti external validity" will also give you plenty of explanation. I also recommend looking at the many studies that review cites, since its whole purpose is amassing information on whether the MBTI is effective.
Because they want to work there.
Deanna Aaron: 4 Amazingly Effective Ways to Nurture Leads for Your SaaS Business
Yeah, I am inclined to agree. However, part of systems engineering is figuring out where technical conversations happen. Apache has "if it didn't happen on the mailing list, it didn't happen" as a rule precisely because they want to avoid the unreliability of serendipitously overhearing conversations, precisely because that's important to how they engineer systems. I would be a fan of a system design / an office layout where everyone has a private room and all conversations default to happening in email or group chat, and in-person conversations (which are, on occasion, definitely needed!) require some activation energy.

However, lots of in-person offices like these serendipitous conversations, and that's often pitched as an advantage of open plan layouts. That's also pitched as an advantage of getting lunch together, team outings, etc. etc. If you're going to decide to use this advantage (which I think is okay, but suboptimal), you had better put some systems engineering thought into how you want to use this advantage.
Why is the developer being so dense? Just being difficult for no reason because he has a stick up his ass.

"You're sure you want that statement to become public" it literally makes no sense...

All he's done is posting that Apple call has burnt every bridge he had with them, and made Apple look great. Literally they sound very professional on that call and very willing to help him, and instead he is just being unnecessarily difficult.
Reminds me of this QDB quote: http://qdb.us/308942
You're conflating two things here - the instrument, which is the survey, and the data it is measuring - the MBTI. Even if we assume the MBTI itself is accurate - that is, it is possible to categorize the entire human race into 16 distinct personality categories, the fluctuating survey results indicate that the instrument used to measure it is wildly imprecise, and using it to make any sort of important decision is irresponsible.
Which is the fundamental failure. Picking E v. I says little about relative magnitude. 'E' might be slightly larger than 'I' but below the test's noise floor so you show up 'I' slightly more frequently. Or 'E' might significantly higher than 'I' so it's a consistent result.

Further, it says nothing about the fluctuations in magnitude over time, some days 'E' might be more important than 'I' and it really can swap on other days. Or even how accurately people self report.
And none of them American born Christians. What's your point?

Last year: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aziz_Sancar
There feels like no right side in this story.

* Apple terminated both accounts because of fraudulent activity, but only one account was contacted to let them know of this activity.

* Kapeli shared financial information and test devices with this other account, whether it was a relative or not.

* Apple said "Hey, write a post telling the whole story and all will be cleared. Just don't say we were at fault."

* Kapeli agreed he would draft and send. Kapeli apparently did but never heard back.

* Apple had a spokesperson come out that painted a different a picture that basically seem to throw Kapeli under the bus.
5900 online stores found skimming [analysis]
I agree that my post was a bit snarky—what can I say, I hadn't had my coffee yet. If the author is a high school kid, he has my apologies for the snark, and encouragement to dig much deeper into the subject matter as well as what is logically and rhetorically sound, and take another pass at his theory.

That said, there's an epidemic of know-it-all-ness in this industry, and this article doesn't pass even the most cursory of reviews of Real Information™. I agree that the analogy is commonplace, but the reason its an analogy and not a model is that it breaks down rapidly under scrutiny.
You don't want to deal with a teenage AI.
This is great! Now I won't have to write paragraphs explaining design decisions to my clients.

That single click to gmail is bae.
Golem – Building Distributed Supercomputer via AirBnB for Idle Computing Power
Abstraction layers around systems are a good thing. Teams have all sorts of weird properties, like a manager's willingness to focus on problems or recruit certain types of people. In an ideal world, teams and systems line up; in practice they don't, and Conway's Law is that the system design starts to conform to the team structure instead of vice versa.
Windows even has a standard NTFS metadata field for Tags. You can display it as a column in File Explorer's detail view. You can edit it in the Properties > Details sheet.

Outside of Office sometimes trying to encourage using it to make searching easier and Windows sometimes using it for ID3 tags from audio files, I've never really seen anyone try to use it.
Are you saying AIM wasn't widely adopted?
My main hesitation with Redux is how awkward it is to insert async calls in the chain of events. Things like redux-thunk and redux-saga are impressive hacks but feel like a lot of gymnastics to do something that pretty much every React app needs to do.
Where does it say that? That would actually be a huge deal...
I think there is a limit to cosmopolitan universalism, and that's a good thing. Whether separated by time or space, it's good that there are unknowable cultures. First because to expect that every culture is understandable from the perspective of another (usually wealthier, more sophisticated, and "civilized") culture (in the business of writing history books) limits other cultures' freedom to express themselves as they see fit. Where the rubber meets the road is when a culture foreign to the metropole flouts what the metropole considers universal values. Imperialism usually ensues.

Second, foreign cultures are fascinating because they are so different. Imagine Marco Polo traveling to China. It must have been like getting in a space ship and traveling to another planet. Nowadays all the airports look the same, all the center cities have the same types of restaurants, and global culture is depressingly uniform.
Of course a uniform distribution is not what a real galaxy looks like

Well, no. A galaxy with a uniform distribution would have infinite mass (without an artificially imposed cutoff at some radius).

Real spiral galaxies have exponentially decreasing densities of stars (plus extra mass in the very inner region if there's a bulge). So as you go further out, there is less and less mass outside a given radius, and more and more of the mass concentrated toward the center. That's why it asymptotes to a Keplerian curve. (Or would, if theren't something else going on.)
When you say 'reasonable', you mean something orthogonal: rather it's 'rhetorically useful', or 'a social hack '. This does not make it scientific, nor based in reason, and more dangerous because it masquerades as reason much more truthily than tarot and other pretence magic
Product looks pretty cool. I'm curious as to what the limitations of the R integration are though. Do you allow for different packages to be installed or is that something your team manages?
A problem is that the opposite sides of each axis aren't even mutually exclusive. You can be a strong judger and perceiver. Or weak at both.
What on Mars is worth $500 a pound (in bulk) on Earth (this is something like the silly low price proposed by Elon Musk for transport)?

People will probably pay a lot more than that for the first few thousand pounds of dust, but they certainly won't keep paying that just to have the same dust millions of others have. The vast resources of the Americas paid for the continuous trips back and forth and attracted settlers. What pays for going to Mars? What attracts (large numbers of) settlers to Mars?

I get that there are people attracted to the "freedom" they would have outside of the established political realms of Earth, but what a terrible airless bargain that is.
This article is as unscientific as it claims the Myers-Briggs test to be. It does not prove the Myers-Briggs test wrong, but instead claims that there is no evidence to support it. Well, in science, if you want to claim that something is wrong, you need two things: the theory must be falsifiable and you need to falsify it. Just claiming something has no evidence is not enough.

Some more critique on the article.

1. The Myers Briggs test result does not need to be binary. There are variants of the tests that give you a score on each of its 4 axes (Introvert/Extrovert, Sensing/Intuitive, Feeling/Thinking, Judging/Perceptive). For example, see https://www.16personalities.com/free-personality-test

2. The test results do not always talk about positive qualities. For example, here is a discussion of strengths and weaknesses of the ISFJ personality. https://www.16personalities.com/isfj-strengths-and-weaknesse....

Finally, on the point of falsification, I would like to suggest the following test. Take a group of people and let them take the test. Now let the close friends of the test taker read all the personality type descriptions and chose one for the test taker. Find the correlation between the friends' choices and the test results. If the correlation is significant, then the test is meaningful. Otherwise not meaningful.
Mars-Bound Astronauts Could Get Serious Brain Damage from Radiation
I'm a scientist, so I kind of know how science works.

There's a difference between saying the extent of something's effectiveness hasn't been established by existing research and saying that it is ineffective. I've read the publication you are linking to before and it is saying the latter without the evidence necessary to back up the claim.
The problem here is that since the MBTI only collects your own perceptions, it is only as accurate as your own perceptions--it isn't going to tell you anything you don't already think. There's some value in bringing what you think of yourself into your conscious awareness, but I don't think that can be represented as increasing self-awareness--it only can cause you to think what you already think. There's even some risk that it may reinforce incorrect ideas you may have about yourself.

> As a Meyers Briggs ENTP I find the descriptions of an ENTP personality flattering and desirable.

Of course, they're your descriptions and therefore they're biased. (Incidentally, I'm an ENTP too).
Science works another way. You have to prove that the theory works, not that it does not work (no sense in asking for evidence of that). Your personal observation does not matter if it's not confirmed by others, so for this theory to be confirmed, a) it shall be falsifiable, b) there shall be a reliable proof, c) there shall be independent confirmation, d) other possible explanations of observed results must be considered and rejected
There's advantages to big companies too: better pay usually, better benefits, more structure, and in my experience more professionalism. Also the ability to move laterally is useful. If you're a female or minority you'll probably do better in a big company too because they're very intolerant of harassment and discrimination because they can get in legal trouble for it, so they're very proactive about addressing these things early on, providing training for it, etc., whereas some small companies I've been at seem to have a "good-ole boy" culture still hanging around. If you can get into the right workgroup, a big company can be a good experience, but different groups and departments can be run very differently from each other within the same company.
While I agree it's a bit harsh, some of these extrapolations had me saying, "Oh really?" to myself.

> Biology is one of the last fields of science adopting the tech revolution by switching from analog to digital analysis. DNA has only recently been discovered. DNA sequencing is in its earliest stages.

> There is not enough space to fit “software” hereditary behavioral definitions into DNA. If Dwarf Fortress comes close to encoding basic behavioral patterns requiring 10 megabytes of data, we must look for a chunk of genetic data of that size.

> Good programmers try to restrict their functions to no more than 6 parameters when writing code. Thus, a driving system with learning ability depends on over 40,000 programmatic functions. Those functions operate with only a dozen of sensors, wheels, and breaks. What if you had to write self-learning software for controlling all the muscle groups in an ant organism? Clearly it would require much more than 790mb for a human or 117mb for an ant of data space to store.

> The “software” that runs the ant must include basic instincts, sensory recognition patterns, social interactions, spacial awareness, navigation routines, some learning ability, and threat estimation in its ancestral memory in addition to all the hardware schematics. Each muscle group must work in tandem with the senses. How much data would that amount of code require? An easy way to estimate it is to simulate those behaviors on your computer. Having some familiarity with multiple programming languages, I would guess that 117mb is totally insufficient for all that.

> If complex data compression is shown to play a major role in the life of an organism, my argument could be falsified. At the same time, the field of biology would be revolutionized.

> One might object that a negative proposition of the form “x does not explain y” is empirically indefensible. The form of my argument, however, follows another pattern: “there is not enough observable x in y.” Such statements are empirically demonstrable and empirically falsifiable. For example, the statement “there are fewer than 10 goats in this wood” is empirical. Just search the wood to confirm it. By analogy, we should expect at least as many discoveries of genes controlling behaviors as we have for protein generation and regulatory genes. But we do not.