evolution

Blizzard’s vice president for game design told MSNBC that there is no chance that StarCraft II will be released by year’s end.

Which is just as well, since by that time I hope to have passed the Society of Actuaries Exam FM and well on my way to Society of Actuaries Exam MFE. I also have to claim a couple of “educational experience” credits in statistics and corporate finance along the way.

So throwing StarCraft II at me then might doom my future plans. Until then you’re stuck with me.

Interesting, and previously a topic of discussion on this site. The results cross “diverse backgrounds”, which is education-speak for racial and economic lines. From the blog of Scientific American:

Prior studies have shown that children as young as infants can judge simple mathematical relationships. When shown bunches of dots on a computer screen, for example, a preschool- or kindergarten-age child can tell that there are more dots combined in an image of 21 dots followed by one of 30 dots compared with a third 34-dot image.

A group including cognitive psychologist Elizabeth Spelke of Harvard University wondered if children could apply that ability, called nonsymbolic arithmetic, to Arabic numerals after learning to count but before they learned to add and subtract.

To find out, they gave several groups of children a laptop-based audiovisual test that asked whether one person had more or fewer candies or other objects than another person. The screen showed numbers to be added, such as 21 and 30, or subtracted, such as 64 and 13, followed by another number, such as 34, with which to compare the added or subtracted value.

The children answered correctly from 64 to 73 percent of the time, according to a report published online today by Nature. More affluent kids tested in the laboratory did better than their less well off peers tested in their classrooms, the group reports. The reason for the difference could be the testing environment, says Spelke, who adds that the important point is that kids from diverse backgrounds all showed the ability. “We never dreamed that you could simply give children the symbols and they will succeed,” she says.

Just imagine what we could teach them once we spent time developing that logic rather than spending it on math + “self-esteem building” exercises or cultural narratives.

Remember when we engaged in a bit of 96.5-the-Buzz-bashing a few months back? And needled our friend Joel about it?

Well, Mathis drops the hammer on the Buzz — permanently. Here’s why.

He’s right.

I haven’t said much about “climate change”, because I’ve only peripherally followed the scientific developments, and I don’t know much of what there is to know about it.

That’s never stopped me before, so here are my thoughts.

• Scientists are probably right, mutatis mutandis, about global warming.
• There is some doubt about whether it is all caused by humankind, but there is little doubt that some of it is.
• Some of the damage can probably be corrected.
• The price of that correction will be massive restriction and infringement of liberty worldwide [in the relatively few places which have it].

Cf. some snarkage by Bill.

I’d say Tom Wayne is protesting his own lack of business acumen:

KANSAS CITY, Mo. – Tom Wayne amassed thousands of books in a warehouse during the 10 years he has run his used book store, Prospero’s Books. His collection ranges from best sellers like Tom Clancy’s “The Hunt for Red October” and Tom Wolfe’s “Bonfire of the Vanities,” to obscure titles like a bound report from the Fourth Pan-American Conference held in Buenos Aires in 1910. But wanting to thin out his collection, he found he couldn’t even give away books to libraries or thrift shops, which said they were full. So on Sunday, Wayne began burning his books protest what he sees as society’s diminishing support for the printed word.

“This is the funeral pyre for thought in America today,” Wayne told spectators outside his bookstore as he lit the first batch of books.

It’s called the Internet, dillhole. Try it sometime.

UPDATE: He could do this.

Cause let’s face it: I hate Missouri just as much as the next Kansan.

[inherited from: Deadspin.]

Does anyone really buy all that pop-psychology stuff with e-Harmony?

You’ve all seen the television ads. They say they’ll match you with a dating partner and potential mate based on “twenty-nine dimensions of compatibility”, whatever those may be*.

Doesn’t it all just boil down to a simple thing — getting over that initial awkwardness? That alone prevents most of us from talking to strangers, particularly those we consider dating material. Those of us with anxiety or depression issues — from which I have suffered in the past — or, say, perhaps body image issues** can forget about it entirely. If you’re told in advance that you’re “highly compatible” with the person you’re going on a date with, then aren’t you more likely to drop those inhibitions?

I think that explains their relative success as much as anything.

*: I actually shudder to think who might match twenty-nine of my traits.

**: If I had a woman who was “compatible” with my body image, I’d have to structurally reinforce all my furniture.