From the linked paper: Kahneman, D, and A Tversky. 1979. “Intuitive prediction: Biases and corrective procedures.” TIMS Studies in Management Science 12, 313–27.

To blindly assume patterns such as "80/20" hold everywhere would be foolish - rather, it is better to empirically verify them first in each case (as done by the article). Further, I wonder what makes you think the writer is surprised in the least...

I don't think it's foolish. When it shows up as often it does, it's smart to see if it applies there.

You can verify it, but it seems like a smart hypothesis to start with rather than assuming the inverse.

To a point... but it's so prolific that you should be testing to falsify it most of the time.

>To blindly assume patterns such as "80/20" hold everywhere would be foolish

I see 80/20 EVERYWHERE now. It's hard for me to think of things where it isn't applicable. Maybe I'm just going crazy.

The point of heuristics is not that they apply 100% of the time, but that they're correct more often than they're not.

This already been demonstrated on headphones[0].

[0] https://www.wired.com/2015/10/this-radio-trick-silently-hack...

Well, too little carbon dioxide in the bloodstream changes the blood's pH, which is a negative. Can't tell how ambient CO2 levels affect it though.

This would be hyperventilation syndrome

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperventilation_syndrome

CO2 is not simply a waste product we exhale, we need it for pH regulation of our blood.

I read the GP as saying there'll be a unified UI to various local taxis ("interconnected ecosystem"). I could see this emerging from EU regulation, in a similar way they mandate banks to open up their APIs (which is much bigger than taxis).

I have to ask out of curiosity: with Google having over 50,000 employees, are you in a place to say 'anyone' (sure, we're talking about developers, but still)?

Only because this question has been asked multiple times at TGIF (regular all-hands meeting).

So you looked for evidence to support your a priori beliefs, didn't find it and still made insinuations. Good on you.

Er, what? I am struggling to understand how your comment relates to what I wrote. Once more:

1. Comparison of Harvard tuition to prisoner's costs is meaningless as done in the article

2. The article itself mentions costs raise mainly because of labor costs

3. The article itself mentions that drop in the inmates number did not reduce labor costs

4. The article does not mention any of the factors influencing labor costs.

Which evidence you think I am missing?

>I don't expect there to be genes that predict social class

Genes for skin pigment

>super interesting

If you've never heard of inequality before, I guess

But they control for race, and picked results that generalize across different populations.

You cannot rebuke that claim via an aerospace analogy because they are not equivalent fields. It remains to be seen whether lidar is better for cars than "vision".

"Undermine" would have been a better choice of words than "rebut". Indeed, my first comment claimed explicitly to show his wasn't a strong argument, and I think that is obviously the case even if the fields aren't identical. (When are they ever?)

There is the point that in the "real world", social norms haven't yet adapted to the requirements of privacy (although you could also view it as societal norms allowing too much tracking). For example, if I wanted to use a mask to conceal my face from trackers, I would be ostracized. There are analogues in the virtual world of course, but it's usually harder in the physical world.

This also works http://www.instructables.com/id/The-Invisible-Face-Mask-/

some modern cams (at least traffic ones) no longer use AGC and will not be fooled by this