Gell-Mann amnesia effect – Wikiwand
the Gell-Mann amnesia effect labels a commonly observed problem in modern media,[2] where one will believe everything they read from a journalist even after they come across an article about something they know well that is completely incorrect
Tim Harford — Article — Statistics, Fast and Slow
One way to understand China is to look at the statistics. Real income per person has increased nearly tenfold since 1990. Since the early 1980s, the number of extremely poor people in China has fallen by more than three-quarters of a billion people, more than half the population of the country. China consumed more cement in a recent three-year period than the US used in the entire 20th century. Even on paper, it is the most dramatic explosion of economic activity in human history. Seeing it with your own eyes is another experience entirely.
Acephalic Agile—worse than Waterfall? – Oliver Wyman Labs: Technical
At least in Waterfall if you did a good job of designing the project, and if you stuck to the spirit of the method, you were to some extent insulated from management noise and ‘dreck effekt’. But the outcome in a badly governed Agile project is that each iteration takes us further off course. Or at least it doesn’t (‘asymptotically’) converge on the right outcome as it should. The result can be even worse than a badly planned Waterfall project, and with more late nights worked along the way. The pain coefficient at the project’s end can also be greater than with the Waterfall. Here it is that Agile can actually be worse than Waterfall.
How many people with disabilities did you have test the design before you let people try it out? : beta
I am curious about whether or not you guys even bothered talking to a single person who uses a screen reader/has vision loss or poor vision/ or is totally blind? What about people who can't use a mouse? If you did, can you explain the process by making things hard to access with keyboard, totally unavailable to access with a keyboard, and why you made certain decisions to make things harder to see? EDIT: Reddit has responded with the following, which answers my question with a "None."
Time to ditch Wikipedia?
As an active editor for almost 15 years, Cross is very familiar with some of the more arcane Wikipedia rules and guidelines (along with their obscure acronyms) and uses them to justify removing information he dislikes in favour of his own inclusions. Often in a very subtle manner and over a long period of time. Anyone familiar with the work of the people he targets will recognise how one-sided and distorted those entries become.