While not convinced by the statistical argument either, I think a more accurate analogy would be "Imagine you have a cell. It breaks apart into two identical cells. [Rinse and repeat a bunch of times]." And then if you pick a cell at random from the resulting set, it is indeed more probable that you picked one that is not the original one. IMO this doesn't apply as cleanly to simulated universes because they're not literal clones of one another, plus we're not even sure it's even possible to simulate one (while we know cells do go through mitosis).
This is how I read the idea in the comment you replied to: external factors (namely, needing money to satisfy even the most basic life needs), not biological ones, are the ones that drive some places to have a more evenly split men/women ratio. When the environment is "safe" enough that you don't need to worry about how you're going to survive, that's when the biological predispositions come to light, and you get women going to what they inherently prefer, and move away from the things they don't.
I don't think the point is that women can't successfully tackle engineering, they can. But that doesn't mean that they have a predisposition towards it. If you encourage (or even force) someone into a particular profession, they might excel at it, but that doesn't imply that they would've picked it on their own.
Exactly this. And if I might nitpick a bit, I'd say "the amount of time people WANT to spend in social settings". Which would probably correlate well to the actual time spent in such settings, but to me the heart of the matter is that some people just aren't look for it, while others are.
There are two main reasons to denormalize: security, and performance.
The former (security) is something I have only ever had to deal with twice. If your going to cordon off data based on some arbitrary ruleset (3rd party) it is a path you can take. For transactional integrity, and from an operations perspective both cases were perfectly valid.
The latter is one I have also only seen rarely.
I have seen it done to keep a history of actions without cluttering up the primary table. As an example I worked on a DB with millions of entries for users, and a separate table for emails, when the user updated their email, it would add a new row, verify it and then fetch the newest complete row when the user was queried. Getting rid of all the history in that table provided a fairly significant performance bump.
The second was to split little used columns in a single table out from the frequently accessed ones. The resulting trimmed table then fit in memory and was orders of magnitude faster than going to disk.
Is there ever a case to denormalize and duplicate? There are a few:
OLAP systems are unique beasts, and duplicate and denormalize in many a strange way, and all in the name of performance and ease of use for end users. The reality is that these systems usually have a SINGLE point of entry for adding and updating records (that aren't materialize views of end users). OLAP systems are weird, because nothing makes sense in them, but most of them (with all their duplicate data) aren't primary stores. Oddly I have replaced a handful of OLAP RDMBS with document stores...
The other major reason to duplicate is for "snapshotting". If you need to know the state of one record when another record was created then your probably going to end up with duplicate information. IN every case where I have seen this the words "compliance" and "audit trail" are part of the conversation. However rather than being problematic the decoupled nature of the duplicate record is desirable.
It's supposed to come back (improved) with the Fall Creators Update though. I can see how many users would get confused by it but hopefully this time it'll be more intuitive.
The second and third sentences are reasonable; yes, we should all try to step out of our comfort zones every now and then. But I vehemently disagree with the first sentence. I have no scientific studies or similar sources to back up my views, but I've read several articles that very accurately describe the way I feel about this topic. For introverts (and I count myself here) social interaction is for the most part an energy drain, while for extroverts it's an energy source. There's people that cannot stand the idea of staying home on a Friday night and would actually feel down if they did. They crave social interaction, loud places, being around people even if they don't know them. And there's other people who cannot stand the idea of going to a club and party until [whatever time] in the morning. Loud places, crowded places, forced conversations, just suck away our energy, they don't make us "feel alive" or anything of that sort. So we stay home and read books, or attend small social gatherings with our close friends.
To summarize: in general, extroverts get energy from social interaction, and introverts lose energy in them.
A dichotomy is a claim that someone or something is either A or B, and it can only be A or B and not something in between.
With that definition in mind:
To summarize: in general, extroverts get energy from social interaction, and introverts lose energy in them.
There is no evidence that extraversion/introversion is a hard delineation. In fact, in my other comment I already cited studies that demonstrate the opposite, that it is a continuum and people are on different places on that continuum, sometimes day to day or hour to hour.
You may find this surprising, but sometimes I love parties, and sometimes I hate them! Sometimes I really want to be around people, and sometimes I want nothing more than to be alone for a while. Sometimes I really want to listen to loud, banging music! Sometimes, I would rather be in a quiet room with a book.
Step back and ask yourself: Are you really as consistently and persistently introverted as you claim? Because I'll bet you a large sum of money that, if you're being honest with yourself, the answer is a lot more nuanced than that.
To be honest, I find this entire trend interesting. On the one had, there's a strong movement that is driving a change in the perception of things like gender and sexual attraction as being on a continuum, based on the realization that humans are, in fact, complex, diverse creatures.
And yet, at the same time, we seem driven to slot people into these fixed personality types so we can all walk around with our "introvert" or "extravert" badge or brag about our Myers-Briggs personality type.
It's really baffling... it's like people both want to label themselves, and at the same time defy labels.
Ok, I do agree that it's not a black/white thing, it's a spectrum. If that was the point you were trying to make, then we're on the same page. In my personal case, I think I am pretty consistent on where I am in that spectrum. I might wiggle a bit, but it's more like measurement noise, not swings up and down from one end to the other. For example, I just can't recall the last time I genuinely enjoyed a big event with tons of people.
To your point about labels, I guess some people do label themselves in an "exclusively A or exclusively B" manner, but I think there's also a lot who say "I'm an introvert/extrovert" as short hand for "I'm on that end of the spectrum", it's just more convenient, if technically a bit unclearer.
As you said. the Work/School Account is one provided by your employer (normally), and usually comes from Active Directory (or AzureAD).
The Personal accounts (also called Microsoft accounts/IDs or Live IDs) are the ones you as an individual create directly with Microsoft. The prime example would be people who've had a Hotmail account for ages, and that eventually became a Microsoft account.
The confusion comes because since a couple years ago, you can create Microsoft accounts with any e-mail that you own, be it personal, from work, hosted in gmail, hosted by your employer, hosted by yourself... You name it. So it is possible to create a Microsoft account with your work e-mail, even if your work e-mail also has a Work/School Account tied to it. All the notifications for that Microsoft account will go there, but they are not for your "Work/School Account" (also referred to as Organizational account), they are for your personal one.
Yes, it is a mess. After a while I got used to it and now I'm comfortable navigating all my identities, but it can be very annoying when you first encounter it.
Can you be more detailed about "shit android support"? I'm currently trying it out and didn't seem so bad, similar to how I currently use LastPass in Android in general. Apparently I need an extra click to actually copy a password there, but I also saw they have an integrated keyboard (https://support.1password.com/android-keyboard/), which I haven't looked at yet.
It was a very well-run engineering department where taking blame was not a career ending decision. I took full blame for the typo (at 3am trying to resolve a customer issue), but the dev team accepted full responsibility for letting it take down the system.
Every mistake was used as a learning opportunity to ensure that the same and similar mistakes can't be repeated.
