So what is the preferred way to at least estimate real traffic without js? I have a static site that gets some traffic, but I have no idea how much of it is real. I'd just like to know if I'm reaching closer to 5 or 500 people a day.
The closest thing might be the bloomberg terminal. It costs 2k a month, but you can get a news feed of the topics you care about and it will be accurate and factual. And then people instantly make bets based on that news.
That was a "hard to believe this is true, but it is in Bloomburg" moment for me.
A nice summary of the situation a year after the article came out in 2018 can be found here[1]. I wonder what their rational for not retracting the story. Just one little line somewhere that few would notice would have put the controversy to rest, but if they did it now. so late after the fact, it would just add to the intrigue instead of diffuse it.
2k a month is not in my current (one can dream) budget for news sources, but I would like to check one out sometime. I don't need the real time option, which is much of what people pay the 2k for, so maybe a 15 minute delay option, like there used to be with free stock quotes, could be a lot cheaper.
Regarding attracting a newer generation: appearances are important! The first image on the page should not have people sitting on a toilet in what is obviously a bathroom. It's kind of crazy someone thought that was a good idea. Fear of being a loner who eats lunch in a school bathroom stall keeps kids away from electronics and hobbies like these.
Jane Street only gets mentioned so often because it is one of the highest paying and selective companies in the world. They are not in control of the ecosystem. And they have nothing to do with banks.
I thought the same until I started sailing a UFO. You are going way faster than any cat or dinghies. Everything happens substantially faster and the water feels like pavement when you hit.
I thought this was quite well accepted. I can't speak to the FBI, but for CSIS, the Canadian Equivalent, the "polygraph tech" who pretends to just be working the machine, is actually a psychologist watching your responses.
What's Ironic is some of these agencies that require them for classified information, also teach field operators to evade them. The other fun part about them is when you're in an unclassified situation getting a poly and they're asking questions that if you answer you divulge secrets, if you don't you're lying.
I was once told that I was too calm for my poly and then asked why. My response was I didn't trust the science, or the fact that it was a couple week course. That didn't go over well, I ended up taking two more after that and they gave up.
I've seen the other-side of it though where good people failed their poly because they had too low a baseline like I did, caused by medications.
It's really a bunk science. I can get it as a scare tactic, but the fact the the Govt. still relies on it at a higher level is ridiculous.
> who pretends to just be working the machine, is actually a psychologist watching your responses.
Maybe that's true in Canada (don't know) but it doesn't matter because psychologists are no better at detecting lies than a typical person of similar education, intelligence and age.
I can absolutely see how it would enable a certain type of very creative, very hard working person to peruse something they couldn't originally due to hard circumstances. But that seems like a minority case.
Better-informed implies useful knowledge. Stop with the news for a month and you'll realize that 98% of it doesn't provide you with any information that stays with you for more than a day or so. It doesn't matter that you read it. It only has negative effects on you.
This opens up a lot more time and effort to explore the 2% that does matter.
This is a great summary and the first part nicely describes what is, somewhat jokingly, referred to as the Dodo Bird Verdict: All therapies are equally effective and it is instead the relationship with a trusted therapist that is important.
I guess it depends on your definitions, but I think your 20-30% numbers are still way to high.
20-30% numbers, could be too high. It is hard to know. In the way that I would define it, it would be this:
The part of you that is in control and makes the decisions that give you agency over yourself. I used to believe I was directing myself day to day, but I'd guess that the concious only has a 20-30% say in the matter.
This opposed to who is performing the actions in which the subconcious mind is involved in 99% of the work. e.g. walking is almost entirely a subconcious activity.
