You should check out Overwatch, which I consider to be TF3. They reimplemented many characters 1:1 including soldier (pharah), medic (mercy), demo (junkrat), engi (torj), as well as the 2 point capture and pushthecart modes.
Valorant, a beta game from Riot, is then a blend of overwatch + csgo, making it closer to tf2 6s.
Having played both quite a lot, I believe the skill ceiling of TF2 characters is much higher. Plus, rocket and sticky jumping are just too much fun to give up (sorry, phara and junkrat just don't compare). I like the old-school movement abilities that held over from the Quake Engine. I'm also not a huge fan of timeouts and cooldowns for everything.
Finally, I like all the different modded servers out there and the ability to play casually when I want to just mess around.
> reimplemented many characters 1:1 including soldier (pharah), medic (mercy), demo (junkrat), engi (torj)
I would disagree that these are 1:1 (they share some abilities at best) but would agree that elements of TF2 and their character abilities are indeed nearly 100% spread out across different characters in Overwatch.
The person you're replying to said he was disappointed to find that MacOS Catalina can't run TF2. Why recommend a game that won't run on any version of MacOS?
>"The above analysis is trivially simple. Just data preprocessing simple correlations and filtering, using the most high-level overview the data allows for regarding food intake and health. The possible effect of different foods on longevity. No massaging of the data, no exposure to birthday paradox spuriousness, no statistical tricks, questionable adjustments for, etc"
There is also no controlling for anything! It seems a no-brainer that higher "Saturated Fat" and "Animal Protein" intakes correlate with higher income/access to modern health care infrastructure. Which means the author is really measuring an underlying latent "prosperity" variable. The author almost groks it with:
>"The correlations speak for themselves, the top X correlations for longevity are relatively strongly correlated amongst themselves. It is likely that multiple of these columns are indeed major contributors to longevity, yet given the inter-food correlations, it is quite impossible to isolate these from the variables that are just along for the ride."
Once the author controls for the prosperity that is the causal for all the correlated "dependent" variables, it might turn out that a Vegan diet is better than a non-Vegan diet. Or it might not. But this piece adds no value to the conversation, IMHO.
*As lspears points out, even worse is the wrong endpoint. Prob of making it to 80 != lower chance of death from Western diseases (heart attack/cancer).
There were a few studies showing that rats fed less than their normal assumed calorie intake urged to live longer. I can't speak for the effect pathway, but similar things could also be true in humans.
>As a short list, here are a few peer-reviewed articles specifically attacking claims made in the China Study (which, by the way, is itself not peer-reviewed):
Claim 1: "\[Protein from dairy products\] almost certainly contribute to a significant loss of bone calcium while vegetable-based diets clearly protect against bone loss". \—[Campbell in 1994 article in Cornell Chronicle](http://www.news.cornell.edu/chronicle/96/11.14.96/osteoporos...)
Debunking of 1: "The results strongly indicated that dietary calcium, especially from dairy sources, increased bone mass …. \[C\]alcium from dairy sources was correlated with bone variables to a higher degree than was calcium from the nondairy sources". —[Campbell in Dietary calcium and bone density](http://www.ajcn.org/content/58/2/219.full.pdf+html)
Claim 2: "\[Due to animal consumption raising cholesterol,\] the findings from the China Study indicate that the lower the percentage of animal-based foods that are consumed, the greater the health benefits. " —[Campbell on p242 of The China Study](http://books.google.com/books?id=KgRR12F0RPAC&pg=PA242)
Debunking of 2 & 3: "Within China neither plasma total cholesterol nor LDL cholesterol was associated with CVD. … The results indicate that geographical differences in CVD mortality within China are caused primarily by factors other than dietary or plasma cholesterol. … There were no significant correlations between the various cholesterol fractions and the three mortality rates." —[Campbell in Erythrocyte fatty acids, plasma lipids, and cardiovascular disease in rural China](http://www.ajcn.org/content/52/6/1027.full.pdf)
Debunking of 4: "This produces…an inverse relation between cholesterol concentration and the risk of death from liver cancer or from other chronic liver disease." —[Campbell in Prolonged infection with hepatitis B virus and association between low blood cholesterol concentration and liver cancer](http://ukpmc.ac.uk/backend/ptpmcrender.cgi?accid=PMC1677354&...)
Claim 5: "\[A\]s blood cholesterol levels in rural China rose in certain counties the incidence of 'Western' diseases also increased". —[Campbell on p78 of The China Study](http://books.google.com/books?id=KgRR12F0RPAC&pg=PA78)
Debunking of 5: "\[I\]t is the largely vegetarian, inland communities who have the greatest all risk mortalities and morbidities and who have the lowest LDL cholesterols". —[Campbell in Fish consumption, blood docosahexaenoic acid and chronic diseases in Chinese rural populations](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1095643303...)
>For fun, notice that every single debunking article I mentioned above is from T. Colin Campbell himself. Yes, seriously. He actually rebuts his own points when submitting peer reviewed articles.* I guess he's more careful with what he says when he's not writing a book aimed at the general public to help convince people to go vegan.
You have a skewed perspective of what HFT is - Flash Boys probably contributed to this. That is a sensationalist novel and widely derided within the actual market making community. For example, fiber optic cables were outdated by microwave feeds several years before the book came out.
In fact, the most common form of HFT is low-latency market making, which directly increases liquidity and lowers spreads for market participants.
> For example, fiber optic cables were outdated by microwave feeds several years before the book came out.
That's the issue you have with it? Of all the possible issues, that's the one you think underlines the bad quality of the book?
The fiber lines or microwave feeds or any other technology used is only a minor detail. The meat of the issue is that there are many HFT strategies that don't provide any real tangible service to the market. HFTs race clients to different exchanges, buy assets cheaper and sell them the next millisecond to the same client at higher price, because they can (because the client is slower). They put in fake small orders in order to read market information before anyone else so they can front-run legitimate investors. How is that providing service to the market?
There seems to be a lot of disinformation in the market, and a lot of things that are meant to sound much more complicated than they are. But the bottomline is that if there is a certain strategy X, that complies with the following conditions:
1) It doesn't take positions in the market, doesn't take risk, so it doesn't evaluate underlying assets and does not help price discovery.
2) It gets in the way between two other participants, simplifyingly a buyer and a seller (where the buyer will end up holding an actual invested position for a longer time)
3) Both the buyer and the seller will end up paying more for their trade when the HFTs are executing the strategy X, compared to a case where noone would be executing the strategy X.
Then yes, it's objective to say that the strategy X is a parasite on the market, and does not provide any real value to the society. The value of markets is providing liquidity, distribution of investment value, risk hedging and price discovery. These HFTs (which is a bulk of all HFT strategies) don't do any of that. No real investor will notice a difference of 50 microseconds when executing their trades. No investor is interested in that.
Anecdotally, I've noticed the onion uses certain phrases over and over again in articles - "area man" comes to mind.
Did you really train it to detect satire, or just the onion writer's conventions? How does it perform when trained on onion articles and tested against some non-onion satire publication?
Nailed it. How many Onion articles have you seen end with a quip of the form "at press time". The articles have a flavour all of their own, which is certainly quite distinct from the deeper satirical mood.
Ripple is a great litmus test for people who are FOMO buying.
In this market, when the median top 200 coin under $0.1 went 100x [1], there are easier and "safer"[2] ways to generate returns.
It doesn't even do its job the best. Stellar Lumens (xlm) is a fork and doesn't have the centralized aspect or the 60% supply overhang. Raiblocks (XRB) will eat its lunch in terms of tx speed/fees if the tech doesn't blow up first.
Valorant, a beta game from Riot, is then a blend of overwatch + csgo, making it closer to tf2 6s.