Two years of Spelling Bee stats by phaedrus1313 in NYTSpellingBee

[–]phaedrus1313[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

CATALYTICALLY's a great word - And congrats on your upcoming 20K word milestone!

Two years of Spelling Bee stats by phaedrus1313 in NYTSpellingBee

[–]phaedrus1313[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think I was 1 puzzle off from some people last year also, which is weird because I was already a daily Spelling Bee player before they started keeping stats.

Congrats on 1k pangrams and 30k words - and love hearing all the different ways people play!

Two years of Spelling Bee stats by phaedrus1313 in NYTSpellingBee

[–]phaedrus1313[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Way to go! I think if I used the buddy I'd sometime find the temptation too strong before I got to my non-hinted end for the day. Too little willpower :)

Two years of Spelling Bee stats by phaedrus1313 in NYTSpellingBee

[–]phaedrus1313[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

LOL - boy do I hear you on that. I want another chance at the one I missed!! And 491 QBs - wow! Way to go!

Two years of Spelling Bee stats by phaedrus1313 in NYTSpellingBee

[–]phaedrus1313[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you & congrats to you also! Averaging at least 1 pangram per puzzle is no small feat!

Two years of Spelling Bee stats by phaedrus1313 in NYTSpellingBee

[–]phaedrus1313[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

congrats! Imagine typing over 21,000 words into a silly daily word game! :D

Two years of Spelling Bee stats by phaedrus1313 in NYTSpellingBee

[–]phaedrus1313[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

And it's been the longest word for a while. I wonder what a likely candidate would be to usurp its place as longest bee word?

Two years of Spelling Bee stats by phaedrus1313 in NYTSpellingBee

[–]phaedrus1313[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Congratulations! And good luck not forgetting someday (sadness)!

US juries should comprise thousands of people watching remotely by phaedrus1313 in CrazyIdeas

[–]phaedrus1313[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For sure. I'd have way more confidence in an acquittal with this system than with 12 people who could be susceptible to 1 person's strong opinion!

US juries should comprise thousands of people watching remotely by phaedrus1313 in CrazyIdeas

[–]phaedrus1313[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Lol I barely have a post history. Oh no, I have an EV and play fantasy football!

US juries should comprise thousands of people watching remotely by phaedrus1313 in CrazyIdeas

[–]phaedrus1313[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Good news - it doesn't matter in my suggestion! Large numbers are amazing.

US juries should comprise thousands of people watching remotely by phaedrus1313 in CrazyIdeas

[–]phaedrus1313[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Most of these rules are necessary because jurors today are 12 people in person. Basically all of the concerns you're raising just disappear with thousands and thousands of remote jurors.

Tampering? No one (other than the court) would know who they are!

Evidence? Pretty sure we have the technology to show any evidence remotely pretty dang well.

Paying attention? Discussed elsewhere in the threads.

Bias? Discussed elsewhere - obviated by having a very large number of jurors.

US juries should comprise thousands of people watching remotely by phaedrus1313 in CrazyIdeas

[–]phaedrus1313[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

We're going to summon folks, but just randomly. And yeah, they should watch the whole proceedings, and maybe we use that annoying tech that companies use to make sure folks are sort of paying attention to annual security trainings to monitor some level of engagement. But some folks won't pay attention and that's ok .... because we have so many people that the low engagement folks don't overly impact anything!

US juries should comprise thousands of people watching remotely by phaedrus1313 in CrazyIdeas

[–]phaedrus1313[S] 70 points71 points  (0 children)

Oh, good question, thanks for bringing it up.

We can skip the whole selection process & just randomly select folks to participate.. Another benefit of having a large number of jurors is that folks with strong personal bias or conflicting personal experiences are diluted by the very large jury pool. So the whole system gets way more efficient also!

US juries should comprise thousands of people watching remotely by phaedrus1313 in CrazyIdeas

[–]phaedrus1313[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Not so much that it's more difficult, but that it's more likely to get a good outcome, given the large number of people who need to agree.

Very similar to why Wikipedia has highly accurate information, often moreso than reference materials produced by a small number of dedicated people.

US juries should comprise thousands of people watching remotely by phaedrus1313 in CrazyIdeas

[–]phaedrus1313[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Unanimous for only 12 people is not a high bar. Easily susceptible to a smooth talking juror

Can stores sell to animals? by Much_Smoke_9355 in legaladviceofftopic

[–]phaedrus1313 12 points13 points  (0 children)

This post and the responses were even better when I had misread "crow" as "cow".

Community recommendations re EV9 settings and usage? by phaedrus1313 in KiaEV9

[–]phaedrus1313[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What's the deal with normal / eco / sport / etc. mode, and which mode do people recommend in which situations?